ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently held the first of several three-way talks among the United States, Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Although the initial meeting ended with little progress other than a commitment to meet again, the fact that Rice was able to get these country's leaders talking together in the same room is progress. And though these talks may seem insignificant and long overdue (this is nearly a 60-year-old conflict) year, they in fact are a groundbreaking success for the world. And the person we have to thank for that is our very own Condoleezza Rice.

Bush hasn't tried diplomacy? Then I wonder why Condi Rice has been on the road almost constantly and is likely to chalk up more frequent flier miles than any Secretary of State in history?

Consider this just three months ago:

Quote:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently held the first of several three-way talks among the United States, Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Although the initial meeting ended with little progress other than a commitment to meet again, the fact that Rice was able to get these country's leaders talking together in the same room is progress. And though these talks may seem insignificant and long overdue (this is nearly a 60-year-old conflict) year, they in fact are a groundbreaking success for the world. And the person we have to thank for that is our very own Condoleezza Rice.

SOURCE & MORE HERE

And Condi's major address to the Palestinians last fall HERE

A senior diplomatic official called the cancellation of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Israel visit unprecedented, Israel Radio reported on Tuesday.

According to the official, Washington's decision could be interpreted in the region as meaning that the US believed the peace process could not move forward due to the situation in Israel.

However, Dov Weisglass, who served as an adviser to former prime minister Ariel Sharon, told Army Radio on Tuesday morning that Rice's decision to cancel her trip may have been connected to situation in the PA, not necessarily the Israeli government alone.

Weisglass noted that with the current anarchy in the Gaza Strip and West Bank due to the infighting between the Fatah and Hamas factions, it would be difficult to determine which officials to hold talks with.

Israel Radio also reported Tuesday that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni spoke Monday night with Rice, although the government had not received an official report of the conversation.

Senior officials at Livni's office said that Rice's cancellation had no connection whatsoever to the talk they held.

Meanwhile, sources in Jerusalem expressed surprise over the cancellation, the report said, since meetings with the US Embassy had taken place just the day before in preparation for Rice's visit.

The Foreign Ministry confirmed late Monday night that Rice had cancelled her trip to Israel planned for next week due to the unstable political situation in Israel.

Rice was scheduled to meet with Israeli and Palestinian leaders following a stop-off in Moscow.

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Monday that the cancellation would not get in the way of US efforts to move forward with Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

"It's a change in plans, yes," McCormack admitted, but added that the US would "continue efforts to advance the Israeli-Palestinian track."

Walter, the USA made mistakes in WWII.

Foxy, Bush's peace efforts were only recent. Moreover, they are cursory.

It would have been far more honest to have posted the whole article instead of just the part that appears critical of the Secretary of State. It doesn't take a lot of effort to find a couple of paragraphs down:

I didn't see that you had an opinion, Walter. You posted a paragraph in a way that dishonestly appeared to dispute the progress that Condi has made. That needed to be pointed out. The other part of Armstrong's piece that I linked referred to subjects not specifically related to Middle East diplomacy.

Advocate, It's against international law to take over land as a result of war.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate, It's against international law to take over land as a result of war.

The Pals didn't adhere to law when, for instance, they relentlessly targeted children and other civilians. One can't expect just one side to adhere to rules.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate, It's against international law to take over land as a result of war.

The Pals didn't adhere to law when, for instance, they relentlessly targeted children and other civilians. One can't expect just one side to adhere to rules.

Advocate, It's against international law to take over land as a result of war.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate, It's against international law to take over land as a result of war.

Since almost EVERY piece of territory the US owns or possesses have been gained thru war,do you suggest we return them to the original owners?
Do we return the east coast to England?
Do we the southwest US to Mexico?
Do we return Puerto Rico to the Spanish?

How about other countries?
Do they return their land to its original owners,even if it was taken in war hundreds if not thousands of years ago?

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate, It's against international law to take over land as a result of war.

Since almost EVERY piece of territory the US owns or possesses have been gained thru war,do you suggest we return them to the original owners?
Do we return the east coast to England?
Do we the southwest US to Mexico?
Do we return Puerto Rico to the Spanish?

How about other countries?
Do they return their land to its original owners,even if it was taken in war hundreds if not thousands of years ago?

Well we bought the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska. We can keep those, yes?