Expectations are so low for the Mideast conference that begins tonight in Annapolis, Md., that success may be defined as no fistfights. The participants are so weak (including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in photo from meeting today with Bush), the issues are so tough and the uninvited so key (Hamas, Iran) that lack of progress will surprise no one. But President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice deserve credit for optimistically — though belatedly — taking a leading role on the issue of a revived peace process. And it was encouraging to see Syria sign on. Maybe the two-day Annapolis event at least won’t go down in the history books as a gathering that made matters worse.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Chas on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Chas on Open thread 8/29
- Chas on Open thread 8/29
- Rage on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- BlueJay on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Phantom on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Phantom on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Boxlock on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
- Phantom on McCain’s surprise pick for veep
37 Comments
heh. MAYBE!
One - and only one - precondition. Israel’s neighbors and enemies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the various and sundry factions, and their Iranian sponsors, must agree that Israel has a right to exist in peace. AND MEAN IT.
Once that is agreed to, nearly everything else should be on the table, and a deal is probably workable.
That, of course, is the sticking point. And the leaders of Hamas and Co. don’t want peace in any case, any more than the leaders of many of the neighboring states. Israel is their boogyman, useful to divert their population’s attentions while they live in crap and their leaders roll in petrodollars. With Hamas & Co., hostilities with Israel keeps them in (generally) Iranian-supplied weapons; those weapons primarily exist to keep them in power, nmot fight Israelis; Israel is a means to an end, and the end is power. They will not give that up.
And yes, there are a few nutcases in Israel too, determined to expand the nation and wedded to perpetual hostilities as a means of keeping the aid flowing from the US. But that’s a managable political issue in Israel, and not the primary stumbling block.
The key to peace lies with Israel’s opponents. Don’t hold your breath.
they live in crap and their leaders roll in petrodollars.
Posted by: GMC70 | November 26, 2007 at 01:28 PM
You mean US dollars, right?
There’s a way to stop that, you know.
bush has been asleep at the wheel for too long, so he waits until he’s a lame duck president, before making any kind of motions that he is a peace maker. He’s such a joke.
Think how difficult it would be to agree that the Israelies have a right to live in your home that you’d vacated out of fear. No small task.
The Phantom,
Yeah. Legacy, don’t you know. He’s haunted by that word; got him into Yale as a “legacy” admission, and now it threatens to become the albatross around his neck.
Still, I would be happy to see an agreement. Anything to improve the miserable lot of the Palestinians, and the impossible situation in which Israel finds itself.
Hey farmgirl, where you been? You and Vaughn Tolle have been totally remiss in your duties.
Phantom
It is the radical Palestinians who prevent real peace.
Home? Jews have always lived in “palestine” and in “Israel”.
Israel allows Palestinians and Arabs to work for the Israeli government, run for office in Israel and live in relative peace, in Israel.
Show me a Moslem nation that is this tolerant of Jews?
The Palestinians brainwash their kids, in their cartoons, to hate Jews and to distrust Jewish people.
The Palestinians are treated like dogs by the oil-rich Arab states.
The Palestinians were kicked out of nearly every other country in the region.
The Palestinians are political pawns, used by radical Moslems to hold on to power.
Exactly Econ 101!
If the Middle East loves the Palestinians so much, why doesn’t Jordan, Egypt, or Syria give them any land to live on?
TalkingPoints101,
Blah blah blah. Apparently it is too much to ask that you provide some less stale AIPAC spin.
Or for CF2K to be reasonable and logical?
CF2KSo, all you need to do, in your debate style, is to discredit the source?Actually trying to disprove a stated “fact” is too hard for you?
Bush has done more than enough to discreedit himself, which seems the one and only thing he knows how to do best.
Paul - there were some Jews living in Palestine but they did not rule oevr the land. That only happened after they drove millions from their homes.
That said, let us hope that Bush/Rice can accomplish something. Palestine will have to give up the ‘right of return’ even though it is guarunteed by international law. Israel will have to give up enough of the West bank to allow for the establishment of a sovereign state.
“Exactly Econ 101! If the Middle East loves the Palestinians so much, why doesn’t Jordan, Egypt, or Syria give them any land to live on?”
Better yet, why don’t we kick the Jews off of the Land the Palestinians already own?
This is none of our business. I cannot believe the liberals can crucify Bush for putting his nose where it doesn’t belong, but believe we should intervene in the PLO-Israeli debate!
We have enough problems at home.Where is the EU on this? Where is Russia? China?
For that matter - where are the rich arab nations?
Why is it, the world relies on the good ole USA to get into the middle of things - but then complain when we do, or attack us when the solutions don’t go their way?
We jump in every time, and have done so since Israel was first created.
It is none of our business - just like liberals claim Iraq is NOT our business.
As I’ve seen posted here many times - these people have been at war for centuries.
We (the USA) is NOT going to resolve it.
Bring our boys home.
Because our partianship toward Israel if very, very costly for us. If we’re not going to help reach a peacable conclusion to their conflict, then we should get clear out of it, and end our partianship. Either would be a logical and acceptable conclusion for me.
AmWay - since Israel is a client state of the US we are involved whether we like it or not.
EU and Russia are in the ‘quartet’; the Arab League years ago issued a proposal that included recognition of Israel.
Max off topic with some info you needed. The site is autobytel.com then go to the research tab.
Phantom, is that really you? Please re-read your last post.
Better watch out, the grammar and spelling police are working today.
Israel should not be a client state of ours. Let the rich EU take care of them.
We can’t take care of our fifty client states at home.
I cannot believe anyone against our involvement in Iraq, would want us in the middle of this historically bloody and hateful oponents.
Maybe if we kept our noses out, we wouldn’t get blamed when the world isn’t a pretty place.
Ben:
The Arab League may have issued such a proposal; however, the various groups that claim to represent the Palestanians are not a party to any such proposal, and have not signed on (though “Palestine,” represented by ???, is nominally a member). They are the ones who at this point are the stumbling blocks. And they are at this point the proxies for the other states, primarily Syria and Iran. Iran, of course, is the primary supplier of Hamas and Co., and is not a member of the Arab League.
Further, legal recognition is one thing; meaning it is another. That means that Iran and Syria have to quit supplying their proxies in attacking Israel.
Hi MPS, thanks for missing me
I’ve just been busy lately. I see not much has changed here…
GMC - i believe that the Abbas regime HAS also committed to that. Of course, he does not govern so much as one square inch of territory.
Too bad we undermined his government to the point that it has effective collapsed.
What this will take is nation-building with armed peace-keepers in place. The EU has offered such troops; we have blocked that idea.
Sort of a chicken-egg situation: you say the Palestinians should not resist the occupation but there is no guaruntee that if they meekly submit that they will ever be granted freedon. That is why peace-keepers are needed - separate the sides.
AmWay - you may recall that Bush ordered an emergency shipment of cluster bombs be sent to Israel to drop on Lebanon. So, like it or not, Israel is our client.
The United States should give Israeli’s Wyoming as the new Jewish State.
It’s a mostly desolate teritory and if we gave them free travel to the international city of Jerusalem (and the Muslims agreed to an International City), they’d probably do okay. Two Senators, a congressman or two.
But the Wyomings would turn into the new Palestinians, wouldn’t they?
Then we could focus on the problem that “God” put all of America’s oil under Muslim sand.
What is the likelihood of declaring Jerusalem an open city as part of any deal? NO ONE gets it, but all get access to it, and protection of the holy sites in Jerusalem for all religions.
What about a city counsel divided equally between Jews, Moslems, and Christians, with a city administration provided by the UN (though I have little faith the UN is competent to accomplish anything at all . . . give me a better alternative).
And yes, Jews will have to give up rebuilding the Temple on the Temple Mount, currently, of course, the site of Islam’s Temple of the Dome of the Rock. They may well rebuild the temple, but it will have to be on another site.
Of course, if you really want to stop the fighting over jerusalem…
You could turn it AND mecca into rubble.
THAT would stop the fighting and NO one would get it.
Or not? Maybe because idolitry is rampant? Love the geographic sites but ignore the words and the messages of both jesus and mohammed?
Remove the people and nuke ‘em both.
Oops, sorry. Left Moses out of the jesus and mohammed phrase.
they live in crap and their leaders roll in petrodollars.
Posted by: GMC70 | November 26, 2007 at 01:28 PM
You mean US dollars, right?
There’s a way to stop that, you know.
Posted by: Tom | November 26, 2007 at 01:33 PM
—–
Actually, Tom, not primarily US dollars. The US does not get the bulk of our oil from the Middle East (rather, it’s Mexico, Canada, and Venezuala IIRC), though the way oil flows as a commodity, that is of little consequence. It’s dollars, because that is the accepted international currency for oil.
As to what we can do about it, in the short term, not much. While there may be some long-term substitute for oil, someday, somewhere, there is no such large-scale substitute anywhere on the immediate horizon. Pouring billions into an “Apollo” style development program is unlikely to suddenly create one, though of course it might. Relying on technology to fix our problem is thus little more than blind faith. Certainly conservation is a large part of any solution, for lots of reasons, but the best driver of conservation is high price. It’s also the best driver of research into alternatives. High oil prices are just what the doctor ordered, though we don’t like to hear that.
Even if oil were no longer in such demand as a fuel, it would be invaluable for it’s chemical uses.
We will not forget how Palestinian Muslims laughed and clapped and danced on 09/11/01. Palestinian state = terrorist state. Appeasement never works.
One major problem with your post Rhonda, the Bush regime already admitted they won’t present any of their own ideas for peace. They are just going to sit there and do nothing, just like what they’ve been doing since they got in office.
I consider Israel’s and Israeli’s AND Muslims claim to “holy land” with just as much consideration as the US government gave to native American claims to holy land.
To whit: Israel should move. They vacated the land(they say anyway) for whatever reason. Others moved in. If the land of that Israel occupies is guaranteed them by God then let God mitigate the matter.
To wit you dumb wit.
Jews ruled for a thousand yrs. ending in 7th century, guess that gives them claim for perpetuity.
JRThe Jews did not all “leave” that land volunarily, and they did not ALL leave.
Morever, there has never, in history, but a “state” of Palestine.
The Palestinians have NEVER, EVER had their own country.
The irony is, if peace ever comes, it will be the Jews that gave the Palestinians their own country, not the Arabs!
Very true Econ. Very true.
Don’t suppose there will be debt of gratitude shown?
Unfortunately, probably more suicide bombers for thanks.