Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
Now that doesn't mean we don't pay very close attention to whats being said.
fairly correctly accused of favoring one of the parties involved...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey
I am no expert on the region, but Turkey's close relations with Israel, which have not been diluted by the new Islamic government, suggests Israel trusts Turkey. Turkish relations with Syria have not always been good, but Turkish foriegn policy is good relations with all neighbours (leaving aside Cyprus and Greece).Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
Look what the Oslo process produced, why was Norway a better intermediary than others? I am sure one reason was privacy and few realised what was happening.
Regular missions and conferences to promote peace have largely failed. So the Turkish role should be welcomed.
davidbfpo
Yes, absolutely. It should also be said that the Norwegians actually take the effort to go out and pursue mediation opportunities--its remarkable how many countries talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
The U.S. currently does not have the standing or credibility to undertake such a sensitive diplomatic initiative. Further, this administration has been hostile to Syria since it took office. I have written about my displeasure with our Syria policy before, so there’s my bias, but I think it is safe to say that we are far from a fair mediator on this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
I don't think it's necessarily about "fairness" because I think the Syrians would be willing to talk with us if we demonstrated even the slightest interest in doing so. We can offer significantly more than Turkey as far as being a "guaranteer" of the peace. I raised my original question because I think we've lost a major opportunity to bring a fairly stable Arab state into our camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbon
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbon
As far as credibility goes I think it very important that we be willing to recognize some of the realities of the world which so often seem to be forgotten. Whoever you may be dealing with in other parts of the world they are not us, and thus what we want and what they want won't always line up. In other words to use the phrase respected when referring to the US in other countries eyes is not always a good choice of words.
International diplomacy per se is often handled most effectively through means other than talk. The simple reason is that so many have shown they will talk all day and yet do exactly the opposite behind the scenes without one thought towards whether it's right or not. I mean why should they. There are a plethora of those who will give them excuse for failing to follow through on what they promise.
Ken is right in that the perception of our relationship with Israel can be a hinder to our effective mediations but I think it is still important that we stand behind why this is so. They have not as a habit tried to destroy everything and everyone around while on the other hand those around them have tried to do exactly that. Have they made mistakes, sure. But the difference is that they actually do something about correcting those unlike others.
Let's quit excusing the bad behavior of those who feel they must enforce some kind anti-Israeli agenda when a majority of the reasons are idealogical
and when they themselves are unwilling to be a part of the solutions for the Palestinians.
I for one am absolutely tired of excuses for why governments don't have to care about those they represent, but instead play these life and death games for power and prestige with the poor smucks who fight for them stuck in the middle.
You may be right about them negotiating with us , but the one question that comes to mind would be why should we directly talk to them when they are still so heavily involved in fueling some of the major instabilities in the region. I think about criminal security operations like when you send a buch of ruffians around to rough up the neighborhoods and then tell them you provide security as long as they pay. They pay you call off the hounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
Same principle difference is that this particular neighborhood is much bigger and thus carries twice the consequences. Better think hard about how you want to approach those involved.
I agree with you. However, this administration from day one supported regime change in Syria over any kind of reproachment. Secretary Rice engaging in talks with the Syrians would be a repudiation of seven years of aggressive posturing against, and thus a confession of failure, something the neoconservative persuasion is not prone to. Further, in the administrations thinking talking to Syria would "legitimize" the regime, which is in stark contrast to our attempts to legitimize Assad, by at best emasculating him in Lebanon and at worst targeting his regime with the Syrian Muslim Brothers.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
Ron, I am sorry, but we are backing the Syrian Muslim Brothers. It's hypocritical to hurl criticism for fueling instability in region against Syria, while we are doing this. These guys are intricately connected to the people who killed 3,000 of our countrymen on September 11, 2001. Our support for them is misguided at best, and at worst.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey
Hi Ron
I was nodding along in agreement with your post up until
If you have read any of my post regarding this area it probably is not a great surprise that I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey
While much of this is uncontroversial in the US I would argue that that is more a function of the brilliance of the pro Israeli lobby and its effectiveness in the media than a reflection of reality. The US and Israel are the only countries on the planet where this would just be accepted without comment.
“They have not as a habit tried to destroy everything and everyone around while on the other hand those around them have tried to do exactly that.”
Is this true? As I read this for the first time I genuinely did not know who you were referring to. Israel seems just as bent on keeping all its neighbours in the Stone Age - so they can not become a threat. Israel should in my opinion be answering for crimes against humanity for its behaviour in Lebanon and Gaza. And while the US has Hamas & Hezbollah on its terrorist list (a capricious document which says more about its denizens targets than methods) I am not sure who the holders of the moral high ground in this bun fight are. I would like to be clear I am an atheist with no axe to grind in this dispute I am just very concerned that there is never going to be a resolution to the dispute while the US views the situation with rose tinted spectacles while sipping there AIPAC cool-aid.
“You may be right about them negotiating with us , but the one question that comes to mind would be why should we directly talk to them when they are still so heavily involved in fueling some of the major instabilities in the region.”
Ouch.
Again should that not be the other way round? Is there anywhere that the US is not heavily involved in fuelling major regional instabilities? While there is little doubt that other regional players are involved in supporting factions in the region the US is doing exactly the same but on a larger scale, the only difference being they invariably paint their proxies as the good guys, but I am not usually sure on what basis, on closer examination there seldom seem to be any good guys just a variety of shades of dark grey.
I view all these issues mainly from a humanitarian stand point. Where in the world are people suffering and dying, if the cause is man made who is responsible? Sometimes the answer is political/military and where it is the US as the world’s largest military, largest manufacturer & exporter of weapons, most active country in the internal affairs of other states and most active exporter of political ideology is often in the thick of it. This is why I participate on this site to try and understand the US military and its thinking and, if I can, try and nudge it into a more reflective role as to the humanitarian consequences of some of its action. I am of course aware it (the US military) only does what its political master task it to but these I generally view as beyond reason or redemption.
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.:)
May I suggest you take a look at where those problem areas are located? You'll find the majority are along the fault lines of borders drawn by the British and French (plus a few other minor players) as a result of colonial activity and / or WW I. That also includes the 'Great Powers' fiddling in the Balkans...Quote:
Originally Posted by JJackson
Long areas of contention, those locales were deliberately targeted by Agitprop and the NKVD / MVD / KGB to foment more violence and discombobulate the west -- I have visions of a lot of old retired guys (including those that set out in the 20s to infiltrate and tilt leftward education processes in the west) watching the BBC World News in Ekaterineburg and just cackling in both cases at success beyond their wildest dreams.
Back to the Balkans, I recall the cartoon in the Economist at the time of the little European standing outside his nice house watching the carnage in the Balkan house next door and saying to his wife "Ask the Americans what they intend doing about this."
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.
@ So the peace deals with Egypt and Jordan were for what reason? Who do you broker peace with in Gaza and Southern Lebanon?Quote:
Originally Posted by JJackson
@ What other countries should be tried for War Crimes in your opinion? Or is it just Israel?
OK, but that does not explain the Elephant in the corner, which the anti-semitism that runs a river through Middle East politics and always has, even before 1948. Something the Arabs deny but is part of historical fact. It is still at the heart of the conflict to this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey
The immediate tendency here will be to beat dead horses or rehash those things which we have all heard before.Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
But I think there may be something here to benefit all if we really start breaking the whole down to it's parts. We all know what we already know, the important thing is being willing to test what we know in order to assure it stands up.
Ken makes great points about predecessors decisions and actions resulting in how things have to be handled now. Lets try to focus an what the exact points of contention are today and we can trace them back. Somewhere along the way we may begin to see some mutually recognized patterns or issues which we can then focus on.
Let's just take it one step at a time and see what comes of this. I feel certain that I'm about to learn somethin I didn't know:)
Hi Ron,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey
I would not seek regime change at all. Syria is a secular country that effectively destroys salafi jihadists. Syria was a great help to us after 9/11, providing intelligence that actively saved American lives. Also remember that Syria took part in the first Gulf War coalition in 1991, they have no interest in an unstable Iraq. The huge numbers of refugees from Iraq that they have absorbed is an enormous strain, if not destabilizing to their nation. Syrian cooperation in our Iraq endeavor could have, and should have been secured. However, it is clear that Syria was to be one of the next stops in the administrations efforts to reshape the Middle East.
Why we overlook these shared interests of stabilizing Iraq and destroying AQ, and instead dwell on Syrian aide to legitimate resistance movement’s, boggles my mind.
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.
Hi Wilf - thought you might show up.Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
1] I think the deals with Egypt and Jordan were for the security of Israel and to the second part of that question Hamas & Hezbollah respectively.
2] Many inc. UK, US & NATO.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJackson
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...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...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.
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.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:
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.
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:
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.
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.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).
Here are a couple of the points, not commonly recognised in this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey
a.) At the heart to of the conflict is the deeply and widely held belief Arab that Jews (not Israelis) should not exist in their place of origin, nor be entitled to a nation - thus no Israel, or Israelis. The exceptions to these beliefs are countries like Turkey, that have no/little institutional history of killing Jews (Jews not Israelis) - Turkey being a whole league ahead of Morocco, as Turkey still has a large Jewish community.
c.) Israel has withdrawn from >80% of the territory it has ever taken by force of arms for self-protection. In every case there has been a reduction in security for Israel, which most Israelis are willing to stand for the bones of a lasting peace. This will not occur in the West Bank because no one in Israel wants to see Iranians firing rockets into Tel-Aviv, or be the man that put Hezbollah within striking distance of 96% of Israel's population.
c.) Unless people are willing to concede Israel's absolute right to exist, like any other nation, within sensibly modified variations of the pre-1967 cease fire line, then the only other option is simply and fight to death or exhaustion.
@ I'd be happier if you knew why I'd comment, not just that I did. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JJackson
1. How? On what basis do you start discussions? Morally I have huge issues with the Jews that believed it was worthwhile to talk to the Nazis. I see the same problem here.
2. Good enough. I wholly disagree, but I can understand. I have very set beliefs as to what constitutes war crimes and I see none of these in the actions of the US, UK, NATO or Israel.
Ken we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the UN. I am happy to concede it is far from perfect but we should be trying to redress its problems not tear it down. Collecting a coalition of like minded nations to impose their will is wrong. At the moment the US has the might but morally I see their/our position as no better than if a coalitions of Islamic countries invaded the UK and imposed Sharia Law as a correction of our lax morals. Both coalitions would be convinced of the morality of their causes the principal difference is the West – at this moment in history - has the military might to impose its will (after a fashion). If there is to be some kind of international law - and it is to have any credibility – I would argue our defacto unit of sovereignty lies at the nation state level and some form of council of these units must be the arbiter of trans-national disputes. The problem - in my opinion - has much to do with the states paranoia at relinquishing any control at all to a higher authority. The states are acting anarchically not democratically and those benefiting most from the status quo are – naturally enough - being the greatest impediment to reform.
While I agree it is not helpful to go full sack cloth and ashes over the wealth built up in our nations by the slave trade - or other actions taken by past generations - we should as we ‘sit in modern comfort surrounded by masses of information with absolutely no responsibility’ not think we have no responsibility but acknowledge that previous generations helped put us in this position and use our knowledge and power benevolently rather than to screw some dirt poor country into accepting a trade agreement that is going to keep their citizens earning a pittance.
William our difference is probably more fundamental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
a) That there has been wide spread historical anti-Semitism – for me is again a given – and obviously not just by Arab peoples. The Jews were blamed for spreading the Black Death, Shakespeare shows them as less than popular and on the modern states Germany and the USSR institutionalised it and many others including the US & UK just let it persist unchallenged.
b&c) “This will not occur in the West Bank because no one in Israel wants to see Iranians firing rockets into Tel-Aviv” again I can not let this go unchallenged. That Iran is helping various Palestinian groups I grant you, but the US is helping Israel and it is equally true and equally inflammatory and generally unhelpful for me to say the Americans are firing rockets and killing Palestinian civilians. Earlier I referred to the Stone Age, which seems a bit harsh, but a Roman general would probably keep his ballistas if offered Hamas’ rockets in exchange (you know the ones with the pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey targeting system) however if the Romans had had a few of those shinny IDF helicopter gunships with the nice rocket pods on either side then Hannibal would have needed more than the Nubian cavalry and a few elephants.
Israel is so small geographically that all of Israel could be in the range of enemy rockets if Iran or Syria or anyone else choose to supply them, at present the Israelis are the only ones with hi-tech weapons. Acceptance of Israel is unlikely without the creation and acceptance of a Palestine state but that is not currently in Israel’s best interests. While they have US protection, a modern military, a European standard of living and control over the holy sites why would they want to accept a state which other Arab nations could legitimately arm to parity. There is no trust for such a measure.
Again worrying with the Nazi analogy. If we are going to use it then it is the Israelis with the power and the Palestinians are the oppressed and suffering but I am not happy with casting the Jews as the Nazis even if the analogy does work better that way around. The Israelis just have to talk we had to do it with the IRA. Ignoring your enemies just because you do not like their tactics is not going to get you a solution. With the IRA they never had the level of popular support – even within the Catholic community – that Hamas or Hezbollah have, they could not have stood for democratic office and been elected. These are not a few radical terrorists they are mass movements with wide popular support fighting a war of liberation against an occupying army. You may not see it that way but they do and short of genocide I don’t see any way that is going to change. So talk or fight to annihilation there are a lot more of them and they are already exhausted so I don’t think that is going to be enough to stop them.Quote:
1. How? On what basis do you start discussions? Morally I have huge issues with the Jews that believed it was worthwhile to talk to the Nazis. I see the same problem here.
I note that you acknowledge one of the major problems with the UN and why it is and will likely remain fairly ineffectual as long as those things don't change. But I find myself curious on both this and the Isreal issue as to what exactly you feel would be the actual results of such things as placing all responsibility for international affairs at the feet of the UN.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJackson
And of Isreal capitulating to the demands ( acceptable in what I have heard you say so far) That they give up many of the very things which have helped them to survive amongst those who seek to do them harm and refuse to recognize their right to exist as they do right now.
What exactly do you suggest would be the real life results of such actions.
Along the lines of our responsibilities to make amends for past improprieties of our ancestors I really don't see where it has ever been effective in history to have those who have opportunity to deal with current considerations correctly avoid doing so but rather work at it from a how can we make up for someone elses mistakes aspect.
The problem with the latter is it
1- Doesn't necessarily address any of the issues directly at hand
2- What it does do is create expectation for accountability beyond that which mankind can actually control.
For me it still comes down to choices and for those of us who have the opportunity to make them we should either benefit from the right ones or suffer from the wrong ones.
For those who aren't given those choices (those) who actually take those choices away from them should be accountable for just such.
Amidst this all-too-predictable bickering, I'll just interject for a book recommendation. The Brink of Peace: The Israeli-Syrian Negotiations is an autopsy of the earlier, failed process and makes for a good background read to put the current move for negotiations in context.
I disagree with the ready assumption that a Palestinian state would be detrimental to Israeli security. It would first remove most (though certainly not all) of the ideological opposition to Israel, particularly internationally. This may be more important if US military power continues to gradually erode in the face of emerging near-peer competitors. Second, it would give legitimacy to Israeli military retaliation if factions within the new Palestinian state decide to attack Israel; by terrorism, rockets, etc. And I think if Israel can retain control of key resources (water, energy, oil, etc) and use that as leverage with a legitimate and recognized Palestinian authority, an effective, though not perfect, peace could be created. The Palestinian state would be beholden to Israel, making Israel its patron; not Syria or Iran.
Just a couple of things though.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
First working on finding a copy of the book Jedburgh's talking about so I'm sure it may present some facts i'm missing.
But ,
If I remember correctly every surrounding country has refused to allow for any of their lands to become Palestinian territory yet have all consistently demanded that Isreal do just that. Now is a two state solution a good idea, I would definately think so. What actions of the involved players have ever shown that in doing anything but going away entirely will satisfy the regions wants. I don't remember reading about anyone proposing peace afterwords but rather a more gradual continuance of reclamation of "arab" lands?
By the way just so those involved realize I am not coming from so much of a defense of Israel standpoint as I am trying to look at it as a negotiator might in trying to identify the what who wants and what give and takes there can be. The problem I keep having is that every where you turn it pretty much seems like for at least one side of the table its all or all. Someone give me an example of what I'm missing here.
Ron I am obviously after a system I feel is just and for that I think it should, at a minimum, pass a ‘veil of ignorance’ test. I am obviously not a fan of the ‘might is right’ school but do believe if the UN did not exist we would have to invent it. As to how it should work and what affect that might have. The core is, as always, trust or as is the current case lack there of. In cold war times countries tended to be graded along a linear ideological left/right scale with the US and USSR at opposite poles, today this does not work so well as the ideologies being fought over are different but regardless of the calibration system used the US is not likely to fall at or near the centre. A new world order reflecting the wishes of some mythical average human, or state, is therefore not likely to be much to the liking of the average American anymore than a world average in the cold war times that may of produced a social democrat or soft socialist. Given that most countries are not going to fall near the centre and few – with exception of the Scandinavians – seem consistently to be willing to accept they should not get priority treatment I do not underestimate the difficulty of getting the system to work. I hope that it would eventually produce a system where the use of military force, or sanctions, would be seldom used and that if they were the offending country would be in no doubt that they would be consistently applied and no other state would aid them. I would also hope that these sanctions would principally be used for humanitarian rather than political reasons and we would never be in a position where wars were started based on the internal domestic politics of another state. In the first Gulf War I thought the system worked much as it should, it reversed an act of aggression by one state on a weaker state, sanctioned by the wider international community including states that would normally be regarded as ‘friendly’ by Iraq. I naively believed this would be viewed by as an example of what could be achieved by co-operation and would be taken as a warning by despots. In Afghanistan not so much and Iraq II has bought great shame on both our countries making us international pariahs. I trusted my government not to start a war unless their intelligence was rock solid, as it stands now I would rather place my trust in the UN general assembly and will do my part in making sure they do not get elected again. They perpetrated a fraud against their own people and my principle regret is that no one is going to be held accountable. We often talk about the radicalisation of Muslim Extremists but this war has radicalised me, prior to Iraq II when I scanned the paper I would probably have skipped most of the stories I now read. I certainly would not have followed US domestic politics or ever have been to this site and would have accepted much of the pro-Israeli propaganda as fact. Now I start by assuming an Iranian and UK (or US) official statement is equally likely to be false and take it from there – a very sorry state of affairs but it has been enlightening. [/ End of Rant]
In the case of ME dispute I do not see any workable solution apart from two states each confident of their own sovereignty and security. I think each side could agree to some form of this IF they believed there was a power they could trust to intervene to restore the status quo if the other party transgressed. The UN should be the ones to do this and both Israel and a fledgling Palestinian state should confidently expect the same level of support given to Kuwait. The UN should be able to call on forces from all states to achieve this but as Israel’s mentor and closest ally and the planets only current military superpower could the US be relied upon to fight oppression regardless of who is doing the oppressing? And what do we do when the US is the oppressor? Until there is some way of controlling the US I can not see any way of achieving an equitable world order. It is in the US’s own interest to use the influence it now has to reform the system. When my grandfather was born the UK was the superpower, when my father was born (in WWII) who knows Germany/Russia/US/Japan/UK, when I was born the US’s star was rising, my children were born into the US/USSR era but now watch the rise of China and India, who will be top dog when they have children I do not know but I don’t want my grand children subject to the whim of one nation based on how big their GDP is and how much of it they are willing to spend on weapons – there must be a better way and we need to find it now. While I have no love for GWB he is better than Stalin or Hitler but that is just luck and we can not keep just hoping it holds.
While I agree with AmericanPride’s two state solution it fails the ‘veil of ignorance’ test in that it is unreasonable to expect Israel to accept a Palestinian state having control of its oil and water supply. Would you give that control over vital US resource to Cuba or Venezuela? If the answer is no then why should the Palestinians.
Israel already controls to a large extent Palestinian access to those resources -- and has used them marginally effectively against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The missing piece of this puzzle, I think, is the absence of a legitimate Palestinian faction recognized both by Israel and the Palestinian people. Israel needs to search for (or create?) a Palestinian political faction willing to accept peace with these particular conditions, but at the same time, it needs the support of Palestinian "elites" so it can make that decision on their behalf. The problem of course is that the elites use Israel as a rallying cry to shape public support. So -- either Israel needs to make a concession of some kind to demonstrate the contrary (political, economic, or territorial, etc) or Israel can wait for the current Palestinian factions to delegitimize themselves. Both carry their own risks. But Israel is the superior actor in this situation in terms of power, and so it has the initiative on which course the issue will take.Quote:
While I agree with AmericanPride’s two state solution it fails the ‘veil of ignorance’ test in that it is unreasonable to expect Israel to accept a Palestinian state having control of its oil and water supply. Would you give that control over vital US resource to Cuba or Venezuela? If the answer is no then why should the Palestinians.
As mentioned earlier each side tends to pick their cartographer and moment in time and the 'Arab' side has picked the moment before Israel's creation as their point. This off course leaves them feeling a fair solution is a Palestinian state occupying the lands now claimed by Israel (a few Jews living within its boarders as an optional extra). Understandably this is not quite what Israel favours. You ask a lot of the surrounding states to give up their territories to accommodate the creation of Israel (or Palestine depending on how you look at it). I suspect this would be about as popular as mandating the creation of Kurdistan using chunks of Turkey, Iraq, Iran & Syria. It would be a hard sell to their own peoples especially those that would either be relocated or become Israeli or Palestinian citizens. The question seems simple enough to you – or most Israelis – but the acceptance of Israel is implicit and from a Palestinian stand point it makes less sense. Move the problem out of the ME and view it like this.
Some First Nation tribe was living in what is now Kansas and got displaced as the European settlers moved west they were dispersed around the world but the UN decided hundreds of years later to give them back Kansas as a country of their own. The US did not agree but could not do much about it however those who had been living in Kansas for generations either fought back or were driven out or were housed in reservations on some of the poorest land. For years they did not give up but never had the weapons, despite some help from other US states. The obvious solution, suggested by well meaning negotiators, is accept you are not going to get Kansas back but all the surrounding states give up part of their territory to make a new state. The analogy is weak because these are merely states not Nation States but if they did do this to help their brothers from Kansas they would be accepting that it was fair they should have been displaced in the first place and in so doing weaken their original case.
As I understand it even Hamas is pragmatic enough to negotiate a peace if it brings security and a reasonable standard of living to its people but that is not the same as accepting Israel, and by extension, what it views as the original injustice.
As I have been writing these post I keep finding myself think of the Hitch-Hikers guide to the Galaxy and Arthur Dent lying in front of the bulldozer trying to stop his house being destroyed to make way for a bypass while the bemused officials laugh at the futility of his actions unaware of the Earths impending doom as it is scheduled to be removed to make way for a hyper-space bypass.
Beware the precedents you set lest they comeback and bite you in the …
AmericanPride
I agree they need someone to negotiate with. The problem is they have been trying a divide & rule strategy by having Hamas designated a terrorist organisation, so they can't be talked to, and then playing nice with Abbas. The attendant carrot and stick approach – blockade Gaza and withhold tax revenues, release funds to the West Bank make minor concession – fools no one in the Arab world not even Fatah. I do not believe Israel genuinely want to get into negotiations that might lead to viable two state solution, and wonder if that bit of land is big enough to support two viable states. They have much the better of the deal at the moment and in their position I am not sure I would do differently. In the long term the US may not be able to go on funding them, or their own military, to the same extent at which point they will need to be more flexible but for now they hold all the cards.
a.) Most educated, rational and normal Israelis want a Palestinian state, because it should mean peace and prosperity, but how do you get the Palestinians not to allow their state as a base of anti-Israeli operations? Every where the IDF has withdrawn from creates bases for terrorists. Giving the Palestinians a state does not create peace, because their having a state does not get rid of Israel which is what the men of violence/Iran/Hezbollah/all the others, are ideologically tied to.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
b.) This is simple not true, because it never has in the past. The West constantly condems legitimate IDF operations to kill and capture terrorists, regardless of their legitimacy. Israel is constantly condemend for action legitimate in international law, and more over, condemened for actions that other countries perpetrate with less legitmacy, and recieve virtually no condemnation at all.
c.) To retain control over key resrources and use them as weapons would be coercive and immoral. The Palestinians must pay for/provide for water, electricity and oil like everyone else. For the amount of aid they get, they should have a living standard close to that of Switzerland, so Gaza could/should be like Dubai. The Palestinian don't want to be beholden to Israel. They want it gone.
Now I amnot saying that there are not some very nasty extremists in Israel, but bascially within the confines of a functioning democracy, they are generally less able to peddle their messages of hate.
Utterly wrong. My wife used to buy her furniture in Nablus and get her car serviced in Ramallah. Tens of 1,000's of Israelis used the Palestinian Casinos in Jericho. Lots of Palestinian worked in Israel and for Isreali firms in the territories. A peaceful Palestinian State is very much in Israels interest. I'd submit that a peace with Israel, is the kiss of death to the powerful complexions of Palestinian leaderships.Quote:
Originally Posted by JJackson
The Palestinian State is not the desired condition for a Palestinian Peace. It never was when Gaza was part of Egypt, and the West Bank was part of Jordan. That only changed in 1988.
Strangely enough I am pretty careful what I say about Nazis. It's nothing to do with power. It's about belief and action. I said I had a moral problem negotiating with people like them. Not that anyone was like them, and when I do, I refer to the anti-semitic element of their creed as that is what generally distinguishes Nazism from Fascism, Italy and Spain having not big beef with Jews. - except the Communist ones! A lot of the Proto-fascist where Jews!Quote:
Again worrying with the Nazi analogy. If we are going to use it then it is the Israelis with the power and the Palestinians are the oppressed and suffering but I am not happy with casting the Jews as the Nazis even if the analogy does work better that way around.
When the IDF starts exterminating Jews, I'll except the Nazi tag.
...and yes, I have a huge problem with the occupation of Judea and Samaria. I don't think the IDF should be there. I think it delegitimises Israels existance, but unlike the Palestinians, I am happy to accept Arabs, living in Israel.
Shabat Shalom. I'm off the market, to drink coffee, served by hot looking Yemini girls.
a) Having a state, however, submits the Palestinians to a national and international law. The ideological weapon is only effective because the Palestinians do not have a viable state -- Egypt and Jordan abandoned ideology in order to have peace. Syria is interested in doing so as well. Land is more important than ideology. The Palestinian people are not radical because of Islam or even Israel's existence, but because their own conditions have created a situation of desperation. A legitimate Palestinian state would be compelled by international norms (and the constant pressure of Israeli intervention) to effectively suppress "anti-Israeli operations" in order to maintain its own survival. Just as Egypt and Jordan abandoned the Palestinian "cause" when more important interests compelled them (territory, and the basic survival of the state), I would imagine that a Palestinian regime would do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
b) Why would the West defend a Palestinian state if it shielded terrorist organizations? It would not be politically viable to ignore Palestinian terrorism internationally if the Palestinians became a state-sponsor. And I think the Israelis would have more other-than-security options to isolate terrorist organizations in the Palestinian territories by pushing for the enforcement of laws which punish state-sponsorship of terrorism. That's simply more leverage to hold over a Palestinian regime that would be interested in the survival of its state rather than conflict with Israel (hence the importance of maintaining control of key resources). Right now, it appears as if the Palestinians have just cause, even if the methods are deplorable, so the West can write it off as something it can ignore.
c) That's the nature of politics. Peace is not always brought about or maintained by moral means.
Ironically, I think that debates like these are sometimes a little behind the situation on the ground.
I have absolutely no doubt that (most of) Israel sees a Palestinian state in its long-term interest, and has no desire to maintain permanent control over the bulk of the Palestinian population and territories. Indeed, I would submit that PM Olmert is more committed to that goal than any previous Israeli prime minister. We've come a long way from the 1990s, when such a view was very much a minority--indeed, Israel refused to allow the Palestinians an independent delegation at Madrid in 1991, and Rabin couldn't bring himself to include the word "state" in the Oslo Agreement in 1993.
Yet it remains the case that Israel still may wish to retain far more Palestinian territory, and impose far more restrictive conditions, than any Palestinian leader can possibly swallow or sell. Ha'aretz had a great headline last week--since changed--that highlighted this (with probably deliberate irony): "Israel offers to keep 8.5% of West Bank..." Israel also continues to engage in activities--notably illegal settlement growth--that are profoundly and deeply corrosive of the peace process.
On the Palestinian side, there is now strong majority support for a two-state solution (as poll and after poll shows), and a widespread willingness to accept (if not like) Israel as part of a lasting peace. Indeed, even a majority of Hamas voters (NOT cadres) accept the logic of a two state solution. Certainly, President Abbas and PM Fayyad see a two state solution as being in the fundamental interest of the Palestinian people, and have worked tirelessly (and at considerable personal risk) to try to bring it about. I don't think that the notion that the Palestinian movement is too enamored of being a movement to become a state was true during the Arafat period, and I certainly don't think its true now.
That having been said, there is certainly a substantial militant minority that opposes a negotiated two state solution and will use violence to derail it. (About half of the Palestinian population, living under either occupation or siege, approve of such violence--hardly surprising for a population under foreign occupation.) Some Hamas soft-liners accept a two-state permanent outcome, but they have been increasingly marginalized by Fateh and Israeli actions, creating a situation where the hardliners are increasing ascendency in Gaza in particular. Abbas is politically weak, and lacks the ability to control violence or assure Israeli security, which makes Israel reluctant to extend the PA greater authority or territorial control. Finally, just like the Israelis, the Palestinians too have difficulty making some of the compromises (notably on refugees) that might be needed to close a deal.
We are therefore at a point where both leaderships, and both peoples, want a just and lasting peace based on a two state solution... but there is little mutual trust, and neither have any clear idea how to get there. Weak leadership, violence, and occupation all create constant obstacles to progress.
Current Bush Administration strategy, after years of neglect, has been to get the parties into the same room and get them talking, but with minimal US engagement on the substance beyond the initial Annapolis send-off. I think that is a mistake, and it was a mistake to let the December 2000 Clinton Parameters slide off the table at the end of his term. On the contrary, I think the US should dust them off, rename them ("The Bush Parameters"!), and establish them (possibly through a UNSC resolution) as the goalposts for which the two parties should be aiming. Oh, there would certainly be mutterings on both sides about imposed solutions, but I think both leaderships would find it much easier to reach a compromise through such a process.
As for Hizbullah and Iran... Hizbullah's actions in Lebanon certainly shape Israeli security concerns, but they are not, not are they likely to ever be, even marginally significant actors in the Palestinian territories. Iran is more predatory than causative in the current situation: Hamas and Iran have relations of convenience not of shared ideology, and Iranian financial and military support for Hamas is not a primary determinant of the latter's capabilities or actions.
None of this, of course, relates in the slightest to the nominal topic of this thread, namely the current Syrian-Israeli talks :D
@ As I live on the Ground, allow me to respond! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
@ Very true, but you might look at the actual ground under dispute, and the 200,000 Religious/ultra Nationalist Jews that live there. It's far better to face them with the reality of a Palestinian State, and then go from there, than to risk the utter chaos of trying to move them. I say go for what's do-able.
@ Yes, most Palestinians want peace. I'm not worried about them. The normal Palestinian people have made no impact on Middle East politics in the last 60 years. It's their leaders, organised crime families and extremists that shape things.
@ So the Iranian aren't already on the West bank, seeking influence and cutting deals? I don't think your average IRGC Operator cares about Palestine, but he does want a base within rocket range of TLV International. - and try telling the people of Israel that Iran has no interest or influence on the West Bank. I wish it was true. Peace would be a step nearer.
@ The talks with Syria are meaningless unless put in the context of a regional peace. Peace with Jordan didn't solve all the problems either, especially after the King gave away the Trans-Jordan and ensured some of the current problems.
@ Amen to that, but why do you assume that the Palestinian State would submit to International Law. Most folks believe Israel to flout International Law at will. The idea that a Palestinian Government would be peace loving rational people is very much in doubt. If they have a viable state, the rockets and suicide bombers may still come. That's a price we will have to pay, and it's a tough sell. The only thing that will stop that is if Iran, Syria and all the others, tell them not to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
@ Because the target of their terrorism would be Israel, and the history shows that the world (except the US) has never really cared much about what happens to Israel. A lot of people put a lot of effort into trying to ensure the US abandons Israel, by painting the support as a conspiracy theory. A great many nations, including the UK and France, historically have taken actions to damage Israeli national security. History shows the Israeli people, not to trust other nations when it comes to their security. 3,000 of Jewish history does not give them a lot of confidence.
1) It's not that I believe a Palestinian state would comply with international law without some kind of compulsion or threat of punitive action. I should clarify and state that I think if Palestine were to become a state, international law can potentially become an effective lever (for Israel or the United States) to pressure the regime. I doubt they would be peace-loving, but I'm certain they would be rational. I am simply trying to illustrate that I think it is possible to create a situation in which "peace", simply the absence of violence, is a possibility with a Palestinian state. Certainly there will be factions within such a state that do not desire peace, but the appropriate levers applied to the regime will compel the state to marginalize such factions for the sake of preserving its existence. It would put the Palestinians on the defensive -- right now, they are on the offensive, insofar they desire to create, rather than protect, a particular interest. Give them something to defend and they'll defend it.Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
2) I will think on your second point and respond to it soon.
Because the USA aren't as influential and powerful or even as fair as some Americans believe. U.S.-organized negotiations about Israel-related troubles weren't really useful after 1979. The USA favoured Israel too much to be helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanPride
This "a problem arises and nobody asks the U.S. for help" phenomenon is quite widespread. Remember the Kenya troubles? All external mediators were Africans. It's a myth that the world automatically calls for the U.S. if there's a problem somewhere.
It's also a problem of the Bush administration, which has spent instead of accumulated the political capital of the USA.
About the talks;
I'm pretty sure that the objective is to trade the Golan heights for peace and recognization as sovereign state and they'll of course include a stop of support for Hezbollah.
Whatever happens is imho irrelevant in the long run anyway, as Israel will only cease to exist when its ties to the West become severed and Western support dwindles. That will happen eventually, in up to five generations.
The Arabs needed about six generations to get rid of crusaders, the Israelis have only lasted for two generations so far.
Not really--indeed, a Syrian demand in the current indirect talks is for the US to become more involved, since they don't believe the process is truly credible until it involves a greater degree of US commitment. Similarly, the Palestinians are pressing for the US to become more, not less, engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian talks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
Despite Washington's tilt, virtually everyone in the region sees it as the only actor with sufficient leverage to make things happen.
The (nuclear-armed) Israelis aren't going anywhere, and I'm quite sure they'll be around in four more generations. (I suspect Wilf has some views on this too :D )Quote:
Whatever happens is imho irrelevant in the long run anyway, as Israel will only cease to exist when its ties to the West become severed and Western support dwindles. That will happen eventually, in up to five generations.
The Arabs needed about six generations to get rid of crusaders, the Israelis have only lasted for two generations so far.
Not that I would ever need to say to those here. :) - and I live amongst 6 million folks, some descended from the generation that nearly got wiped out and who won't go down without a fight, nuclear armed or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
CSIS, 3 Jun 08: Israeli and Syrian Weapons of Mass Destruction
The link above contains both reports in a single pdf file. They can also be downloaded separately:Quote:
Both Israel and Syria have long been involved in creating weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. The attached two reports look beyond the narrow issue of nuclear weapons, and summarize developments in each country’s full range of weapons of mass destruction -including chemical and biological weapons - and delivery systems. Both reports are deliberately conservative, avoiding scare or worst case sources and estimates.
Israeli WMD
Syrian WMD
CSIS, 25 Nov 08: The Israeli and Syrian Conventional Military Balance
Complete 33 page paper at the link.Quote:
There are significant uncertainties in the force counts of Israeli and Syrian forces available from unclassified sources. Any assessment of the Israel-Syrian military balance must also address the fact that strength measured in force numbers can be very different from strength measured in terms of force quality. Force size has only limited meaning as a measure of military capability or merit, unless it can be related to force quality. Leadership, the ability to conduct joint and combined operations, morale, and the ability to sustain complex cycles of rapid maneuver warfare are just a few of the aspects of force quality that can overcome superiority in force quantity.....
Edit to add: CSIS, 25 Nov 08: Israeli-Syrian Air and SAM Strength Analysis: Working Estimates of Force Numbers and Location
USIP, Mar 09: Mapping Peace Between Syria and Israel
Complete 20-page paper at the link.Quote:
Summary
• Syrian-Israeli “proximity” peace talks orchestrated by Turkey in 2008 revived a long-dormant track of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Although the talks were suspended because of Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip, Israeli-Syrian peace might well facilitate a Palestinian state at peace with Israel.
• Syria’s “bottom line” for peace with Israel is the return of all the land seized from it by Israel in June 1967. This includes the Golan Heights plateau and small tracts in the Jordan River Valley—acreage that adjoins bodies of water vitally important to Israel’s economy and of marginal use to Syria.
• Israel’s “bottom line” for peace with Syria is the strategic reorientation of Damascus away from Iran, Hezbollah, and certain Palestinian organizations, most notably Hamas.
• Rejecting the argument that peace with Israel obliges it to break relations with others, Damascus has indicated that an American presence at the peace talks would produce direct Syrian-Israeli interactions and that a drastically improved Syria-U.S. bilateral relationship must be a by-product of Syrian-Israeli peace.
• Because the withdrawal process itself could take several years, the implementation phase of the treaty will be just as important (if not more so) than the drafting of it.
• If the parties could reach agreement on purely bilateral issues—boundary, water, frontier security regime, and normalization—and sign a treaty of peace, each side would have the needed time to measure the performance and gauge the intentions of the other.
• It will not be easy for any Israeli government to rally the requisite public and Knesset support to give Syria its sine qua non for peace. Among other things, withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, line would give Syria beachfront property on the northeastern quadrant of the Sea of Galilee, Israel’s national reservoir.
• Beyond treaty provisions dealing specifically with water and demilitarization, one treaty-related gesture Damascus might consider making to ameliorate Israeli concerns about a new boundary in the Jordan Valley would be to create a Jordan Valley–Golan Heights Environmental Preserve under Syrian sovereignty.
• Such a preserve could help to protect sensitive and stressed water resources in the valley and on the heights. It could also facilitate easy access by civilians from Israel to the full circumference of the Sea of Galilee and perhaps up into those parts of the Golan Heights covered by the preserve.
• While there are many approaches to the creation, size, purpose, and functioning of such a preserve, the one suggested in this report would be based on existing parks and reserves created by Israel during the occupation, which would be transferred to and administered by Syria.
• In addition to mitigating Israeli concerns about the return of sensitive territories and providing a venue for informal people-to-people contacts, the Jordan Valley–Golan Heights Environmental Preserve approach would give the parties a good platform for practical bilateral cooperation even as the ink on a peace treaty is drying, allowing for a constructive, confidence-building start to the implementation phase of the withdrawal process.
Well this is another pitch from the US "peace industry," that just ignores, or underplays, some real world realities.
a.) Peace with Syria, (especially the current regime) is neither required or likely. Nice to have but far from essential.
b.) While I and many others support the idea of a two Palestinian states, within Gaza and the West bank respectively, virtually no one in Israel wants to see the Golan give back, and to do so is suicide. Syria is unstable, and politically un-predictable, so peace now, does not mean peace next year.
Thank you William F. Owen for your targeted remarks about Syria.
I might add that the UN has publicly noted their detection of radiation found at the site in Syria which Israel destroyed during 2008...and Syria is now, newly building "something" at and over/covering that site whose purpose is as yet unclear, at least to me.
Nuclear power is economical and a benefit to any nation which can limit it's nuclear purposes in an open, easily viewed by the free world manner to assure and reassure mankind that they are now reprocessing uranium or developing plutonium at the weapons grade level or purity.
This is the same problem we have with Iran, which rightly fears an Israeli air strike against their nuclear sites under development with Russian assistance in building Iran's new nuclear facilities today.
To keep it short and let others comment it is a convoluted nuclear mess. Lest any idiot Islamic terrorist ideologue(s) misunderstand, Russia's disaster at Chernoble in Belarussia was and continues to be so awful and disasterous that my denomination, United Methodist, continues to bring early teenage to 20s age Belarussians boys and girls at church expense to the University of Alabama School of Medicine and University Hospital here who now suffer from long term radiaiton sickness, illness and still be found out medical issues directly caused by the nuclear melt down at Cherynoble. These Belarussia youth are getting totally free of chage all transportation, housing, meals, even clothing, free of charge, for a long term medical treatment and epidimeological program meant to help them survive medically as best as one can.
*Our singular local Methodist Church here places these Belarussia youth in local church members family homes to obviate the housing and meals costs for these young outpatients while here. The denomination, nationally, pays for the medical care costs above the individual MD waived costs and fees our medical community here, regardless of their denomination or belief system, continue to donate, free of charge.
I too am a little doubtful that peace with Syria will materialize, but I don't think it is fair to label it a pitch from the US peace industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Both the past and current negotiations were very detailed and serious affairs, and it many cases the strongest advocacy of an agreement comes from the upper ranks of the Israeli national security establishment (some of whom see considerable value in both neutralizing the Syrian threat and weaning Damascus from its alliance-of-convenience with Iran).
Rex, well aware. It's good to have peace with all the Arabs, so as an aspiration I support it, but the Golan and Hermon are a case where the solutions come no way close matching the benefits. Talking about peace with Syria, in respect to the Golan, is slightly Titanic deck-chair sorting in my view. If talks can take the Golan off the table, then I'm more interested, but that will never happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Brynen
NDC, Sep 11: Planning Ahead for a Peacekeeping Mission on the Golan Heights: A Role for NATO?
Quote:
This paper aims at examining whether NATO could be the provider of an international force to supervise the implementation of an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty and outlines the main characteristics of the peacekeeping mission needed for that task, based on the likely provisions of the future Israeli-Syrian peace treaty....