- South Carolina ends Quinnipiac’s tournament run in Sweet 16
- Quinnipiac acrobatics and tumbling dominates Glenville State
- Quinnipiac women’s basketball takes on South Carolina in Sweet 16
- Column: Another game, another hero
- Quinnipiac women’s basketball advances to Sweet 16
- Harvard ends Quinnipiac men’s ice hockey season in Lake Placid
- Chronicle Sports Staff makes March Madness picks
- Multicultural Suite to open in Student Center
- Assistant director of OFSL to resign on March 10
- GSA hosts peaceful protest for transgender rights
Middle East peace process still in stages of infancy
The only way to ever experience a peaceful Middle East is by treating the countries involved like small children. It is the current trend that the United States intervenes or speaks out about the Middle East only when severe violence occurs like a missile attack by Israel or attacks by Palestinian terrorists.
The United States must change this immediately. Just as children realize that the quickest way to get their parent’s attention is to do something unacceptable, Israel and Palestine have come to realize violence was the quickest way to get the attention of the United States – “the peacekeeper of the world”.
When President Bush assumed the Office of the President of the United States, his Middle East policy was basically not to have one. He stayed out and hoped that the leaders would figure it out themselves. However, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurred, he quickly rethought that policy. Before President Bush took office President Bill Clinton was very involved with the Middle East, particularly near the end of his term.
President Clinton had the leaders of Palestine and Israel visit Washington DC several times with the goal of attaining peace in the region. Every time peace seemed to be on the horizon, something happened to derail it.
President Bush could not have differed more from President Clinton’s hands-on Middle East policy. This has led to major inconsistencies in American policy. I am not judging which President had a better policy or which was more effective since it is too early to tell. However, I do believe that the major differences in policy from one day to the next are very damming to the entire peace process.
Without a stable policy for the region, anarchy will reign free and will only get progressively worse. We must find a solution now.
As a nation, we must develop a consistent policy of either staying strong in the region and inviting both sides to the US regularly for conferences or staying out of the process entirely.
It is difficult to say which stance will bear more plentiful and preferred results but one thing is certain; whichever policy the US develops must be a consistent one. By entering and leaving the process repeatedly, it is difficult for both sides to realize the necessity and immediacy of the problem.
Both nations use the constant change to their advantage as well. Just as a small child will ruin furniture or color the walls to get the attention it so craves, Israel and the Palestinian terrorists will blow the other sides up to get the US back into the process – or out of it, as the case may be.