Can the US bring peace in the Middle East?

0 Replies

The latest from the democratic government in Israel

Foreigners and Israeli civilians entering the Gaza Strip will have to sign waiver forms absolving the army of responsibility if they're killed or injured in military operations.

The form requires all foreigners, including United Nations relief workers, to acknowledge they are entering an unsafe area.

They must also declare that they are not peace activists.

The move comes after the deaths of a number of foreign journalists and human rights activists in Israel, particularly those from the International Solidarity Movement whose volunteers work as human shields in the Palestinian territories

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Not the Israeli army is meant

Perhaps not by you -- and perhaps not by most Israelis. But you said "Israeli security services persecute those that tend being violent" -- and most thinking people would consider what the Israeli army does to be violent.

Quote:

Yeah!

And the Palestinians claim they are trying to calm things down that way too.

Fact is blame for the mess over there falls EQUALLY on both sides -- and there will never be peace there because both sides are essentially concrete headed.

0 Replies

Palestinians may claim anything they want: there is no other way to take care of abusive servicemen except prosecuting and trying them, at least, in the democratic country. Which alternatives do they propose regarding these offenders: to abduct them and to kill secretly in some mythologic cellars of the General Security building? They obviously confused Mr. Sharon with Saddam Hussein: the latter methods were favorite ones of the Iraqi dictator.

0 Replies

You didn't have to go that far to find an example, the Palestinians routinely lynch people suspected of collaborating with Isreal.

After almost every one of Isreal's targeted killings that kill the non-targeted there is a lynching of a alledged traitor.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

CdK wrote:
Unfortunately there are such idiots on both sides.

I admit that we have idiots of our own. The main difference is as follows: Israeli security services persecute those that tend being violent; reciprocal Palestinian treatment of their idiots is pending.

Actually the Palestinians have made efforts. They can be called half hearted but they really don't ahve much to work with. Political capital must be considered for practical purposes. The PA is simply not strong enough (and much of their weakness can be attributed to Isreal's actions) to takle the kind of actions necessary.

International intervention is an option that the Palestinians and Arabs agree to but that Isreal rejects. My qualm with Isreal is the importance they place on keeping the strategical occupied lands instead of a priority in conflict resolution.

People who say Isreal doesn't prosecute their own:

Please read up, there are exceptions but off the top of my head I can recall many cases in which Isreali soldiers were prosecuted for looting and other non-violent trangressions. The Israelis who participated in terrorist attacks against Arabs were also almost always caught and punished.

0 Replies

CdK wrote:

International intervention is an option that the Palestinians and Arabs agree to but that Isreal rejects.

Well, as an Israeli, I can accept only American intervention. Pro-Palestinian bias of EU, Russia and UN is so obvious that the multinational forces may be used by Palestinians in order to commit attacks on Israel and remain impune (I want just to remind an abduction of the Israeli soldiers by Hizballah on the Lebanese border after withdrawal of IDF. UN peacekeepers were present on the site but they did nothing to prevent this act of aggression. More, UN Secretary General made all the possible to prevent Israeli access to records of this attack made by one of the Indian soldiers). Only Americans, especially while Mr. Bush is a President, may be considered fair and unbiased mediators.
EU is not trustworthy while France is dominant there. Comments of the French ambassador in London regarding Israel, and absence of reaction of the French State Department show what is the real approach of this country toward the Mideastern conflict.
About Russia: President Putin tends to be unbiased, but the strongest pro-Arab lobby in the Russian State Department restricts his possibilities (there were rumors that Mr. Putin was prone to support the U.S. action in Iraq, but he was alone having such an approach in the whole administration).

0 Replies

Palestinians have accepted, in principle, AMERICAN military intervention.

Isrealis reject AMERICAN military intervention (or any outside intervention in the form of a military force).

Realistically it would have some turks as well but it's all moot since Isreal would not accept them placing their feet in the territories.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

People who say Isreal doesn't prosecute their own:

Please read up, there are exceptions but off the top of my head I can recall many cases in which Isreali soldiers were prosecuted for looting and other non-violent trangressions. The Israelis who participated in terrorist attacks against Arabs were also almost always caught and punished.

I don't think anyone in this thread said that Israel does not prosecute their own. But to prosecute a few -- considering the magnitude of the carnage being inflicted by Israeli forces -- is hardly the kind of thing that will stop the nonsense from that side.

The nonsense on the Palestinian side seems almost impossible to stop because of a variety of reaons -- some of which have to do with the immense rage and feelings of frustration the Palestinians feel in this very unequal battle. Israel is a state with a functioning government in place; the Palestinians are little more than a ragtag group of individuals fuming at what is happening to them.

In any case, much of the hard-line Israeli policy of retribution for each act of violence on the part of the Palestinians -- is little more than state sponsored terrorism itself.

Is it justified? Well -- I could certainly argue that IT IS. And if I were an Israeli, that is precisely what I would argue. But any intelligent, uncommited person could easily also argue it isn't.

Is it effective? Hell no! It is easier to argue that it is counterproductive. And that happens to be one of the reasons I so despise what Bush and his handlers are doing to our country -- which essentially is following the lead of Israel in what I consider to be a failed, counterproductive policy.

We'll see.

I may be wrong -- but I think my position will prove to be correct.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

And thank you for the sentiment, Steissd. As Craven once noted, you are always a gentleman.

One thing I might correct, though. I am NOT a liberal. On a continuum with VERY LIBERAL at 1 and VERY CONSERVATIVE at 10 -- I can be found at point "P."!

I'm an iconoclast -- at times I find myself in agreement with liberal positions and at other times with conservative positions -- and naturally at other times I find myself in considerable disagreement with each. But I suspect that the problems the world faces right now will not be found in liberal or conservative thinking --nor even in an amalgam of both.

We've got to start thinking outside the box.

But first, we've got to identify the box.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Palestinian Authority became a "ragtag group of individuals" as a result of the violence they started on 09.28.2000. Before that it was a functional administartion having its own security forces, it was almost an independent country.

At least you admit 09.28.2000 was an important day in the Palestinian/Israeli relationship. And there is one man responsable for the escalation and that is Sharon. Like you said, Before SHARON it was a functional administartion having its own security forces, it was almost an independent country. After Sharon its one big bloody mess.

And about those prosecutions of Israeli murderers. There is a big difference between a trial and a formal investigation. Like we saw with Sharon and the Shabra and Shatilla massacre. There are investigations, but they only serve to blame it on the other side and plead the Israeli soldiers free.

0 Replies

I want to remind one small historic fact: the Israeli PM on 09.28.2000 was Ehud Petaine, sorry, Philippe Barak. Mr. Sharon was the leader of the parliamentary opposition after resignation of Mr. Netanyahu, and he did not have any real power by that time. The country's public opinion was still captured by leftists, and Mr. Sharon had very low electoral rating. The failure of Petaine-Barak brought him to power.
His visit to the Temple Mount has nothing to do with onslaught of violence: the Temple Mount is a holy place of both Jews and Muslims, and there is no prohibition for any Jew to visit it. More, security services warned PM Petaine-Barak about Palestinian preparations for a serious terror war (they started collecting and storing in the emergency warehouses large amounts of medicaments, mainly those used for trauma patients treatment, food and munition) since spring of 2000, half a year before Mr. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, but he preferred to ignore all the warnings.

0 Replies

The historic fact is that the PA and Israel were on the verge of a solution. And Sharon wanted to break up the talks. Thats why he went to temple mount. By this visit Sharon gave the startsignal of the second intifada. Before his visit the relationship between Israeli and the palestinians was the best in years.

0 Replies

The signal for violence was given by Arafat after failure of his talks with Petaine-Barak in Camp David. We may give different assessments of the proposals he got there, maybe some of them were unacceptable; but he preferred to start a terror war instead of negotiating on the alleged disadvantageous sides of the Israeli proposals. If Mr. Sharon did not visit the Temple Mount (and this is not a casus belli at all, the leaders of the right wing visited the site many times before in 1994-2000, and this did not cause any Palestinian response), then Arafat would find another excuse.

0 Replies

The rest of the article.

0 Replies

Arafat's reaction did not surprise me. This veteran terrorist will not be satisfied with anything less than complete extinction of Israel. Besides this, he feels insulted of Americans ignoring him and talking to his former aide.

0 Replies

Frolic, interesting question. I'm inclined to vote YES, but I don't want to tempt fate.

Also, if you forgive me for pointing this out, the question could be better framed...

Can the US bring peace... Well yes it could. The US is the only country that can impose a peace settlement. It has the power, the resources the money and the influence to do it. Whether or not Bush has the will to do it is another question. Again from what I've seen so far I'm tempted to say he will. But my suspicion until recently was that whatever promises he made (especially to Blair before the war) he would revert to form and favour Israel over Palestine and thus let the chance for peace fall.

But watching Bush + Mubarak then Bush + Sharon and Abu Mazen I thought there were grounds for optimism. I thought Bush really meant it. But even as I write it seems to be unravelling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2968404.stm

The war criminal Sharon is determined to sabotage this road map just like he sabotaged the Oslo accords. I would not be surprised if he has deliberately provoked the Palestinians making it impossible for Hamas to lay down their arms as Abu Mazen ordered.

So having written all this, I'm going to vote No the Israelis will default.

0 Replies

LOL!

Quote:

The Palestinian militant group, Hamas, says it is breaking off talks with Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen in protest at his promise to end violence against Israelis.

You read this as though Israel will be the ones causing the problems? Hamas, a terror organization of the worst kind, is basically saying they will not stop the spread of terror, yet you say

Quote:

The war criminal Sharon is determined to sabotage this road map just like he sabotaged the Oslo accords. I would not be surprised if he has deliberately provoked the Palestinians making it impossible for Hamas to lay down their arms as Abu Mazen ordered.

So having written all this, I'm going to vote No the Israelis will default.

Where does this come from?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo)
I don't know what you are reading but it appears that the Palestinians are the obstacle in the march toward peace. The Palestinian terror organization still refuse to lay down their arms and continue to insist that Israel is illegitimate and must be annihilated. The peace effort will fail unless they can be somehow persuaded to change their course. Further as long as an angry and disgruntled Arafat is the power behind the scene, which he is now, there is no hope for peace.

I should note as usual your bias clouds your judgment.

0 Replies

Can the US bring peace in the Middle East?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know