The United States Does Not Want Peace In the Middle East
February 23, 2007 at 7:20 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, condoleezza rice, Israel, Middle East, Peace, Syria, War | 3 CommentsIsrael has been considering Syria’s overtures of peace (because peace is in Israel’s best interest), but the United States has told Israel, don’t even think about it!
The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.
In meetings with Israeli officials recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forceful in expressing Washington’s view on the matter.
The American argument is that even “exploratory talks” would be considered a prize in Damascus, whose policy and actions continue to undermine Lebanon’s sovereignty and the functioning of its government, while it also continues to stir unrest in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. presence there…..
….When Israeli officials asked Secretary Rice about the possibility of exploring the seriousness of Syria in its calls for peace talks, her response was unequivocal: Don’t even think about it.
So the question is, does the United States really want peace in the Middle East? I’m sure supporters of Bush will spin this by saying, “you can’t reward bad behavior,” blah blah blah and so on, but is the United States the parent of the world? Is that really its role? It really sounds silly when you hear this from an American. Seriously. And it certainly doesn’t do anything to turn a possible enemy into a probable friend (or at least at peace).
If the United States doesn’t want Israel to even consider an exploratory attempt at communicating with Syria, it shows that deep down there is some other plan the United States has for Syria, and it is not peace.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
Comments
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
Just to add to this, today Rice is saying that Iran faces more sanctions because it continues its nuclear program push.
But here’s the silly part, while we continue “punishing” even the smallest of things, what “rewards” do we offer for even the smallest of things for either Iran or Syria? We desire intractable and uncompromising things from these two countries, punish the smallest, and give nothing for even the smallest of good things they do.
For example, how have we rewarded Iran’s assistance in the “war on terror?” Is this assistance that they have provided even mentioned by the Bush administration? How about Iran’s help in Afghanistan early on? Any reward to Iran for that assistance?
IF we talk about behavior, the nation with the worst behavior in the Middle East right now is the United States.
Comment by Daniel— February 23, 2007 #
Agreed Dan. We punish Iran and highlight their indiscretions while the rest of the world does similar or worse things that do not get mention from our boys in Washington. Did you see the test Pakistan did of the long range missile, capable of carrying nuclear weapons? Where is any mention of that incident from our government? Where are the sanctions? Where are the aircraft carriers?
Obviously we treat Iran differently than other nations since we cannot tolerate their independance in a region we demand absolute control over.
Comment by Curtis— February 23, 2007 #
Yeah, we’re just not the good guys. And it’s the hypocrisy about it that bugs me the most.
If we’re going to act in brazen indulgent self-interst, I wish we’d just come out and say it.
Comment by Kullervo— February 24, 2007 #