http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/america-is-primarily-at-f_b_154285.htmlAmerica Is Primarily at Fault for the Conflict in Gaza -Cenk Uygur
<snip>
So, let me offer you something you hardly ever hear in the American media. The American government had a great deal to do with the outbreak of violence in the Gaza Strip right now. The Bush administration demanded - against the advice of nearly every expert in the field and the Israeli government - that the Palestinians hold elections. They did. Hamas won.
When Hamas won, we could have pulled them in toward the direction of political action and reconciliation. Instead, we chose to isolate them, start a coup against them (read this terrific article in Vanity Fair about our attempt to overthrow Hamas) and further radicalize them. We made a mockery of the idea of democracy. We proved to them that we never meant a word of the so-called Freedom Doctrine. We only wanted elections in which our guys won.
This kind of hypocrisy has consequences. It sends a message that democracy and voting doesn't work. And our botched coup against Hamas had the effect of sending the message that violence is the answer. If you don't get your way, the proper course of action is to try to change the results through use of force.
We should have never insisted on the elections that everyone - but the inane Bush team - realized Hamas was going to win. It's not that elections are a bad idea, but it was too early in this instance. We should have laid the groundwork for Palestinians to vote in a direction that would have led to more constructive solutions. Instead, as usual, Bush was lazy and insisted on getting his way right away.
And if we were going to have elections, we absolutely, positively should have recognized the legitimate results of those elections and dealt with the consequences. In fact, this might have pulled Hamas into a governing role that demanded more pragmatism and a less radical outlook. It's easier to be a radical when you don't have to get anything done.
<snip>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2009/01/11618_gaza_war_bushs_legacy.htmlGaza War Bush's Parting Gift to Middle East
At one point or another, most American presidents concern themselves with bringing peace to the Middle East. Ultimately, all other foreign policy achievements pale in comparison. It's the brass ring of presidential greatness, the elusive key to ensuring kind treatment in the eyes of history. Such thinking must become particularly acute as presidents reach the twilight of their terms and begin in earnest the inevitable consideration of how they will be remembered. Bill Clinton made a last-ditch effort late in his second term to become the great peacemaker. He failed, as had all others before him. But at least he tried. For his part, our current outgoing commander in chief, just weeks away from relinquishing his office, has steadfastly refused to get involved even as Gaza disintegrates into violence.
Not that this should come as a surprise. Bush's lack of engagement this late in the game, says the National Security Network, is nothing if not consistent with the rest of his term. As the group describes in press release issued today:
episodic involvement has been muddled and without coherent vision: supporting Palestinian elections in 2006, despite the very clear possibility that Hamas would win, then refusing to honor the results; asserting that the 'road to Jerusalem ran through Baghdad;' belatedly engaging through the Annapolis peace conference, which has proved to be too little too late. Experts and regional actors with differing views on the road ahead share the belief that the US absence from the scene is counterproductive and harmful to the interests of all concerned. The outbreak of war in Gaza confirms that after eight years in office the Bush administration will leave behind a region that is further from achieving a lasting peace than when it came to office.
A tough accusation to be sure, but one that enjoys support from an unlikely array of former diplomats and foreign policy specialists across the political spectrum. Bush's own first-term ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, acknowledges the administration's shortcomings. "The sum total is that if you measure Israeli security at the beginning of this administration and at the end of the administration, based on things the president either could have done, should have done or failed to do, the report card is pretty negative," he says.
Several other former US ambassadors to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Tunisia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, contributed to a policy paper (.pdf) released by the Israeli Policy Forum, which accuses the Bush administration's inaction of enabling the violence in Gaza and damaging the security interests of the United States:
"During the past eight years, the United States has appeared to have no sense of urgency about ending the Arab-Israeli conflict... The Bush administration did not pick up where Clinton left off, giving the impression that the United States was indifferent to the worsening conditions (the second intifada) on the ground in Israel and the Occupied Territories. This seeming indifference helped turn public opinion against the United States throughout the Muslim world to the disadvantage of a myriad of U.S. interests"
..more..
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
