Make no changes to policy

You may have noticed that this list item is 12 years old. Websters Dictionary defines a crisis as: a : an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome b : a situation that has reached a critical phase There's no crisis in the middle east. It's business as usual.

Since our present policy is such a disaster, this might not be the best suggestion.

Yeah, since what we're doing now is working so well. NOT!

I think we are wallowing here with no clear direction and hazy goals. Most of us are befuzzled with the policy in place at this time. The spin doctors are confusing everyone, including it seems themselves and President Bush.

What if, before we decide upon a course of action, we identify the problem? The Middle East "crisis" is this: a strateigcally important region of the world, controls (to some degree) one of the most precious resources in the world, one which the economies of nearly all developed nations depends upon. Now, let's complicate that. Most of the countries are led by Islamic Fundamentalists, who seem to hate their customers because they do not belong to the same religion. Each country in the Middle East seems also to hate nearly every other country in the Middle East but will collude with each other (through OPEC) to elevate the world-wide price of their precious resource. Now, let's really complicate it. Right in the middle of the region, 60 years ago, the UN (at the insistence of the US) established a new country in the region, which represents a different religion. To establish this democracy, the UN displaced a group of people (nameless, with essentially no homeland or internatio... Read more

Obviously major change is needed!

Why have any policy at all? Has it ever occurred to anyone that our incredible 'mid-east policy' hasn't been beneficial to (1)the middle east or (2) America? The idea that Americans, a young nation with little cultural ties to the outside world, is going to help settle a religious and philisophical struggle centuries old is an arrogant idea only held by. . .Americans. Perhaps we simply don't know what we're doing because we don't know anything about them. Could we have done any worse? No. But we could have avoided making enemies on all sides by acting like we knew what was good for them, us, and the world. When you're fighting with your spouse/significant other, you don't want anyone interfering or giving advice. Now multiply that times a thousand. . .

More of the same then?

Yes, we do need to re-examine some of our policies in the Middle East specifically regarding two issues; the first being democratization and the second being the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Arabs aren't going to buy the American variant of democracy lock, stock, and barrel. To them our actions in Iraq represents imperialism. I believe that the key to integrating Arab societies into the international economic system is for greater economic liberalization to occur in those societies; that means that they have to develop a diversified economy. The United Arab Emirates has done this and the result is that they are liberalizing their governmental institutions. The reality is that we can do little to change the core of Middle Eastern society. We can intervene militarily in hot spots like Iraq, Syria and Iran, but the reality is that the people themselves have to take the initiative to change their societies themselves. Westerners have tried to impose democracy by the barrel of the gun but ... Read more

The ball is basically in their [The Israelis and Palestinians] court, as I think that the United States is and has been doing everything that it possibly can to help resolve this conflict other than using military force- and that would definately be a mistake.

I dont see why not. The world right now isn't in chaos and cataclysmic events aren't happening. I support our current administration and thier policies.

i guess that is probebly the best approach so far, even though there should be a few minor modifications. it should moderate it, but let the middle east solve their own problems the way it's right for them.

Believe it or not, as I survey the list of possible actions the US could take, this may be the one that gets my highest rating -- tho I sure don't think the Bush team has seemed all that on the ball over the past few weeks. At a minimum, they have been giving mixed messages. If the purpose of this has been to give Israel time to do the ugly business of tracking down terrorists who hide amid civilians, perhaps Bush's rope-a-dope strategy has been the wisest course (if poorly executed at times). The bottom line is that there is no good answer here. It seems clear to me that, no matter that a Palestinian state would be a desirable outcome, it's clear that the PLO are the bad guys in this whole scenario. The fact that ever-"sophisticated" Europe (home of some really awful anti-semitism recently, by the way) can play their moral equivalency games, means that the U.S. has to be coy about not overplaying its hand in Israel -- as the future of the War on Terrorism will go smoother if we a... Read more