 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Middle East: Solutions
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 04 - 04:54 PM War and killing are easy to criticize and argue about. Peace is lots better (to all but a rabid few). With that said, what do y'all see as being possible solutions to the situation there? The discussion could include the welfare of Palestinians, security of Israel, probability for a lasting peace in that area of the world. I'm guessing that a rehash of history or who did what to whom would cause things to get us all back into a loooong argument. But, finding some sort of common ground from which to pursue peace would be so much more productive. We all kinda work together to solve the difficulties instead of exacerbate them. Any takers? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST,bert Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:14 PM Give them the Panhandle of Texas |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:16 PM Nice idea, and a sensible idea too. Mind, I bet it'll all end in screeching and screaming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:20 PM That post of mine was a response to brucie's suggestioin rather than bert! (Of course the Panhandle of Texas, along with the rest of the USA, is an example of one conceivable future. The one in which the natives lose out completely to the settlers in their land.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST,C-watch Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:30 PM Unfortunately, I don't see much hope for progress while Bush, Sharon and, especially, Arafat remain in power. If Kerry wins in November, we may have a U.S. administration that is willing to pave the way to peace. The two presidents who made real progress in achieving Middle East peace have both been Democrats. Jimmy Carter brokered the peace between Egypt and Israel and Bill Clinton brokered the peace between Jordan and Israel and actually came close with the Palestinians and Israel. As anyone who follows Israeli politics knows, Sharon won't be around for long. Due to various scandals, his approval rating has sunk to historic lows and he's coming under increasing pressure to resign. It is very doubtful that he'll survive the looming power struggle from within his own Likud Party. The kind of leader the Israelis elect to replace Sharon will be, to a very large extent, dependent on the Palestinians. When the Palestinians are not committing and supporting terrorism, and show that they are open to peaceful negotitians, the Israelis elect peace makers like Rabin, Perez and Barak. In times of terror, the Israelis get scared and elect tough guys like Netanyahu and Sharon. A Palestinian leader must emerge who is prepared to work toward peace, who is prepared to keep working toward peace when less than 100% of Palestinian demands are not met, who is prepared to rein in the terrorists and who is ready to actually prepare his people for peace, something that Arafat never did during the hopeful negotiations of the 1990s. One thing is certain, as long as Palestinians are committing terrorism, Israel, as would any government in the world, will react punitively. Clearly, Arafat has proven throughout his career that he is not the leader who will lead the Palestinians to peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:32 PM Just a brief note before I get outta the way here. This thread was in response to a suggestion fro Jack the Sailor (Rob). It sure would be nice to observe Marquis of Queensbury Rules for at least 50 posts. Not tellin' anyone what to do, just think maybe we could use some peace and joy with Christmas just around the corner and all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:46 PM Easter? "In times of terror, the Israelis get scared and elect tough guys like Netanyahu and Sharon." And Palestinians hold on to Arafat for the same reasons, or turn to people who are a lot more extreme than he is. The cycle of violence freezes people into patterns of behaviour that make any kind of progress virtually impossible. And in a sense any movement forward could even threaten the leadership on both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 04 - 05:52 PM It's not having a TV what's doin' it to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: akenaton Date: 13 Mar 04 - 06:24 PM C-watch ...I can hardly believe what you have written regarding the Palestinians. You say that they are not contributing enough to the so called "peace process". When I was in my teens,I remember a journalist who worked for the BBC,called Keith Kyle. He useds to appear regularly on Cliff Michelmores' "Tonight" programme,and was always on about the dreadful wrong that had been done to the Palestinians,most of whom had been shovelled into temporary refugee camps. Its now 50 yrs down the line ,and several generations have lived and died in these camps,with no hope of seeing their stolen land again. How can you talk of lack of envolvement under these conditions. I met and conversed with a member of the British Army who was assisting with the allocation of Palistinian land to the Israelis,and he told me it was robbery with violence. There will never be any progress towards peace until the "Palestinian problem" is addressed. Then we get to the main feature "The West V Islam" I can hardly wait ....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: artbrooks Date: 13 Mar 04 - 06:49 PM We have tried this before, but there are a few people on this forum that will not accept that one of the givens for Mideast peace is that Israel has a right to exist, where it is, as a primarily Jewish state, with secure boundries. They can, and will, object to these conditions, but anything else would require the forceable eviction of the population of Israel. That said, my personal opinion is that the fence/wall is the best idea, except it should follow the Green Line exactly, take in no Palentinian territory whatsoever, and all settlements outside the fence should be abandoned. There should be monetary reparations paid to the residents of the refugee camps or to Palestinians who have moved on, based upon the value of their expropriated property whenever they left it, with an appropriate increase for inflation. The Moslem nations of the region should also pay reparations, on the same basis, to Jewish citizens of their nations who were forced to leave in 1949. Palestinians who want to work inside Israel may do so, on the same basis as other foreign workers, but they have no right to jobs there. There's a start for the discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 04 - 06:55 PM Looks like a level field. Good one, artbrooks. Anyone see a place for the UN in all this? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:11 PM It will never happen while Likud is in control of the government, whether that be with Sharon or Netanyahu, but the only way to get the thing back on track is to get back to the pre-Sharon/pre-Bush days of the Helsinki agreement, just before the second infitada started. If they can get back on that square, where both sides had made what was really dramatic progress on both of their agendas, and go from there, peace could actually be brought about very quickly. There would have to be prerequisites though. For the Palestinians, a complete cessation of all suicide bombings and attacks on Israelis, including in the settlement areas. That would mean the paramilitaries would have to police themselves, at least until the Palestinian Authority could get up and running again. That could be phased in through international assistance in a nation building initiative from a coalition that includes the Israelis, the US, the EU, and the UN. For the Israelis, the wall will have to come down, the settlements stopped, and the land given back. Finally, as part of the peace process and nation building, an agreement on access to shared resources, like water, road infrastructures, etc. would hopefully be included as well. Some sort of joint authority might do the trick. In other words, there really is nothing standing in the way of peace except the parties themselves. But that is always the case. But also remember that there are many, many people who always continue working for peace, even though they are never the ones we see in the news. They are the truly brave ones. Try and remember Rachel Corrie this week: Rachel Corrie Memorial Website |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: akenaton Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:19 PM Some great ideas there guest and I hope they come to pass,but remmember bthe Palestinians are being used as pawns by both the Moslem fundamentalists and conservative jews, who dont want to make any concessions,but want to continue their expansionist agenda...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:28 PM So, the problem is radicals, not reasonable people? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: akenaton Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:40 PM The problems been there for 50 yrs Brucie, but there are always those people who will use other folks misfortune for their own ends. You were right to start this thread,and I hope we get a good discussion and some clear thinking...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 04 - 07:42 PM We will, Ake. I'm sure. Hope you're doin' well, buddy. BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Alaska Mike Date: 13 Mar 04 - 08:13 PM Many serious problems in this world are created and encouraged by radicals. Most people are happy to live peacably with their neighbors until some fanatic points out that the neighbor has different color skin or different beliefs about religion or property that we must have. Unfortunately, we keep listening to the damn radicals and follow their lead into war, bigotry and hatred. When will we learn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 04 - 08:22 PM I'm pretty sure that if I was an Jewish Israeli or a Palestinian my ideal solution would be to have a single secular state including the whole of the Holy Land - call it Eretz Israel or Palestine - with both peoples living there as equal citizens, both with a "right of return" for their diaspora. Within that single state there would be some areas where there was a Jewish majority, and some where there was a Palestinian majority, and others where the numbers were more or less equal. However I know that looking towards that as a solution of choice is not a position that is held at present by many Jewish Israelis (though there always have been some who think in these terms) which means that at this time it is not on. So I imagine I'd want a two state settlement, and hope that in time when the madness has gone, the way madnesses often do some kind of confederation could be established. After all, look what has happened between warring countries in Europe? The crucial thing is for the two peoples to learn to appreciate how very much they have in common, in terms of culture and religion and history, and to learn to tell each others stories, as a way of understanding each other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Nerd Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:19 PM Great thread Brucie. I agree essentially with C-watch here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:29 PM I Wish I had a solution. I wish a good solution here meant something. It really doesn't. How about if you put everyone into therapy? Or, wipe out centuries of hate of Jews by most anything Arab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 13 Mar 04 - 09:51 PM Better yet, ignore anything Carol C. has to say about the subject. For sure, for the good of Israel! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 04 - 10:27 PM I wouldn't wanna ignore the advice of anyone. She's a smart woman, and this is about solutions, not positions, pardon my arrogance MG. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 04 - 11:05 PM I find myself agreeing with most of the second paragraph of artbrooks' 13 Mar 04 - 06:49 PM post. Nice thread, brucie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Johnny in OKC Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:50 AM There isn't going to be a solution until they start over. The problem goes back to '48. When the Israelis moved in, they kicked out everyone that had been living there for centuries. Out of their homes, farms, businesses. Don't care where you go, just get out. What they should have done was guarantee everyone equality. Equal rights, equal opportunity, etc. for everyone. Not that the USA in 1948 was any model of fairness, what with Jim Crow. But now we know better. So how's this gonna happen in Israel now?? Good question. They would need a leader like Nelson Mandela. Love, Johnny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Nerd Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:10 PM Johnny, From Brucie's opening post: I'm guessing that a rehash of history or who did what to whom would cause things to get us all back into a loooong argument. Many people here do not agree with your assessment of 1948, which is factually inaccurate. In 1948, the neighboring Arab countries and the Palestinians began a war with Israel; Israel did not just "kick everybody out." But we've just been through a "loooong argument" about it on another thread, so I won't go into all the details here. The point is, what can be done NOW? As you say, Nelson Mandela would be a good start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:21 PM Actually, the problems between Palestinians and Israelis have already been solved. They were solved in the negotiations that came out of the Helsinki agreement. The problem now, just as is the case in Northern Ireland, is that one side is not willing to implement the agreement. Israel's right wing Zionist parties, like Northern Ireland's right wing unionist and loyalist parties, are refusing to implement the terms of the agreements that were negotiated to solve the problems. Thank god Northern Ireland did regress the way the situation did in Palestine. But that is the reality. There is war today, because the right wing politicians are standing in the way of peace. It truly is that simple, folks. The hard part--the negotiating and coming to agreements--has been done. Those agreements have been undermined by those who hold the power--Israel and Britain--in both conflicts. It could all end tomorrow, if in both parts of the world, people would denounce the right wing politicians who feed off war and human misery for what they are, and demand their governments put an end to the conflicts here and now. Clear thinking, strong hearts, and a mighty resolve is what is needed. Nothing more, nothing less. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Strollin' Johnny Date: 14 Mar 04 - 01:28 PM I've a feeling there's a lot in what GUEST says - that peace will come when the peaceful majorities on both sides tell their leaders to pack it in or bugger off. Until then they'll carry on and give others the 'justification' to bomb innocents both in Israel and further afield. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:12 PM "Thank god Northern Ireland did regress" Oops! That of course should say "didn't regress". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST,Judah Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:14 PM I believe there has been a long time double standard which accepts the fact that Arab lands should be 100% non Jewish and under Muslim law, and even be allowed to be at war with Israel, but Israel must be multi-ethnic, secular, and treat every act of war within its borders as a civil court case. So long as this world view paints Israelis and Zionists into a corner, I do not see where 'peace' is an option for Israel. How about this: The Arab States take responsibility for the Jewish population which used to exist throughout Arab and Islamic lands and either through emigration or eviction left those lands to resettle in what is not the State of Israel. That as part of that acceptance, the Arab States take upon themselves the resettlement of those non-Israeli people forced to live such wretched existence in the Gaza Strip. Similarly on the East side of Israel, there is already a State for the Palestinians. It is called Jordan. There should be a council admistered by the U.N. and composed of equal amounts of Arabs and Israelis to negotiate the West Bank situation. So far it seems that everyone feels that Israel should be a secular state with an existing healthy minority of Arabs and Christians, but somehow a Palestinian State should have no Jews. If there is to be another Palestinian State on the West bank of the Jordan, it too should be multi-ethnic and democratic. And it should have a healthy minority of Jews. There are already significant signs that an independent Palestinian State which no access to the Mediterranean, and over land with significant water rights issues, is going to be non-viable from the start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:17 PM I think we're better off sticking with the agreements already negotiated. Once the peaceful majorities decide to make their nations ungovernable by staging massive demonstrations until the criminal politicians are thrown out of power, everything will change. Everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 04 - 02:47 PM Well, it is wonderful to see a thread progressing that recognizes two essential elements to the ME situation. 1) Both people have a right to live in peace and security 2) We may be able to keep looking for solutions that don't involve war |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: CarolC Date: 14 Mar 04 - 03:18 PM I don't think anyone's suggesting that there should be no Jews in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Certainly the Palestinians are not suggesting this. What they are saying is that if Jews are going to live there, they should be governed by a Palestinian government, and live just as the rest of the Palestinians live, instead of in segregated settlements that are under Israeli rule, defended by Israeli soldiers, and accessed by roads that can only be used by Jews. And the Palestinians don't want an exclusively Muslim state, either. There are Christian Palestinians, and before the creation of the State of Israel, there were Jewish Palestinians, as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 04 - 03:27 PM If there is to be another Palestinian State on the West bank of the Jordan, it too should be multi-ethnic and democratic. And it should have a healthy minority of Jews. I think you'd find that there are a lot of Palestinians who in principle would be in favour of that. The Jewish communities in the rest of the Middle East were there for thousands of years, and played a valued part in those societies. Their uprooting in the wake of the war of 1948 was a tragedy and a disaster for the whole region. And there are many Arabs who see it in that way. The hope must be that in the wake of a just and viable solution in the Holy Land, these communities can start to come back into existence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 04 - 05:45 PM We are facing what I perceive to be a compound problem that complicates matters. 1) Religions 2) Security Comments? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 04 - 06:11 PM 1. Get Bush out of office. 2. Patch up the damages he has created with out allies and the United Nations. 3. Put the war powers back in Congress and away from a single trigger happy exectutive. 4. Call for a Middle East Peace Summit with the Saudi Propoasl being a general framework. 5. Have Denis Kucinich head the US delegation to this summit. Then watch the details than many of you argue over fall into place. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Peace Date: 14 Mar 04 - 06:24 PM Bobert, I'm starting to get the distinct impression that you don't like President Bush. Would that be an accurate assessment on my part? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Gareth Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:06 PM No Brucie, I suspect that the Bobert despises GWB Jnr, tho he is to good a christian ( in the correct sense of the word ) to use those terms. But for myself, I have no such restrictions. Gareth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:14 PM Perhaps they could call halftime, and swap ends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 04 - 08:29 PM In reality, I don't despise Bush but I ain't too wild about most of his policies. Might of fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of any I agree with. He tends to see things only as black or white. The real world isn't that way at all and that's why his going back to the ranch is a first and necessary step toward peace in the Middle Esat. "One cannot solve a problem with the same consciencousness that created it." (Einstien) I'm not say that Bush created all the problems in the Middle East but he sure chooze a lousy time to turn his back on the region because it might, just might, be perceived by his friends that he actually agreed with any thing that might be percieved as something that Clinton was doing well. And you have to give Clinton credit for making the effort. Specially when you see how little effort Bush's folks have made... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST,Martin Gibson Date: 15 Mar 04 - 12:36 PM I had to rescfue this thread from the very bottom. Brucie said this thread was about solutions, not positions. What a stupid waste of time, unfortunately. Abdul, look out for that missile. You just maybe blew up your last bus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Bobert Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:10 PM Ahhhh, ex*cluse* yerself if you like but I did put forth a plan with components that are not exactly flaming commie liberal. The Saudi Plan is still a viable framework. Oh, you don't like Saudis? Well, okay, lets call it the Mitchell Plan since it was also introduced by this Senator (Congressman?)..... Purdy much the same plan... Oh, sure you can find components within the plan to argue over but there has never been a peace (or no war) plan than ended up too danged complicated in its general framework. They all purdy much are contracts were parties agree to quit blowing each other in exchange for_______________,________________ and_____________. See, the problems is that folks first must see that blowing each other up is probably not going to improve the chances of peace. Most of the time that you can't get folks to this point is because the stronger party isn't quite ready to stop stealing the other parties stuff. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Mar 04 - 01:22 PM The thing is, sooner or later this will be over. It might be 100 years or more, it might be mnore, it might be a lot less, but it will be over. One trick sometimes is to imagine the future you'd hope to see, and then work back from that to imagine the intermediate stages. If the right people on the two sides can find a common future they could live with, that's the start of finding the intermediate stages. And in fact there does seem to be a fair amount of agreement about that - in principle, but not in details, and as they say "the devil is in the details". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:02 AM 2002 Saudi Proposal: US welcomed it Israeli's were interested in it Palestinian Authority were interested in it Egypt was in favour of it Jordan was in favour of it Syria (+ their colony Lebanon) was against it Iraq (in the form of Saddam Hussein) was against it Iran (in the form of 12 old geezers of the ruling council) were against it All Islamic terrorist organisations were against it Doesn't sound much like a recipe for success, all those currently keen on indiscriminate murder and mayhem appear to want to go on killing people. 2004 Saudi Proposal (with a few modifications and incentives): Summit Meeting: Following to participate: US Israel Palestinian Authority Egypt Jordan Syria (+ their colony Lebanon) Israel to withdrawn to 1967 line: All troops/police to be withdrawn from settlements built on land occupied in the aftermath of the 1967 war. The inhabitants of those settlements can decide whether or not they want to live in the new seperate Palestine State. Israel's incentive to do this based on the clear message from the US, that failure to comply will result in total and immediate cessation of all US aid to Israel. Assets of those attempting to send funds to Israel where and when possible will be frozen. Recognition by all participants of the right of the State of Israel to exist: Security of Israel guaranteed by all participants: Clear message from all participants that failure to observe this guarantee will result in direct action to protect Israel by all participants. No right of return - no compensation: Water rights throughout the region guaranteed: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:30 AM Pedantic note: It's not really accurate to call Lebanon "a colony" of Syria, since that implies that putting in colonists in foreign territory is the heart of the relationship - "a protectorate" would surely be the correct term. In this case a protectorate in a former province that is now legally an independent state. Not so pedantic note: "2004 Saudi Proposal (with a few modifications and incentives):" Wouldn't this be better called "Teribus Peace Proposal 2004". If there has been a 2004 Saudi Proposal it doesn't seem to have been very high profile. It's not clear whether the "No right of return" is supposed to apply just to Palestinians who came from what is now Israel, or also to Jews from the rest of the world. I think that would be a rather serious stumbling block for Israel - though it would be a concession that could have a considerable impact on the willingness of Palestinians to make an equivalent concession. As for "no compensation" - I'd have thought that "non compensation by Israel" might have more mileage. Compensation from other countries which have contributed to the problem might be appropriate, more especially Germany, the USA and Saudi Arabia. (Remember, the compensation in question would be to innocent people and families who have had their whole lives disrupted in an unjust way by events over which they had no control.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:15 AM Pedantic note: To describe it as a colony, that implies that putting in colonists in foreign territory is the heart of the relationship - You mean kinds like what they've done in the Bekaa Valley? You could of course describe it as "a protectorate". In the case of Lebanon it would be a case of an independent sovereign state involuntarily becoming a protectorate and then reverting to a quasi-independent state, playing host to however Syria and Iran tell it to. Pedantic note: "2004 Saudi Proposal (with a few modifications and incentives):" Would have been better called "2004, the rejected 2002 Saudi proposal revisited (with a few modifications and incentives):" "No right of return" is only to apply to Palestinians who came from what is now Israel. Once created and recognised Israel and the new Palestine can admit whoever they wish on the understanding that Israel is Israel and Palestine is Palestine. My apologies for not elaborating on the "no compensation" bit - As you say it would be no compensation from Israel. The deal would have to be funded, those funds going to the participating countries and in the case of the Palestinians to a specifically formed, fiscally responsible and transparent UN committee, so that thieving, weasel Arafat can't get his hands on any of it. Your suggestion of compensation from other countries which have contributed to the problem might is a good idea. My list would include: USA UK France Germany Iran Iraq Syria Egypt Saudi Arabia Libya Kuwait A very good point you make: (Remember, the compensation in question would be to innocent people and families who have had their whole lives disrupted in an unjust way by events over which they had no control.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:21 AM Well, that's something we're agreed on, anyway... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 04 - 09:23 AM Hey, it is a framework, isn't it? And, T-Bird, the US wasn't jumpin' up and down in support of it, if you'll recollect. Might of fact, it's support was more on the tepid side of the equation. Had the US shown more interest than perhaps other parties would have followed suit... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 04 - 10:12 AM Hey Bobert, I'm only reporting the comments at the time, they were as indicated in my first post, i.e. "welcomed"; "interested"; "rejected". Unfortunately, I doubt if US interest would have cut much ice with those who rejected it I mean they were completely disinterested about the whole issue while the US were welcoming). In the case of one of the principles (our ol' incarcerated buddy Saddam) he actually went to war purely on the premise that the opposition (in that particular instance Iran) showed signs of being amenable to a negotiated settlement of Iraq and Iran's dispute in the Shat-al-Arab - He viewed their approach, olive branch in hand as being a sign of weakness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST,C-watch Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:46 PM One of the most discouraging Middle East stories on tonight's newscast was about an 11 year old Palestinian boy who was, without his knowledge, used to transport a bomb through an Israeli checkpoint. Israeli soldiers, who knew the boy as a courier who earned money, carrying bags through the checkpoint intercepted the bomb. The Palestinian terrorist who gave the bomb to the boy tried to blow him up at the checkpoint, but failed. found this AP story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Middle East: Solutions From: GUEST Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:47 PM found this AP story |
