I’ll
Wait for Sales Day On This Peace Accord Deal
by
Patricia Neill
$100
Billion for peace between Israel and Palestine strikes me as just
a tad high for an "historic peace accord." I mean, didn’t
I just pay for the Oslo agreement, and all the rest of these "historic
peace accords"?
"According
to a variety of observers, it is conceivable that a final peace
agreement could cost as much as $100 billion to implement"
(UPI, seen at newsmax.com yesterday).
Would
it be asking too much for these boyos to at least have a little
war first? You know, nothing too big or too ugly. Something that
could play on CNN for a few weeks and we could then at least see
a reason for a $100 billion "peace accord."
As
it is, I’d have to fork over a whole bunch of money for the same
sort of "peace" that I’ve been seeing for what feels like
my entire lifetime in the Mideast. And frankly, I’d rather not.
The price is just too high. I’ll wait for the sale, thanks.
The
principal shysters of this deal are all too smug for me. Here’s
another one of those no-name spokespeople (may their tribe decrease!),
this one from Israel: "While funding will ultimately be critical
to implementing a deal, it seems reasonable to assume that the nations
of the world will find a way to provide funding for an historic
peace accord."
One
might ask, reasonable to whom? To the tribe of no-name spokespeople,
apparently, but it ain’t reasonable to me!
Well,
hell. How many "historic peace accords" do I have to pay
for? And will some accountant out there do the figuring and let
me know if a plain, simple war just might be cheaper than this peace
deal? My bet is it could be. After all, my country wouldn’t be involved,
and lord knows, we’ve given both Israel and Palestine enough money
to have themselves a nice little war to solve their interminable,
neverending disagreements.
And
why is it that I see that both sides of this longest-running ever
situation comedy known as a Israel/Palestinian peace process seem
to have Bill Clinton’s "legacy" shorthairs in their greedy
little mits? Tug them hairs, boys. This fella’s so desperate for
a legacy that there is no telling what he might do. Then again,
he left the brilliant Madeline Albright, that wonderwoman of calming
down the Balkans fame, in charge. Someone is going to have to take
the fall for this one, and it might as well be Mad.
Well,
I’m going to take an even approach on this one and wait for the
Sale on the Peace Accord.
Better
work on bringing down that price, Ms. Albright. Bill Clinton’s "legacy"
already stinks to high heaven, and it will be tough selling a load
of rotting fish, even to Americans.
July
14, 2000
Patricia
Neill is managing editor of a scholarly journal on the life and
work of William Blake, the 18th-century artist and poet.
© 2000 by Patricia
Neill
Patricia
Neill Archives
|