Well, that is easy to rectify. The U.S. just pulls out of all negotiations and exherts no influence on the matter anylonger and the two parties (well actually there are more involved aren't there...) just hash it out themselves. I wonder how long the palistinians would survive if the U.S. were not involved. Who else puts any pressure whatsoever on Israel (even with all of our support) to refrain? Hmmmmmmmmmm... They want our support, but they want us to be silent in giving it. Don't get me wrong, I am a STRONG supporter in there being a Palistinian state. I just also feel very strongly that if the U.S. is going to give its support, then it is going to recommend that it be used wisely (or what the U.S. considers to be wise use). You can't have it both ways. You either get the support of the U.S. with conditions attached, or you get no support at all. That has been the case throughout history and it is not only exherted on behalf of the U.S. Afterall, we don't want to give our support and have a terrorist state initiated with full diplomatic ties do we???? I wouldn't personally donate money knowing that money was going to be used to continue the support of terrorist actions, would you? Afterall, it is OUR money we're talking about here, not just the 'image' of support.

While personally I feel that Arafat has become less of a terrorist leader than he was in the past, I also feel that he has lost most of the control of his people. Regardless, who is the best to lead their country is up to the Palistinians to decide. Remember, not all Americans voted for President Bush either, yet he was elected (we think anyway :o) The U.S. will support whom it feels to be the best candidate and who will promote our interests the most (they have always done this and it has backfired on the U.S. not only in history but also in the RECENT past).

Regardless, it is STILL and will ALWAYS be up to the Palistinians. You can tell me all day long what you want me to do, but it's up to me to vote my conscience and carve the future out for myself. If they were smart, they'd take the support but vote for Arafat anyway. Similar things have occurred in the past also and the U.S. basically wasted their money and support, but that is the risk it takes.

Also, while personally I feel that the U.S. should not get involved in other countries' affairs of state, I do wonder what the world's political picture would be like if we had not in the past. Everyone wants our help, but they don't want the conditions that go along with it. Just do it on your own then. There are also times when we are pulled in because other countries need our involvement (there is that question of who was actually responsible for pulling the U.S. into WWII afterall and more...) Many Americans feel that since we live in this world, we must do all we can to ensure its safety for those to come and as the strongest country it is our duty to assist where assistance is needed. They think that if we had not assisted in the past that more weapons of mass destruction would be under the control of nafarious governments or worse yet, terrorist groups. That perhaps those weapons would have already been used by now. Well, having had more information than I care to know in the past, I do KNOW personally that this is true in many cases. It is better NOT knowing. Yet, it is also hard to have a country grab for your hand and then slap it when it is offered.

There is no easy answer.

Tracy


>>Well that example is clearly interferring with the business of a separate state of course--especially since he would have been making comments in his professional capacity as President of the U.S.
>>
>>However, I am curious, when did President Bush 'dictate' to the Palistinian people who they SHOULD NOT vote for? Is this quoted? I must've missed it on CNN or the International version of BBC (I realize our news may at times be slanted) I guess. I know that he called for elections, but that does not preclude Arafat from running or being elected. It is my understanding that Arafat is running and will probably be reelected by the majority of the people. Where can I find the quote of President Bush saying not to vote for Arafat? I'm interested, because that would be a prime example of EXACTLY what other countries eject to when claiming the U.S. interferes too much. Of course, controlling the trade market in other countries is another example! The U.S. does that all the time to put pressure on countries to do what it wants as a global influence. Of course there is another side to that argument...
>
>"I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practising democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. If the Palestinian people actively pursue these goals, America and the world will actively support their efforts. If the Palestinian people meet these goals, they will be able to reach agreement with Israel and Egypt and Jordan on security and other arrangements for independence. And when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbours, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East."
>
>OK, not directly telling the Palestinians that they must do what he says, but saying that they'll only get American support if & when they do as he says. They know that without American support, they will not be able to oppose Israel. So while not exactly dictating to them what to do, the perception amongst the Palestinians is exactly that.
>
>Full speech :
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,743503,00.html
>
>Reaction of supposedly US favoured candidate :
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,747720,00.html