:: Event Horizon ::

:: Friday, July 11, 2003 ::

Road Rage
According to this AP report, the Palestinians are warning the Israelis that Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas could be forced from power if Israel does not take more concrete steps toward peace. Why is it up to Israel to take the initiative? The Palestinians just blew up a nice old grandmother who was sitting in her home minding her own business, but it is up to Israel to make the effort? And on the need for the Palestinians to disarm their militant groups, here is what the report has to say: “Abbas is highly reluctant to do this and has said he will only try to accomplish it by persuasion.” Why is he reluctant? The Palestinians can have a state if they want one, they don’t need militancy anymore, not if a state is the goal. Terrorism worked, it got them to the negotiating table, it is no longer necessary. And what is he going to do to persuade them to give up their arms, ask nicely? It would appear that persuasion has failed, that the militants will not lay down their arms, and they need to be dealt with by someone. Why do they not recognize this? What is the point of having a peace process that is built on illusion and wishful thinking?

:: Joel 2:30 PM [+] ::
...

Liberating Liberia?
I have mixed emotions about this. One the one hand, I am sympathetic to the people of Liberia who have suffered for many years with civil war and bad government. Those sad conditions are endemic in much of Africa. Liberia has historical connections to the U.S., having been founded by former American slaves, and they are asking for American assistance. So, this is not a classic case of an intervention without local support or without any obvious linkage to American foreign policy goals.

On the other hand, I hate to see U.S. troops be put into the peacekeeping role. That role is a joke under such circumstances. You can't keep the peace when people don't want peace, and I suspect that is the case there, as it is in Iraq and with the Palestinians. American troops would just be caught in the crossfire.

If we do get involved, I think we have the obligation to leave the situation better than we found it, which means making sure that a stable government is put into place and that the rebels are disarmed. This would mean a substantial commitment of time and resources beyond what Bush seems willing to contemplate. If we are going to do it, let's do it right. Our record so far in Afghanistan and Iraq does not fill me with confidence.

:: Joel 3:51 PM [+] ::
...

Pacification Before Peace
News on two fronts today illustrate the idea that peace can’t be imposed on people who don’t want peace. The Palestinians continue to blow up Israeli citizens, an odd way of supporting the new ceasefire agreement. Perhaps we should start a ceasefire agreement body count? And in Iraq, more deadly attacks on American troops. Bringing our sunny American optimism to the nasty business of occupation, we thought we could do an occupation “lite” with Iraqi popular support, an intact Iraqi bureaucracy to govern, and oil revenue to pay for it all. It is not working, and there were many who said in advance that it would never work. It is time to go hardcore, to disarm those who stand in the way of peace. Political victory will never be achieved without a prior military victory. In the Mideast, unleash the Israeli military to crush the Palestinian resistance. The only people allowed to live in a new Palestinian state will be those who sincerely desire peace and are willing to demonstrate that sincerity by giving up their arms. We should not expect Israel to accommodate an armed Palestinian state. Destroy Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Al Aqsa and all the rest of the Palestinian militant groups. Do it now, do it quickly, and get it over with. In Iraq, send in more troops, impose martial law, secure the infrastructure, get the power back on, shoot all resistors and do it all with ruthless efficiency. Crush resistance, pacify the population, and only then declare victory.

:: Joel 12:47 PM [+] ::
...