President Bush has created a new plan that he spoke about last week for the situation in the Mideast. The plan “laid out an American role in the upcoming Mideast peace talks that challenges the accumulated wisdom of former secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker III and Presidents Carter and Clinton” (Richter). The plan, which calls for a limited U.S. role, may be harder to stick to then Bush thinks. Bush, defying diplomatic consensus, has said that he would not negotiate with Palestine and Israel, but would encourage them. Bush is using this approach because Rice has said that “the conventional approach, based on more active American prodding, simply ‘hasn't worked’” (Richter). However, this limited role makes people think that there might never be a peace agreement by the end of Bush’s term in office. Europeans and Arabs believe that the U.S needs an activist stance so progress is made. Without the U.S intervening with the peace agreements there is more of a burden on the other two countries and the agreements might not be as strong because usually the representatives from the countries make their agreements to appease the U.S. Most believe that the U.S. will not be staying out for long because they will want this agreement to be made.
The United States should get involved in the Mideast peace talks. Although there is so much strain with other issues I think that this might be something good for a change. Many analysts have said that Palestine and Israel will not make peace if the U.S is not involved. I think that we should make this peace a reality and be a mediator. It seems like the U.S. has to get involved in everyone’s business, which is true, but in this case if we do not their will still be fighting and/or we will not get better tied allies, which we need at this point. Staying out of these talks just shows that we care too much about our problems in Iraq and in Iran more than other issues. I think in order to show that Iraq is not everything and that we are a caring nation, we should get involved with the Mideast peace talks.
For more information: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usmideast2dec02,1,4929352.story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In the entire history of the world, it seems as though Palestine and Israel have not been so touchy-feely with each other. Now, why now, are we finally deciding that "yeah, being nice and peaceful is a good thing?" It seems a little bit overdue, so the sooner the better now. As for us getting involved, sometimes there are things that I think people should do on their own, and if there is a country trying to get both to agree, there might just be a period of time where there is peace. Then it could wear off and soon they will begin to hate each other and then talk behind the others back and soon bombs will be strapped to little children again. Now I am rambling, good post hun!
I agree that the US needs to take a more active role in promoting peace talks within the Middle East. Why "encourage" nations to be peaceful and not join in the talks (and be peaceful ourselves). I think that the Bush administration is just being hypocritical. Can't wait till Bush gets out of office.
Post a Comment