Embedded in the president's speech is a possible roadmap of the future course of events here and abroad.
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies.
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.
The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue -- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.
We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas, where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve.
There's one passage that bears repeating:
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.
One might ask, can the decisive ideological struggle of our time be won by the addition of 21,500 troops?
At the same time, is it likely that the decisive ideological struggle of our time will be settled in six months?...two years?....ten years?
JUST WHAT ARE WE GETTING INTO NOW?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 37
At the present time there is more tribal warfare and religious warfare there than there are terrorist activities. What terrorist activities there are and insurgent violence is a direct result of us being there. One would think that if someone like me can see this, that the President would be aware of it as well. The fact he appears not to be is a bit scary.
Great comment, Peter H.
I have always thought that, whatever shifting pretext or cause Bush gave to this colossal blunder in Iraq, his primary intention is a revolution in american government.
Continuous war, no social safety nets, low wages, unlimited executive power, a national cult of patriotic symbolism, a concentration of wealth, and government by cronyism.
No, we don't think hunky dory, we do think quit egging terrorists on, helping them grow, etc. Terrorism isn't going away, and niether is the debate of what to do about the problem. A totally proven failed policy on it is going to be gone, though. Hopefully.
Spot on, Ron.
While the self-righteousness and the feeble deceptions, and the inarticulate cluelessness of Bush are irritating, the anger of the "left" (which now must be the 71% of Americans who think that Bush was wrong about Iraq) is about the ineffectiveness of the response to our enemies.
You can comfort yourself with whatever platitudes you like, Don, but Bush and the smarmy bunch of second-rate intellects around him have been wrong at every step of the way.
It is not a war on "terror", it is a struggle against people who use terror as a weapon. And if you can't see that that is a significant difference, then you deserve to be deceived by platitude-repeationg dunces all your days.
Military invasion is appropriate when acts of war are sustained or supported by a state. Hence, the whole world joined in the invasion of Afghanistan, which effort Bush starved to feed his war of choice in Iraq.
"The truth is we need to kick major ass on these terrorists - and that's exacly what Bush is doing. "
That is exactly what he is NOT doing. The perpetrators of terror in America came from Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. We did not invade those countries ,and we won't, because too many people can grasp that the nation did not create the terrorist.
The same is true in Iraq. Not a single terrorist came out of Iraq before we invaded.
Now, our "kicking ass" has created at least 30,00, by a conservative Army estimate.
The Snorter in Chief still has the addict's delusion that he has it figured out just a little bit better than anyone else.
An increasingly large number of Americans recognize that the guy is done (on the day after the big speech and photo ops, less than 30% supported the Bush attempt to "stay the course".
Just wait until Congressional hearings (four are scheduled) start revealing the news about how he and his cronies managed the operation.
I can't wait.
Now this President 43 claims that this is the most important struggle of our time.
Bull.
If he or anyone really believed that line of Malarkey they sure as heck would be sending more than 21000 troops in harms way. Bagdad has a population of 5 million.
We are not the Spartans here folks.
Any President who would fight such an important war with so little of an effort should be impeached and shot at dawn.
He doesn't believe in what he is doing because he doesn't know what he is doing. He lost this war in the preplanning of it.
The only thing left for him to do is save his legacy and that will cost more American lives,
a lot more.
You've heard the phrase "double down." This is "double up." Hell hath no fury like a President scorned. (with apologies to William Congreve). The failed Iraq policy becomes a forgotten footnote in the context of a wider regional conflagration. It is essential that Congress pursue oversight and war powers control over these dangerous men (Cheney and Bush).
Lord Peter, it sounds like you are describing a fascist government: "continuous war, no social safety nets, low wages, unlimited executive power, a national cult of patriotic symbolism, a concentration of wealth, and government by cronyism." I guess that is what the administration meant by the "long war."
http://www.4literature.net/William_Congreve/Mourning_Bride/14.html
Capt. Seaweed: No. The terrorists will not suddenly vanish when Bush leaves office any more than Pandora's evils returned to the box when she realized her mistake. Like Pandora, Bush will be blamed for the evil he unleashed through his ineptitude and lack of ability to see the world as it is rather than as he wishes it were.
Don H: Actually you inadvertently highlighted the real problem, but not in the way you think. Bush is not doing any major ass kicking, either in Iraq or in Afghanistan, and that's the problem. He was given a golden opportunity few presidents are ever given to walk into the history books a hero. And for the briefest of moments many of us believed he would do so. 9/11 happened and his response was quick and decisive and the correct one. He went after bin-Laden in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan at that point was the nexus of terrorists by the mere fact that bin-Laden was there. Had Bush used overwhelming force to first defeat the Taliban then pacify the country, then remained there with that overwhelming force to secure and rebuild the country he would have dealt the cause of terrorism a huge and decisive blow. Afghanistan would be what he believed he'd create in Iraq, a nascent democracy.
The problem was that he had already decided to invade Iraq. His attention and his focus were never on Afghanistan once the Taliban fell. He began withdrawing troops almost immediately and long before the areas outside the major cities were pacified and secured. The results are what you see today....too few troops, a government that rules only in a few cities, and a countryside in the hands of drug runners, terrorists, and warlords.
Bush missed his opportunity by buying into the delusion that he could run two major wars in the Middle East at the same time. He was told about the sectarian divides, the tribalism, etc. He chose to ignore those words in favor of his own idealism that told him that our troops would be greeted as liberators, that the people of Iraq would be so grateful to us they would set aside centuries old grudges and sectarian divisions, and would join hands and sing Kumbaya while strewing sweets and flowers at the feet of the conquering heroes.
Bush was so confident of this delusion of his that he made no provisions for securing ammo dumps and other crucial sites inside Iraq, he had the army and the police force disbanded so no one remained to maintain order in the streets, and he dumped the government, resulting in a vacuum that he tried to fill with people with no experience with indigenous Arab populations.
Mr. Bush did not deliver a "major ass kicking" when the first of the insurgents appeared. He rationalized that this was a temporary and feeble attempt by a few die hard Baathists and their supporters and simply ignored it. He did not deliver a "major ass kicking" when the sectarian violence started. People kept advising him that he needed to crack down and he chose to maintain his pie-in-the-sky idealism of this perfect nascent democracy he was building.
The bottom line is that Bush blew it big time. Had he concentrated on Afghanistan where the real terrorists were, rather than indulging in his obsession with Iraq, he stood a good chance of approaching the end of this term as a hero. Afghanistan, with the proper number of troops and attention might now be emerging as a real democracy rather than just another war-torn, drug producing nation where the government exists only because they are surrounded by an army. Bush would have seen his ideals coming to fruition. If. Such a tiny word for such a big concept.
So no. Bush isn't a strong leader and he's not delivering a major ass kicking on terrorists. He's a delusional, weak man who in his arrogance is incapable of admitting he is wrong and changing course as events make such changes necessary. He's like a kid trying to put a square peg in a round hole, who rather than look for a hole the peg will fit in, just keeps hammering on the peg convinced that if he can just hit it the right way and is patient, it's going to go in there and fit just right.
The 'the decisive ideological struggle' exist only in the minds of the BushCo neocons. What we have here is the Euro/American culture trying to usurp the Islamic culture. They are creating this dichotomy...they are trying to impose their' amoral, liberal, libertine, decadent culture into the Islamic world. The main struggle is an old struggle of the West trying to rule and control the East...it failed miserably in the Far East where the more mature and conservative culture of the orient has prevailed against the inplantation of western liberal decadence...excepting, of course, the crassly westernized Japanese. The problem in Iraq is not old sectarian trying to settle old grievances, as Carolyn says. These different groups were getting on quite nicely until their' country was invaded, criminally, by the US/UK coalition and even than...the Iraqi's were fighting against the hostile enemy that had invaded their' lands and overthrown their' government. The main fighting was against the coalition troops and those that were collaborating with the enemy...the defenders of Iraq were mainly Sunni while the quislings were mainly Shiite...the invaders were sustaining heavy loses, so, enter 'Mr. Death Squads' John Negroponte of Central American' death squads notoriety...that's when the real sectarian strife got into full gallop, thus, setting Iraqis against Iraqis instead of Iraqis against the real enemy and hostile force the coalition forces. This not about old animosities this is about new death squads setting off a cycle of reciprocal violence. This chaotic situation was created by Negroponte to serve two purposes...the first being the aforementioned...namely, getting the Iraqi's to kill each other rather than fighting the occupation forces and the second reason was to create this chaos so that we could remain occupying Iraq under the premise that 'we can't get out now and leave Iraq in chaos' 'we have to stabilize the situation first. In short, less coalition casualties and we have our' argument to continue to occupy Iraq indefinitely. It shouldn't be overlooked that the creators and perpetuators of the violent situation that currently besets Iraq are the enemy troops that have invaded and occupied Iraq. Their' continued presence of these hostile forces virtually assure an incrementation of the violence. This new plan that Bush has presented just throws new coal into the conflagration it's intent is not to restore order or stop the violence...au contraire...it's an augmentation. First, it will have the coalition attacking...ala Fallujah...the loyalist towns and cities...it failed before and it will fail again, no doubt...and, it looks to make the situation much, much worse:
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
The aim is to move in agaisnt Syria and Iran...the aim is to expand the war into these lands, also. One of the reason's for invading Iraq was as a precourse to an invasion of Syria and than the real desire pobject...Iran. This is the express commission from Israel...to neutralize Islam and if possible destroy once and for all...so in fighting this war for Israel...she would have safety and security. Another reason was...yes...OIL. A third, of course, was overlordship over the Middle East. Despite the debacle in Iraq...the neocon plan 'Object Iran' is still in place and this is the phase we are now moving into. The invasion of Syria and Iran is imminent with the participation of Israel which will turn this into a World War...it will pit US/UK/Israel against Iran/Russia/China/India and quite possibly every other narion from here to Timbuktu and thus will end the US/UK/Israel hegemonial designs. Our status as the world's sole super power will drop quicker than the mercury in a thermometer in Antarctica. This new Bush Plan is the old PNAC Plan...Iraq will look like a schoolyard scrap in comparison with 'Object Iran' than you will see some real carnage and killing.
Members in Congress are beginning to see this for what it is:
Hagel told Rice he believes the new policy "represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."
"I will resist it," Hagel said, sparking an outburst of applause from spectators at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The Nebraska Republican is a twice-wounded veteran of the Vietnam War.
Joe Biden called it 'a disaster'.
In Reuters this excerpt of an article about the real concerns in Congress:
Senators Fear Iraq War May Spill To Iran, Syria
Thu Jan 11, 6:53 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic and Republican senators voiced strong concern on Thursday that the Iraq war could spread to neighboring Iran and Syria
if the U.S. military were to chase militants across the border.
President Bush, who accuses Iran and Syria of fomenting the violence in Iraq, on Wednesday proposed sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to try to restore security nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion.
Bush sparked worries that the conflict may widen by his comment that "we'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
U.S. officials said their plan was to disrupt such networks while staying inside Iraq, but their comments did not appear to mollify senior U.S. lawmakers.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) bluntly told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he did not think Bush had the authority to launch attacks to stamp out militant networks in Iran and Syria.
"If the president concluded he had to invade Iran ... or Syria in pursuit of these networks, I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that and he does need congressional authority to do that," said Biden.
"I just want to set that marker," added the Delaware Democrat, who later wrote Bush a letter asking for an "authoritative answer" on whether he believed U.S. forces could cross into Iran or Syria without congressional authorization.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070111/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc
Dubya is going for broke...his final shot at salvaging his shattered and disgraceful legacy. 'Object Iran' will either save him or forever condemn him...what matter the sacrificing the lives of other men and women...it's The Plan and his' legacy that really matter.
This is not about some ideological struggle...it's all about raw power and conquest.
Look behind the smoke screens...and don't swallow the red herring...the shit is about to hit the fan...get ready to duck. Onward Christian soldier's...praise the Lord and pass out the ammunition. We're about to enter the final phase of the PNAC Plan...'Object Iran'...last man standing get's to pull down the curtain and turn off the lights.
If Bush really wanted to disrupt the flow of aid from Syria and Iran, why has he not sealed the borders on the Iraqi side, or at least beefed up the patrols and interdictions? I agree with Joe Biden. However, even if Bush gives him the authoritative answer he is requesting, it doesn't mean he's not lying through his teeth. He's unapologetically admitted that he will lie when it suits him.
The bottom line is that this is a very complex issue and that Bush is on the wrong side of every aspect of it. I wonder how many years and how many presidential terms will pass before the United States can regain even a portion of the respect and trust Bush has squandered on his failed legacy?
Three out of four disgree with his delusions about the way forward in Iraq.
Once hearings begin on the conduct of the war, republicans will be calling for impeachment.
Welcome to the wilderness, John Porter
I also agree with much of what others have said. Peter mentioned all kinds of "ideological struggles" ... which each and every one of them will come into play big-time ... but as a "TOOL" to be 'worked' to the benefit of our neo-con perpetrators.
Stand by folks for all kinds of polarizational conflict ... the old 'divide and conquer' will be at work as the controlling apex maneuvers the base actors to their benefit.
America was first hit in 1976 and has been struck every 6 months there after untill 9/11. Thats 30 years of having Americans killed at the hands of radilcal Islamist. Now they are more sophiticated bolder and have greater access to weaponry. They have demonstrated thier ability and desire to attack at will with no reguard what so ever to anything but their cause. And now they facing an enemy that appears to be unwilling to confront them on the level they are willing to endure. Who do you think wins that senario? You want to see the future of Islam in the western world?? Start readin up on current events on the continent of Africa. Darfur..Mogadishu..Ivory Coast... Somalia...Karhtoum...Abbaka(sp). Its all radiccal Islam that is doing the slaughtering. Coffe still brewing but the pot is evaporating fast. I'd kind of like my children to have a better world to live in. I don't see that happing when the focus is on what an "ass" Bush is.
For the record, I don't believe Bush is insane. I don't hate him. Hate quite frankly takes too damned much energy to waste on him.
I regard him as an man of limited intelligence and even more limited vision. He's a spoiled rich kid who never had to work for anything a day in his life. He came into the White House believing that all he had to do is snap his fingers and miracles would happen. He had no plan. He had no goals, other than invading Iraq which was apparently his first goal. He not only doesn't understand the concerns and needs of the average American, it is hard to imagine him finding the energy to care.
He has neglected the domestic agenda for his entire six years, and other than for paying lip service to a huge raft of current issues at home, I doubt you'll see any changes in this anytime soon.
Mr. Bush's most egregious personality flaw is his inability to recognize and compensate for his own personal shortcomings and his utter unwillingness to even admit that there are people who know more than he does much less listen to them. He idealizes situations and is too inflexible to change course when what he imagined was going to happen failed to materialize.
He believes that appearances are reality, so rather than finding a way out of the mess he made and admitting his errors, he does such things as forbidding the news photograph the returning dead as if ignoring them in this manner makes them not there.
There is no point in offering solutions to Bush's mess. People much wiser, much more in the know, and much more experienced than I am have been doing this for years. Anything that doesn't fit in with Bush's pre-decided agenda (he is after all the Decider) is simply ignored. He was told before the Iraqi invasion that an insurgency and civil unrest were virtual certainties. He not only ignored these facts, but didn't act when they became reality. He was told he needed as many as 500,000 troops to go into Iraq and accomplish what needed to be done. He sent in fewer than half that number then stubbornly refused to increase the number when a chance remained for them to do some good.
You cannot solve the problem of radical Islam with guns. We have more than proven that over the past few years. Only social changes and education will ever begin to crack their hold in the Muslim world. We are also largely responsible for that. Islamic societies are never going to become democracies in the way we understand that word. If they become democracies at all it will be an Islamic version of democracy, not an American one.
We've been trying to talk to those nuts for years, even through the worthless UN. They must think it's hilarious: "Ha! I told you they'd bring another fountain pen to a gunfight!".
We're not responsible for any of it (except, of course, educating many of their leaders). They were crazy and killing everything in sight (including each other) long before we even became the Great Satan. Your wiser southpaws can jabber at them all they want, and I hope they're successful, but I'll stick with the President.
As the Capt. wrote, they have the money and the moxie to fight for a long time, and I hope our "allies" don't believe that they won't be next if we're wiped out (or worse, subjugated).
You are dead wrong when you say we're not responsible for any of it. We are not responsible for their decisions to prefer violence to diplomacy for sure. However, we are responsible for many of the armament in the area. We are responsible for propping up tinpot dictatorships such as Saddam, the Saudis, etc. We definitely created the mess in Iraq. All of it. We went in without a plan for securing the peace. We sent in too few troops and did not secure things like munitions dumps. We dismissed their entire lawmaking apparatus with nothing whatever to replace it. We went in for no good reason other than Bush had decided before he was even elected that he would invade Iraq. When things began going wrong we sat on our hands and did nothing to stop the violence before it escalated.
Your decision that you will stick with Mr. Bush is puzzling when it's quite clear to the majority of the world including 75%+ of U.S. citizens that he not only hasn't a clue as to what he's doing or how to make the mess he created better, he wouldn't do it if he did. Most of what could have fixed this mess had a time stamp on it and that stamp expired quite some time ago.
I do not disagree with you that the United Nations is pretty much useless for anything other than distributing disaster aid and other such humanitarian projects.
So go ahead and continue to cling to a sinking ship. Like your idol Mr. Bush you right wing neocons are incapable of understanding the situation as it actually exists, will not or cannot shift your focus as the situation changes, and think "stay the course" is a plan rather than a slogan. As for what our allies believe, quite frankly we have so few of those left now I'm not sure it actually matters any more.
We created the mess in Iraq. We let it go too long and escalate too dramatically, now it's questionable whether or not it can be fixed without some sort of huge action that we now do not have the will, the manpower, the equipment, the leadership, the vision, or the plan to accomplish.
On your' comment that begins with:
"I agree with you on some levels, Felix,...
I, too, agree with you on a certain level. I certainly agree with your' assessment on Bush and how his' legacy will affect all of us negatively for years to come.
Dubya hits the daily double...he's both crazy and inept...oh, we don't need to build bomb shelters...we have to get Bab's loony kid into a straight-jacket and send him off to the nearest funny farm. That's if the World Court doesn't grab him first and hang him prime time ala Saddam.
AND REGARDING: " The truth is we need to kick major ass on these terrorists - and that's exacly what Bush is do" HERE I DISAGREE - WE ARE THE ONES GETTING KICKED IN THE A--! AND WE ARE THE GOOD GUYS....! HAVE YOU NOT HEARD THE REPORTS OF HOW THE TERROISTS ARE GROWING IN NUMBERS...THEY ARE WORSE THAN GUPIES...THAT DOSENT SOUND LIKE THEY ARE GETTING KICKED IN THE A-- SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE GIVING THEM VIAGRA!
Blaming Bush does not solve the problem especialy since the problem started years before bush was a politician and will continue long after Bush and the rest of us are dead and gone.... unless.....we solve the problem.
Getting rid of Bush is a real solution.
If you look at our national problems as a disease, the first principle of healing is "Do No Harm".
All the reactive, unthinking, jingoistic, bellicose actions of the Bush adminsitration have harmed the nation and have exacerbated the problem.
It is perfectly in order to call for the end of the Bush regime as the first act in solving our nation's problems. because he is making them worse.
Remove the source of infection, and it is amazing how quickly the system can recover.
Fortunately, after six years, most Americans now realize that Bush IS the biggest source of contamination.
If you are referring to the middle east in general, there really isn't much of a solution for that region in my humble opinion. When some people choose violence and death over working to make their lives better they impact everyone. Many places in the Arab world teach kids hate with their morning cornflakes. They need to work out their own solutions. They have more than enough money to do it, but there isn't any will.
Have you ever asked yourself why the Arab states never took in the Palestinians, built them villages, and abolished the camps? I did. I also asked my Arab students and the answer both surprised and shocked me. And it's a great deal more complex and convoluted than one would imagine. We tend to see Arabs as some sort of homogeneous culture, but that's really not true. From tribe to tribe Arabs have next to nothing in common other than a language. They are even sharply divided as to religion and interpretation of the Koran.
These people have been fighting one another for literally thousands of years. They're not about to stop now. Anything that might weaken the violence and hatred (such as a thriving economy and universal education) also weakens the grip of the mullahs and other religious leaders. They're never going to stand for that. So it's not the place of the United States to solve the problems over there. Hell, we can't even solve our own problems.
Blaming Bush for what Bush is not going to solve his failures, but it does place credit where it belongs.
Anyways, last I checked we are at war and Bush is the commander in chief - and I think we all agree that it is his plan that will be implemented. And really, nobody has a better plan - the cut and run plan just makes things worse.
Peter H, Pelosi is AIPAC's poster girl...she can't wait to bomb Teheran...she's dumber than Dubya.
Carolyn, we had no business going into Iraq...period.
Peter Wimsey, I agree. Yet, everyone wants to let po' Dubya off the hook 'cause he don't know any better. The Devil or the Devil's emissary...Dick Cheney made him do it. Even Nanci (Let's-Make-A-Deal) Pelosi wants to forgive the non-repentant dunce from Crawford. I, though, believe in divine retribution...ever seen the film "Ghost"? When at the end the villain is dragged away by black demonic shadows? That's what awaits Junior and Dick. Justice doesn't exist in the here-and-now, but, it does in the hereafter.
Anyone read about the Iran/Venezuela "Death to the United States" mutual fund? Do you think they just dreamed this up over the last 4 years? Chavez is on the verge of a total dictatorship, and Iran's President would wipe out the clerics in a heartbeat if they got in his way.
Felix -- want to see a movie that really describes this situation? Try "The Prestige".
So what was the answer to your question about the Palisinians that shook you? You seem to have a handle on some of the middle eastern history. One point you have missed is that the Muslims especially the radical ones are unified on one point. The world must be in compliance with Islamic Law. Less that that is unholy infidelic and satanic. Non belivers are given no quarter. That is a problem for freedom thinking peoples.
Peter,
getting rid of Bush only satisfies your imature emotional revenge needs. It doesnot solve anything in the world or the middle east.
Too much analysis of what we already know how about a SOLUTION that is viable and might work.
Felix: I agree with you 100%. We never had any business going into Iraq.
Captain Seaweed: I did not miss your point. It isn't true. While many radical Islamists believe as you stated, Muslims are far from united on any particular point of view. Muslim beliefs range from what you state, to rather moderate views that simply want to be left alone to live their lives their own way, whether or not we agree with them.
The response that my students gave me regarding Palestinians was fairly lengthy. Along with the obvious ones regarding not giving up the land, matter of principle, etc. was the observation that most Arab countries don't want Palestinians as permanent members of their societies for a variety of reasons, both good and bad. The bottom line, however, is that they were afraid of them.
The reasons they stated were diverse. Palestinians are among the most educated of Arabs. They even educate their women and many provide a level of equality unseen elsewhere in the Arab world. Many of the conservative Muslims hate this.
They are astute business people. One of the reason stated was that many Arab states don't want Palestinian entrepreneurs taking over their business economies.
The one that shook me, however, was that in the eyes of many Arabs, Palestinians are troublemakers and disrupters of the status quo. Now you can read that in a lot of ways both good and bad. Now you must interpret that from the viewpoint of the particular students, most of whom were either Saudi or Kuwaiti. What it translated as is that the Arab governments were afraid of the Palestinians. If you look at the disruptions they have caused in Jordan, perhaps they have a point in terms of social upheaval.
From my students' point of view it was better to keep the Palestinians isolated and push for their own country than it would be to incorporate them. And please remember when we are speaking of a Palestinian state, that there has never at any time in history been a Palestinian state under the aegis of the Palestinians or a Palestinian government.
Thats what comes from wearin a patch and drinkin so much rum.... the one eye sometimes has cloudy vision. .. ya know we piratres used wear two patches but we kept fallin over board.