Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (27342)	4/26/2002 8:15:12 PM
From: Condor	Respond to of 281500

I get the feeling they are walking a tight rope. Trying not to fall. Not falling yet but certainly twisting in the wind it would appear. U.S. Studying New Saudi Plan on Mideast Crisis Apr 26 7:19pm ET By Randall Mikkelsen CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has presented President Bush with "constructive" new proposals for ending the violence in the Middle East and building a permanent peace which the United States is now studying, the White House said on Friday. The plan, which an analyst called modest and realistic, was disclosed as President Bush insisted Israel must end its military offensive in Palestinian areas "now." It was Bush's first explicit call for an immediate halt and followed another Israeli raid defying his earlier demands. "There has been some progress, but it's now time to quit it altogether. It's time to end this," Bush said of the Israeli offensive. "Well, we'll see what happens. I know they've heard us," he told reporters at his ranch in Texas. The Saudi plan, presented at talks between Bush and Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah on Thursday, complements an earlier Saudi land-for-peace initiative for normalizing relations with Israel that was adopted by Arab leaders in Beirut in March. "There are some different elements in there that further define how we get to that vision he (Abdullah) talked about," in the Beirut plan, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said. "It's a basis for discussion." Major elements of the plan include: -- An Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian areas; -- An end to the Israeli siege of the West Bank town of Ramallah; -- Deployment of an international peacekeeping force; -- Reconstruction of damaged Palestinian areas; -- Renunciation of violence; -- Talks on a political settlement to Israeli-Palestinian issues, as opposed to near-term security issues; -- And an end to Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas. It also calls for U.S. leadership in implementing United Nations resolution 242 calling for an Israeli withdrawal from lands seized in the 1967 Middle East war, in exchange for recognition of Israel's borders. Many of the provisions of what the White House called the Saudi "paper" are in line with U.S. thinking, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "The president views that as constructive." Many of the paper's ideas were ones "that we can make progress on," he said. One difference is in the proposal for an international peacekeeping force. The United States has instead said it could support international monitors of a peace deal. Washington has also made demands of Palestinians, including halting suicide bombings and renouncing terrorism. The plan seems to reflect a Saudi interest in finding common ground with Washington, at the possible risk of falling short of demands by many Arabs for immediate results in obtaining a permanent peace deal, said Middle East analyst Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland. "It's actually remarkably modest. It seems to be more incremental than ambitious in its design," he said. "It's more realistic in terms of gaining U.S. support. The real question is whether it will also be seen as a kind of escapism by Arab public opinion." U.S. and Saudi officials would discuss the proposals in follow-up meetings while the Saudi delegation remained in the United States after the summit, McCormack said. Bush's call for an Israeli withdrawal set the most specific terms for Israel since his April 4 speech demanding a pullout "without delay." He had never personally used the word "now" in calling for a withdrawal although a top aide had used the word. Fleischer said Friday there had been no change in policy. Abdullah warned Bush on Thursday that U.S. ties with the Arab world were at risk over Middle East violence. But Bush's new call raised the stakes for him after his credibility was undermined by Israel's defiance of his April 4 speech and a subsequent backing off by the administration. Telhami said Bush was not likely to make the same mistake twice and would probably have "another step in mind" if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ignored him once more. Bush on Thursday urged Israel to end its military campaign and peacefully resolve standoffs with Palestinians in the West Bank and Bethlehem. But Israeli forces on Friday launched a raid on the West Bank town of Qalqilya, killing a militant leader and detaining 46 people. Israel swiftly pulled out again and said it was acting to root out "terrorists and suicide attackers." Bush said he had told Abdullah on Thursday that all the parties in the region had a responsibility to make peace and that Washington was committed to Israel's security. But he urged restraint in congressional efforts to show support for Israel. He opposed a proposal to put new aid for Israel in a $200 million emergency spending measure. Also, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas put off at the White House's request a pro-Israeli resolution, a DeLay aide said on Friday. Bush said he hoped and believed that Congress recognized that Washington had interests in the area beyond Israel. "We've got to have good relationships with the Saudis and the Jordanians and the Egyptians, and our foreign policy is aimed to do that," he said. siliconinvestor.com

To: John Carragher who wrote (27342)	4/26/2002 9:08:14 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Just watched a former military guy on TV explaining Iraq might be attacked by us, seizing their oilfields in the south, then squeezing them from the north and using precision bombing attacks to tale out central command. Actually it didn't sound that unlikely despite our lack of overt support from allies. Someone ought to take Saddam's oil from him. He doesn't deserve to have that kind of clout. Don't understand why we didn't take it from him during the Gulf War. And he's certainly not an elected leader so the Iraqis would probably love to be free of him. Saddam's oil could pay for the campaign. That's the best part. But then PLEASE let's start getting off oil. Isn't everyone sick to death of the Middle East?