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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (49870)	10/7/2002 12:23:07 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The whole thing is a nightmare for many. Indeed... I find it hard to believe that all parties are honestly pursuing peace in a manner conducive to expedience and of mutual benefit. Well, I give a FAR larger benefit of a doubt to Israelis, if only because they are a democratic society, with many diverse opposition groups, including an voting Arab sector making up 20% of the total population. I don't see what excuse the authoritarian and totalitarian Arab (and Iran) regimes in the region have for not pursuing peace. If Egypt can manage it, so can they (if they have the desire). KC.. those who perceive the authoritarian regimes in the region as truly having a desire for peace are deluding themselves. It is in their interest to continue elevating the level of tension with Israel, using Arafat as their pawn (which he does in exchange for more money from them so sustain his own powerbase). Then Israel's talk of a peace process when the violence stops and a Palestinian State is all Bull$hit? Hardly... Remember... Israel conquered JORDANIAN property because King Hussein foolishly sought to use it to attack them in 1967 (despite Israel's pleas for Jordan to stay out of the fight). Now let me ask you.... Suppose you "friend" and I get in a fight because he's deliberately and belligerently blocking my driveway and constantly attacking and threatening to kill my family?? And when it becomes evident that evident that he's building up his courage to "do the deed" I decide to strike first, at the same time asking YOU to stay out of it. But you can't resist your friends urging that you and he together can "kick my @ss" so you try and sucker punch me from behind.. So the question is "how should I treat you"? I asked you to stay out of the fight, but you didn't, attacking me from a piece of property that juts into my own property... Should I take that property from you and put up a "fence" so you can't easily attack me again?? Well, that's what we're talking about here.. Except that the property Jordan lost included hundreds of thousands of your people... And Jordan DID NOT relinquish its claim on the West Bank until 1989. That means that Jordan could have signed a peace treaty with Israel and set up a demilitarization agreement in the West Bank at anytime between 1967 and 1989... but they didn't do so... And then suddenly they abandon the West Bank to Israel, declaring that they support an independent state for the Palestinians, something they had not supported between '67-'89... And even then, Jordan didn't sign a peace treaty with Israel until 1994. So we have to remember that there has been a change of power on the West Bank and Gaza... And the Israelis have had to deal with new power brokers, namely Arafat and the PA. And that hasn't worked. So if it requires reshaping the Palestinian power structure in order to identify some more moderate elements.. people who can make a promise and keep it, then maybe the violence will end. After all,.. let's face some facts here... the primary goal of the Palestinian father and mother is to feed their children and have employment. And Arafat really hasn't done a great job at providing either. And they will never get away from the fact that they rely upon Israel for their jobs. You don't see many Palestinians commuting into Jordan, now do you?? Once again, in sum... Israel is a democracy.. None of it's neighboring nations can realistically make such a claim (though Jordan is moving well in this direction). So let's recognize that when authoritarian governments don't opt for peace, it's because they are trying to distract their people from their own repression and economic corruption. Hawk

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (49870)	10/7/2002 3:42:06 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 281500

but the Lone Ranger decided to head him off at the pass and redirect the posse towards Iraq It's certainly hurt Tony Blairs standing. It's not as if the war crowd have a strong grip on things here. Tony has been going almost alone on some occasions. re: US rebuffs Blair’s Mideast peace bid Can't find the story now....where it go. ??? -g-

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (49870)	10/7/2002 5:57:14 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Found the Bush Blair story. It was in the Guardian. /edit opps just noticed it's been posted by you already. guardian.co.uk Bush veto on Middle East talks Humiliating rebuff for Blair initiative Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor Saturday October 5, 2002 The Guardian Tony Blair's drive for Middle East peace talks has suffered an embarrassing setback at the hands of the US president, George Bush, only days after the prime minister flagged up his plan at the Labour party conference in Blackpool. Mr Blair is pushing for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks, backed by an international conference, before the end the year. He has told colleagues that, with war looming in Iraq, he regards it as essential to deal with one of the main causes of Arab resentment against the west. But the Guardian has learnt that Mr Bush has blocked the initiative and has made it clear to Mr Blair that he does not want such talks to be held in the near future. Over the last fortnight Mr Blair has made two public calls for a revival of negotiations aimed at securing a final Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. He told the Commons, recalled last week to debate Iraq, that "we need a new conference on the Middle East peace" and "a massive mobilisation of energy to get the peace process moving again". On Tuesday he told the party conference that "by the year's end, we must have revived final status negotiations and they must have explicitly as their aims an Israeli state free of terror, recognised by the Arab world, and a viable Palestinian state based on the boundaries of 1967". Mr Blair has staked a great deal of political capital on his relationship with Mr Bush. But Downing Street and the Foreign Office are exasperated by the American leader's attitude. According to officials, in spite of the setback, Mr Blair is to continue to pursue the idea of peace talks over the next few months. Mr Bush's rebuff highlights a fundamental division between the US and Britain over the Middle East: the US sees dealing with Iraq as the priority whereas Britain sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the priority, either to be tackled first or, at least, alongside Iraq. A Whitehall official, describing the US and Israeli attitude towards a resumption of talks as "cool", said: "The lack of progress is poisoning everything in the region." There has been an increase in transatlantic traffic in recent weeks. Downing Street refused to disclose last night when Mr Blair last spoke to Mr Bush, saying only that there were on-going contacts at all levels. The prospect of a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian final settlement talks was raised by the Quartet group - made up of the United Nations, the US, the European Union and Russia - but no date has yet been set for the next meeting of the group. The US representative on the group is the secretary of state, Colin Powell, who shares Mr Blair's views on an urgent need for a peace conference. The outstanding issues for the final settlement talks are: the future of Jerusalem, which both Israel and the Palestinians claim as their capital; the fate of more than three million Palestinian refugees who demand a right to return to Israel; and the territorial boundary between Israel and a new Palestinian state. The Foreign Office is keen that an international conference be held in tandem to provide a fillip to the Israeli-Palestinian talks. London has been suggested as a venue for the international conference and Mr Blair as the chairman. The Israeli government reacted critically this week to the the prime minister's call for a revival of the peace conference and for all countries in the Middle East - Israel as well as Iraq - to honour United Nations resolutions. Violence continued yesterday, with Israeli police charging into one of the holiest sites in Jerusalem - known as Temple Mount to Jews and Haram as-Sharif to Muslims - after Palestinians dropped stones on Jews praying at the Western Wall. Israeli soldiers shot dead a 16-year-old Palestinian boy near Jenin in the West Bank and left a 12-year-old boy critically injured.