Can the US bring peace in the Middle East?

The map steissd. It was a map of greater Israel without the territories.

It was a concerted effort to make it look small as well. And threatened.

When they did the color thing (showing them surrounded by Arabs), through color, greater Isreal was depicted as Jewish territory.

0 Replies

Steve as 4100 wrote:

His policy is to work towards the establishment of greater Israel, no matter the cost in human life, Arab or Israeli.

Such allegations should be proven. I do not need quotations of Sharon's speeches 25-50 years ago, but any of his current actions aimed to creation of the Greater Israel (by the way, historic Greater Israel covers territory from Nile to Euphrates, so where are proofs of Mr. Sharon's attempts to conquer Jordan, Iraq, part of Egypt and part of Turkey?).
By the way, Steve's color of hair and gender have nothing to do with my usage of term "blonde's (and not "blond's") logic". Initially I wanted to use the term "female logic" but it has unnecessary sexist connotation. The time has come to assess activities of politicians not on the level of mantra ("Sharon is a war criminal, Hare Krishna! He craves for Greater Israel, Hare Rama!"), but on their actual political behavior.

0 Replies

By the way, the map where Israel is depicted in Arab surrounding does not include territories. Another map actually does, I shall contact the author and propose him to remove territories from the map. I am acquainted with this man, and I know that he does not support settlements or annexion of the West Bank.
By the way, Israel is really a small country, no effort is needed to present it like this.

0 Replies

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/data/images/satira/2003/05/06/jacky-06may03-eng.jpg

0 Replies

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/data/images/satira/2003/04/22/jacky-22apr03-eng.jpg

0 Replies

The real Saddam, please stand up! Wink

0 Replies

(AP) - Frustrated Palestinian officials harshly criticized Hamas on Saturday, saying the Islamic militant group's abandonment of talks aimed at ending attacks against Israelis could torpedo a new peace plan just as it was getting off the ground. The Palestinian foreign minister chided Hamas, saying it should "act responsibly." Hamas officials said Friday they were cutting off their truce negotiations with Palestinian officials in anger over Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas' concessions at a Mideast summit Wednesday in Jordan

0 Replies

One of the problems with these kinds of major initiatives is that they tend to stir up the most radical factions -- and can sometimes lead to unintended consequenses.

The lives of Abbas and Sharon are probably in great, great danger. And the fact that both men seem to be willing to talk and make concessions probably could end up making the already out-of-control extreme factions from both sides even more reckless.

As I said (either in this thread or one of the other similar ones) I have been steadfast over the years of the opinion that NO solution could be worked out in this area -- but I have come to relax that opinion in the face of what these two guys truly seem to be trying to do.

It would be better --MUCH BETTER -- for the rest of the world if these two factions could work out their problem, because if they don't, at some point "their problem" will become the world's problem. They may not be the dynamite -- but more than likely they are the fuse.

0 Replies

Frank, These two guys can't do it all by themselves. They need the support of the international community - including all the Arab countries. They must provide the necessary security by providing international police/army to enforce any agreement. Otherwise, any extremist organization could destroy any hopes - and they'll always start at square one. c.i.

0 Replies

Agree. But when you refer to international peacekeepers, I would like to see here Americans. They are the only ones that can be trusted by Israel. We have negative experience with so-called international peacekeepers. In 1967 they withdrew from Sinai on the first request of Nasser that wanted to start a war. In 2000 they abstained from any actions when Hizballah abducted soldiers from the Israeli territory. Blatant pro-Arabism of the European and the Third World countries makes their peacekeepers non grata, they are potential accomplices of terrorists. Americans seem having more integrity and ability to be a fair mediator. Of course, if the U.S. government agrees to send troops here...

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

Agree. But when you refer to international peacekeepers, I would like to see here Americans. They are the only ones that can be trusted by Israel.

Unfortunately, they are also the ones who will side with Israel in any dispute -- alnmost without regard to whether Israel is right or wrong. And even if they find a reason to redress Israel -- or find fault with Israel on some matter -- they will treat is it very lightly.

The American government really shouldn't be involved in this issue bucause the American government will never be impartial -- and never has been.

I don't think that is the case with the American people -- but on the issue of Israel, the American people are not the American government.

0 Replies

No one asks U.S. Army to join raids against terrorists. When the Palestinian State is established, such raids will be possible only within borders of 1967, and IDF can do this alone. On the contrary, if the GIs are deployed between Israel and Palestine, everyone can be sure that they will do anything necessary to prevent infiltration of terrorists to the proper Israeli territory. If the peacekeepers are French, I am afraid, they will help to terrorists with munition, if the latter run out of it. And the commanders coming from the poor countries of the Third World may be easily bribed by the terror groups leaders (such things often happened in Lebanon).

0 Replies

steissd, That'a a nice ideal on paper, but look what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. c.i.

0 Replies

frolic wrote:

News Update
Last Updated: Thursday, 1 May, 2003, 15:30 GMT

Quote:
Gaza gun battle 'kills 12'
Twelve Palestinians, including three Hamas militants and three children, have been killed in Gaza City during a big incursion by Israeli troops, Palestinian doctors say.

A leading Hamas member, Yusef Abu Hein - the main target of the raid - and two of his brothers were reported to be among those killed.

Israeli troops backed by tanks and helicopter gunships surrounded a house where Hein's family live, and a gun battle ensued when he and his brothers refused to give themselves up.

The BBC's James Rodgers in Gaza said they traded fire with the Israeli force for hours and the fighting could be heard across the city.

According to witnesses, the Israeli troops finally blew up the house, killing those inside.

The incursion came hours after the release of an internationally-backed "roadmap" on Wednesday aimed at ending the violence between Israelis and Palestinians.

The most troubling is the timing of this incursion. It seems like the IDF is laughing in the face of Bush and they want to send a signal to the world=> "We still own the occupied territories and we still kill at will, no matter what Bush and his fellows tell you"

Exactly how many promises did the Palestinians live up to after Oslo? None.

How many did the Israeli's keep? All major ones.

If anyone kills at will, its the suicide bombers; but as long as Israel or America is on the wrong end of them, then that's ok, isnt it?

0 Replies

frolic wrote:

The right to return.

Why has a Jewish taxidriver in New York, who never has been in Israel, more right to 'return' to his homeland than a Palestinian in Jordan who still has the keys of his frontdoor of the house he used to live in in current Israel.

Well, for one thing, ISRAEL IS A JEWISH STATE. Jeez, does it take that much brains?

And by the way, if you had read ANY history on the war of independence, you would have found that Israel never forced ANY Arabs to leave; they did so on the urgings of their Arab brethren.

0 Replies

Saudis: Bush accepted linking normalization to right of return
**************************************************************

Saudi Sources: Normalization With Israel Issue Caused 24-Hour Crisis With US

London Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic 05 Jun 03 p1 [Report by Abd-al-Latif al-Minawi in Sharm al-Shaykh: "Twenty Four Crisis Between Saudi Arabia and United States Almost Caused Prince Abdallah's Withdrawal From Sharm al-Shaykh"]

[With thanks to www.mideastweb.org/mewnews1.htm ]

[FBIS Translated Text] Informed sources have revealed that relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States went through a 24-hour crisis at the Sharm al-Shaykh summit that almost caused Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah Bin-Abd-al-Aziz to pull out from the summit's closing session.

The sources said US President George Bush resolved the problem that revolved around a paragraph on normalization with Israel that was included in the proposed final statement. They added that the US President asserted his positive position and told his aides to delete the paragraph causing the dispute and said he was willing to go personally to Prince Abdallah to persuade him to attend.

Sources in the Saudi delegation said they appreciate the US President's position and understanding of the crown prince's view.

The crisis revolved around a paragraph that the US delegation included and which declared the summit conferees' agreement on normalization as part of what was called confidence-building steps between the Arab and Israeli sides. The US delegation at the negotiations that were held at the ministerial level insisted on not deleting the paragraph. A Saudi source said Prince Abdallah was informed and he in turn insisted on rejecting it and said the Saudi delegation would leave Sharm al-Shaykh if the paragraph was not deleted and therefore would not take part in the final statement.

Regarding the US delegation's justifications, the source said they considered it necessary for supporting the negotiations later but the Saudi side presented a written document that the Saudi Government had sent last month explaining its position that rejects normalization.

Saudi Ambassador in Washington Prince Bandar Bin-Sultan handed the document to the White House, which clearly stated the three conditions stipulated at the Beirut summit -- the ending of all the occupation, the refugees' right to return, and Jerusalem as the Palestinians' capital -- after which recognition would be made once these conditions have been met.

On his part, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Sa'ud al-Faysal said they [the Arabs] value highly President Bush's position and appreciate his personal commitment to achieving peace.

[Description of Source: London Al-Sharq al-Awsat in Arabic -- Influential Saudi-owned London daily providing independent coverage of Arab and international issues; editorials reflect official Saudi views on foreign policy]

0 Replies

frolic wrote:

Quote:

The right to return.

Why has a Jewish taxi driver in New York, who never has been in Israel, more right to 'return' to his homeland than a Palestinian in Jordan who still has the keys of his front door of the house he used to live in in current Israel.

Unless you are brain dead you know the answer to that question. It would mean the end of the Jewish State of Israel. Of course that is exactly what you and the Arab world is striving for.
For your information that Jewish taxi driver in New York is more likely to a Moslem from Pakistan or the neighboring region.

If you don't understand that maybe someone can draw you a picture.

0 Replies

So, not even a week goes by before blood runs in the street folllowing another "noble, gallant peace summit".

Naturally the Bush administration got all it wanted: a "money shot."

Quote:

To signify a new era of American peacemaking in the Middle East, the Israeli and Palestinian prime ministers are to appear together publicly for the first time here on Wednesday, in the company of the American president.

A lot has stood in the way of this image: Palestinian terrorism, Israeli occupation, a swimming pool.

The Americans have dealt decisively with that last obstacle: White House operatives had the Jordanians build a bridge over the pool behind the king's new palace here, officials said, so that the leaders could walk over the water, side by side, toward the massed cameras.

When the first bridge proved too narrow for more than one man to cross at once, the Americans had the Jordanians tear it down and start over, officials said.

On Wednesday, after a series of meetings in assorted combinations, the three leaders are supposed to cross the swimming pool with King Abdullah of Jordan, providing, in White House image-making parlance, the "money shot" of the summit meeting.

Then Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian prime minister, is supposed to make his most explicit call to date for an end to the armed intifada, or uprising, against Israel, officials from three of the groups taking part in the talks said. Mr. Sharon is expected to endorse a vision of two states living side by side in peace.

Both statements were drafted by the Americans and then amended in separate negotiations with the Israelis and Palestinians. Each side said today that the other's statement would not go as far as it would like. But each also acknowledged that the other was moving, and each wondered how far the other might go.

Dore Gold, an adviser to Mr. Sharon, said, "The president of the United States, who has just won a major military victory against Iraq, creates a huge wake in the Middle East even when he is engaged in only the first steps of any kind of diplomatic process." He said follow-through by the parties would determine the success of that process.

Referring to the White House, one Palestinian official said, "The question is the attention span."

A Bridge Not Quite Far Enough

And here's the money shot:

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030604/lthumb.1054757505.mideast_summit_bush_ny197.jpg

I'm wowed. How about you?

0 Replies

PDid, You're "wowed." About what, exactly? c.i.

0 Replies

While there appear to be many that applaud Bush's stern determination to bring about a lasting peace in the middle-east, I find it to be, at best, well choreographed drama of the finest Greek tradition. Totally lacking in serious understanding of long held resentments and geo-politics. But it all looks good for his re-election resume' complete with photo-op images. Sharon is no less a world class terrorist than is Arafat.

0 Replies

Can the US bring peace in the Middle East?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know