U.S. can't walk away from its role, By Wesley Clark

[BushCutters]

As a cadet at West Point, I learned that a state cannot survive for long unless it alone controls the use of force. The story that most vividly illustrates this point started back in 1948. It is the story of the State of Israel.

CUT

Currently, Israel is building a security fence - not because it wants to, but because terrorism has forced its hand. The fence is not a barrier to the peace process. No country can negotiate if the other side believes it has no alternatives. The fence will help contain the terrorist onslaught. It will warn other parties in the Middle East that they need to start negotiating - now. But it is not a sustainable substitute for peace. A strong, democratic Israel is the key to the future of the Middle East.

CUT

Leading a real peace process is a responsibility the United States cannot walk away from - and it is a responsibility that starts in the White House. Negotiations must proceed along a multifaceted track. The Israeli government should not be forced to make further territorial concessions until the Palestinian Authority acts decisively to dismantle terrorism. But to get negotiations back on track, the next administration must make peace for Israel one of its top priorities.

Other states must do their part, too. Currently, Palestinian militants are aided and Palestinian civilians are used by regional powers that stoke the violence to vent their own domestic tensions. That has to stop, and we have to stop it. Road maps to peace cannot be successful when others impose roadblocks. We must use every available tool to ensure that the governments of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and others are facilitating rather than obstructing the peace process.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/358806.html

[Paschall]

1. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=29758

By the way, welcome to DU! :hi:

[bluesoul]

2. As long

as the role won't be a mediator in the true sense of the word they won't achieve much. Supporting one side doesn't help the matter...

[lindashaw]

3. This is such a difficult issue for any presidential candidate. If

anyone can achieve the objectivity and moderation needed to stop the downward spiral between these two nations, Clark can.

The problem has been lately, in my opinion, the perspective of the United States seeing Israel through the eyes of the Zionist/Neo-cons/religious right, such as this administration has become. If that perspective can be realigned to one of moderation such as we used to have (along with an outreach to the Muslim population as a whole), it has a chance of succeeding in the long term.

This will not happen until we have a new administration, one that takes a different posture in the world and pursues different policies.

No political campaign can succeed unless it takes the Israeli/Palestinian problem on. It is at the root of almost everything the country is engaged in, one way or another. This will involve some re-education in this country, too, and it's dangerous to talk about on the campaign trail. I only hope Clark can choose his words wisely and reach the moderate Jewish population who want an end to this madness.

[ajacobson]

4. I don't know if its possible

There is more diversity of opinion within Israel itself compared to mainstream American Jewish commentary on how to stop the violence. My wife and I pretty much quit our temple because the pro-Sharon noise got so horrendous. The Geneva working group is promising except for the fact that it will never get accepted by the people in charge on both sides. But it may create some grassroots pressure.

As for any U.S. presidential candidate, there is no way no how that anybody can say much on the situation without really pissing somebody off.

[Lithos]

5. Locking

Please continue here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=29758