Israel confirms talks with Syria
Israel confirms talks with Syria
Quote:
Israel says it is holding indirect talks with Syria to reach a comprehensive peace agreement.
A statement by the Israeli prime minister's office said both sides were talking "in good faith and openly".
The statement is the first official confirmation of reports in recent months of Turkish-mediated talks.
One possible consideration
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
Question: why is Turkey facilitating the talks and not, say, the US? Didn't Rice make a trip to the region several months ago with the intention of building a peace conference?
Although not necessarily the "right" answer is that when this is done with one of the Neighbor nations as the arbiter it holds less ammunition for other neighbors to ignore it since we're usually much nicer about acting as if we don't notice when they choose to do so. If your looking for accountability sometimes it's a good idea to put someone closer to the problem in the lead.
Now that doesn't mean we don't pay very close attention to whats being said.
Gentlemen,( Bourbon, JJackson )
Thank You I knew I could count on responses which lend to a need for more clarification of the realities when it comes to this particular region.
As such I wish to be enlightened to some of the considerations which put the lie to my comments.
I will start with several questions.
1- At what point has Syria ever acknowledged the right of Israel to even exist?
2- You mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood (Good Point) now what exactly are the options available for working towards change there wihtin the restraints of who or what is available.
(along those lines)
What were the current governments actions directly following our honorable speakers attempt at negotiations with the current leaders.
3- I am curious as to exactly what Israel has done to "keep" it's neighbor's in the stoneage. (Economically, Socially, etc)
4- Why is it I see those within the Arab world so concerned with ensuring that the Jews not be able to find archeological proof of their existence in regions if things are so cut and dry as many would portray them to be.
If you've read my other posts I hope you've recognized that I really do want to figure out what is truth vs what truth is to any particular group. Please help me to find that truth.:)
I don't think we are as far apart as it may at first appear.
Ken I completely agree that most of the areas of conflict have a large irredentist element and unsuspecting colonial cartographers have ended up creating carnage generations later. My ancestors may well have been among them. My country painted most of the world map pink and then drew lines on it which said much more about colonial administrative areas of responsibility than the religion, ethnicity or traditional allegiances of those who lived there. In their arrogance one assumes that they did not foresee a day that these peoples would be other than subjects of Empire but history should have taught them otherwise. I don’t shirk my share of responsibility for what – with the benefit of hindsight – I view as wrong and am very aware that my relatively comfortable existence is in large part due to a form of international political and economic inertia. The UK would not warrant a permanent Security Council seat today, much of its wealth can be traced back to slavery & empire, and while in ascendancy it – and the others with privilege – set up the rules of international law, global trade and financial markets in ways that were beneficial to them not the third world. It was ever such, but I think we should acknowledge the bias we benefit from, and have a care to try and redress the balance a little when we can – perhaps that is my duty as penance for the crimes of my forefathers.
“You folks sowed; we reap. As they say, it's an ugly job but somebody has to do it. When one delegates a job to another, one loses the ability to precisely define just how that job should be accomplished. Your lack of approbation is duly noted but rings quite hollow.”
It is not that I dispute who did the sowing I do disagree about how the reaping is being done, and who is doing it. I do agree with the general trust of the ICISS report (linked to earlier) which makes R2P interventions the prevue of the security council, with an effective override by the general assembly should they feel the SC was wrong, and the UN constitutional allowance for the use of force but only on its authority. Wars by NATO, or some other military coalition, should have no more legitimacy than if the Warsaw Pact had self-authorised the invasion of somewhere it accused of fermenting democratic uprisings in Poland. The underlying problem is no country should be authorising interventions in any other country only the UN – in its capacity as the planets council of countries – can do this. Taking this right upon yourself - for any nation - is hubris (and before you point it out - yes the UK are at least of guilty of this as any power current or historical).
Ron, happy to have obliged.
1] Never to the best of my knowledge but then I am not sure why they should or that acknowledging any countries right to exist is or should be a prerequisite to anything.
2] Firstly let me reject your implied premise. Why do you think you should be ‘working toward change’ in another countries government? I am not a fan of the US’s current administration but I am not sure - as I am not a citizen - that I should be trying to replace it. It is for you to decide and me to try pick a government for my country and then get ours to influence yours diplomatically. If I were to accept the premise then I would want to know why you are not also backing the MB against Mubarak in Egypt which is just as badly in need of regime change.
3] Lebanon a few times. Blockaded Gaza so the Palestinians have no way to become self-sufficient. UN figures have 70% of Gaza on 1$ a day which is about what the US gives in aid per capita to each Israeli.
4] This I know nothing about, but I am interested in why archaeological proof of anything should be relevant today. That there was a Jewish population in this part of the world in the past is – as far as I am concerned - a given, as is the existence of a Muslim population. As Ken pointed out map makers over the centuries have much to answer for and each party in a dispute is going to pick their moment and cartographer but the current disagreement centres on the creation of the modern state of Israel and the period since. Was enough – or any – attention given to the indigenous Palestinians? Did the young Israel ethnically cleans itself of Palestinians? Did the powers of the day really have the moral or legal authority to create a new state for migrants in an area that was already populated? The final impetus for its creation was a collective pity, or guilt, for the Holocaust but if that is the case might Bavaria or the Rhineland not have been more equitable?
Like you I hope I am not coming to this with a closed mind or fixed position. I too want to understand and regret it seems so difficult to have a discussion on this subject that does not degenerate. A lot of the data does not seem to be in dispute but the variety of conclusion that manage to be drawn from it are strange.
We can agreeably disagree...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JJackson
...It was ever such, but I think we should acknowledge the bias we benefit from, and have a care to try and redress the balance a little when we can – perhaps that is my duty as penance for the crimes of my forefathers.
While I agree with the first statement -- and will add that the US has not done many things well -- I strongly disagree with the last one.
Your prerogative of course but I feel absolutely no need to to do penance for people who mostly did what they thought was proper in accordance with the mores of the time and based on the information they had available and do not believe anyone should feel guilty about that (though I realize a good many people profess to do so for some aberrant reason). It is entirely too easy to sit in modern comfort surrounded by masses of information with absolutely no responsibility and pass judgment on the decisions of others who had none of those luxuries and a vastly different standard That, IMO, is intellectually bankrupt regardless of the moral rectitude.
Learn from their mistakes and attempt to avoid repetitions, of course; apologize or be penitent -- not at all...
Quote:
It is not that I dispute who did the sowing I do disagree about how the reaping is being done, and who is doing it. I do agree with the general trust of the ICISS report (linked to earlier) which makes R2P interventions the prevue of the security council, with an effective override by the general assembly should they feel the SC was wrong, and the UN constitutional allowance for the use of force but only on its authority.
We can disagree on that. Again, strongly. While it obviously your right to believe that the how and who are wrong; others would not agree. The US obviously does not nor do a number of other nations. Nor, I suspect, does everyone in the UK...
As for the UN, an organization that supports evil, is riddled with corruption (in the eyes of not just the west...) has no legitimate standing to dispense holy water on the use of force.
Quote:
Wars by NATO, or some other military coalition, should have no more legitimacy than if the Warsaw Pact had self-authorised the invasion of somewhere it accused of fermenting democratic uprisings in Poland.
All war is 'illegitimate' and immoral. All -- however, some wars are regrettably necessary and the debating club that is the General Assembly and the stacked deck that is the Security Council has little legitimacy to my mind. The UN was established to deter war and to remove colonialism from the world scene. It has been totally unsuccessful at the former (as could have been and was predicted) and arguably entirely too successful at the latter. It needs significant reform before it can be trusted with the roles you wish.
Quote:
The underlying problem is no country should be authorising interventions in any other country only the UN – in its capacity as the planets council of countries – can do this.
Again, strongly disagree. You might have a point if the bad guys in this world would accede to that or the UN was up to and did the job (they are not and do not); to tie the hands of those who mostly mean no harm to a bureaucratic folly for the 'right' to defend one self is the only hubris herein. I'm aware that the UK has recently removed the common law right of self defense from its citizens. Pity, that. Fortunately, most of the rest of the world has not. The US certainly has not.
Quote:
Taking this right upon yourself - for any nation - is hubris (and before you point it out - yes the UK are at least of guilty of this as any power current or historical).
No, it's not hubris -- it is logical and the application of common sense that applies to the rights of man to the problems of the world, no more.