|
President George W. Bush announced Thursday that he was sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the West Bank next week to help end the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. At the same time the U. N. Security Council called for an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian-controlled areas. Powell will be counted on to be a mediator between these two factions who have at war with each other for the past 40 years in modern history. Powell will not only be a mediator, but he will also represent the United States and its interest in these Mideast talks. In a speech by Thursday, the president said Palestine leader Yasser Arafat had “betrayed the hopes of his people and not consistently opposed terrorist activity.” Bush’s comment clearly illustrates the United States is not playing an objective, unbiased role in these talks. Bush has openly condemned Arafat, while he has only urged the Israelis to stop fighting and committing these horrific acts of violence. How can Powell go over to the Middle East and be a negotiator for both sides when at home Bush is blaming the Palestinians? Before next week the Bush administration needs to make a public statement, or even better, a public declaration that the United States is not on one side or the other, but instead on the side of peace. Peace may be an ideal term for these two parties — Israelis and Palestinians — but it should be a goal that must be reached. In order for this peace to be attained the violence committed by both sides must be halted immediately. Though this peace is an ideal goal, a more realistic goal is to minimize the violence and some of the animosity in the Middle East. The United States can be used as an effective tool to minimize some of this violence. But the Bush administration must stay within its parameters as an objective mediator, not an active player. If the United States cannot do this then it does not need to interfere. |
|
|
TCU Daily Skiff © 2002 |
||
