Excellent message. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. Peace and best wishes.
Xi On Jan 9, 2:06 am, sifors <[email protected]> wrote: > Both Clinton and Carter know only too well that the key to peace in > the Middle East is not the development of influence over radical > Palestinian elements, but the curtailment of Israel's military might. > So long as Israel can strike at its neighbours with impunity using the > latest US military technology, the prospect for peace simply does not > exist. Peace can never be imposed down the barrel of a gun, > particularly while Israel continues to deny the Palestinians access to > their land and their statehood. > > So will Obama attempt to threaten Israel with a reduction in military > support in order to force them to be more conciliatory at the > negotiating table? His pre-election rhetoric seemed to indicate that > this was not an option. However, developments in the Middle East may > force him to reconsider. Indeed, he may have no choice but to engineer > an increase in Israel's military vulnerability in order to encourage > her to make peace with her neighbours. Otherwise political and > economic developments in the region may do it for him, in a less > predictable manner. > > The one thing Israel fears most is synchronised aggression on several > fronts. To date the prospect of this has been kept at bay by US > economic aid to Egypt and Jordan, and its military intervention in > Iraq. However, the US may not be able to afford the level of aid that > it has previously bestowed on Israel's neighbours. Moreover, US > influence in Iraq is scheduled to diminish rapidly in the next few > years, while open support for the Palestinians is set to become more > pronounced in Iraqi society. The pro-western Egyptian Government has > systematically given in to the demands of Islamic fundamentalists on a > range of domestic policy issues in the last few years. This has been > the price of ensuring internal stability, and increased support for > the Palestinian cause is sure to be high on the fundamentalist's > policy wish list. > > While war-ravaged Lebanon is unlikely to constitute a threat, the same > cannot be said of Syria and Iran. Indeed, it is possible that the > former may be encouraged to be more reckless by the increasingly > radical behaviour of the latter. Attempting to bomb Iran's emerging > nuclear capability will not affect its growing military support for > the Palestinians. And don't forget that imposing an oil-purchasing > embargo on Iran's oil is no longer an option. > > Lastly, we cannot ignore the impact of the world economic crisis on > the fate of the Gulf's petro-dollars. The Gulf States have almost > certainly taken a knock on the London and New York markets and > prevailing low interest rates will not entice them to return too soon. > But return they must if western economic recovery is to occur. The > hidden cost of attracting reinvestment from the Gulf's oil states will > almost certainly include a hardening of western attitudes towards > Israel. > > The next 24 months could see Israel's neighbours holding more cards > than at anytime in the country's brief history. The strength of the > pro-Palestinian lobby can only increase and Israel can only become > more isolated. The window of opportunity for Mr Obama to secure an > equitable and lasting peace appears very small. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
