Ignoring complicity.

Submitted by Timothy P. Brown (United States), Feb 3, 2003 at 01:51

I agree with much of Dr. Pipes analysis of the many shortcomings that accompany the various proposals submitted to date. I belive the end result he describes following implementation of his proposal is accurate. However, I remain unconviced that the ends justify the means. Further, there's nothing said acknowledging Israeli complicity in the overall problem. At what point in current history was greater Jerusalem ceded to Israel and what International body has recognized this concession of land? Aren't there a number of UN resolutions requiring the return of East Jerusalem and the West Bank to Jordan? Has Jordan agreed to give this land to Israel or Palestine for that matter? If the answer is no then it seems inappropriate for the USA to force this position.

Dr. Pipes calls for the withdrawal of financial support to the Palestinians until the situation is resolved. He also states Americans are funneling cash to the Palestinians privately which appears to be support of terrorism. I would like to know how much financial support the USA gives to the Palestinians and compare it side by side to that given Israel. I would also like to see a comparison of private funds provided by Americans to Israel along side those given to Palestinians. As we continue to provide a huge amount of foreign aide and huge loan guarantees to our ally she continues to allow settlements to spring up in the occupied territories putting a further security burden on Israel which requires even greater funding from America.

Dr. Pipes offers a solution where I have none. Maybe the realization of a democratic state in Iraq will lead to answers for the rest of the middle east.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".