Here is Sampo–my hiphop abbreviation for Samantha Power–suggesting that we should maybe impose a solution in Israel/Palestine. She said all this six years ago, before she got took to the woodshed:
“dreadful… a terrible thing to do, … fundamentally undemocratic,” she
said, it was essential to stop Israeli and Palestinian leaders who seem
“politically destined to destroy the lives of their own peoples.” She
suggested that just as “external intervention” in Rwanda might have
prevented genocide, doing the the same in “Palestine-Israeli situation”
would likely prove “lesser evils.”
Apparently Commentary and American Thinker (which teed up the Sandlers last week) have their knockers in a twist about this (I've decided not to use the word knickers anymore out of sensitivity). Sampo sounds very logical to me (and Richard Silverstein, whose post I link). The great Henry Siegman has suggested an imposed solution. So has Martin Indyk here, the protean Aussie whom I last saw buzzing around AIPAC in June. Let's remember that solutions were imposed on the Palestinians and Israelis in 47, not that anyone cared, and on India and Pakistan then. Fairness was an issue in both partitions. A lot of blood spilled over non-fairness then. But there's something to be said for the India/Pakistan lines.
The problem with imposing a solution, of course, is that Israelis are so reasonable and fair and western and democratic, who is anyone in the west to tell them what to do? They have always come up with the right answers there, and the Palestinians are rejectionist and backward. I wonder what the American people think. I'm sure Obama and McCain will argue over this at the next presidential debate and all the television networks can do think-pieces about imposed solutions and interview Les Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations and Ken Pollack of the Saban Center, maybe even Sampo. Heck, she's gonna be secretary of state someday, god willing.
