• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S.: Israel, Palestinians 'very close' to direct Mideast peace talks

24107

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
State Department says all parties, including the Quartet, will release separate but simultaneous statements saying the stalled talks will resume early next month.

The Obama administration said Thursday it is near to securing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to resume direct peace talks, while some U.S. officials said an announcement could be imminent.The State Department said an agreement was "very, very" close but that details were still being worked out. Speaking privately administration officials familiar with the matter said an announcement could come as early as Friday or Saturday. Those officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the delicacy of the ongoing diplomacy.
U.S.: Israel, Palestinians 'very close' to direct Mideast peace talks - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
A step towards peace.jpg
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,491
Reaction score
3,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
State Department says all parties, including the Quartet, will release separate but simultaneous statements saying the stalled talks will resume early next month.


U.S.: Israel, Palestinians 'very close' to direct Mideast peace talks - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
View attachment 67112211
Important to understand the details. Will this negotiation start with all of the PA preconditions. If so, not sure what will be negotiated. If an agreement will call for UN troops at the border, the travisty im south Lebanon should be a deal breaker. Lastly how does the PA negotiate for the people of Gaza.

Seems like this this will be one more step in the demise of Israel which most of the world would celebrate.
 

24107

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Important to understand the details. Will this negotiation start with all of the PA preconditions
The negotiations will be based on similar one's in the recent past.
If an agreement will call for UN troops at the border, the travisty im south Lebanon should be a deal breaker
U.N. troops along with the P.A. security forces(who have been cooperative with the Israeli security forces) and the idf working jointly together, would be very effective.
Lastly how does the PA negotiate for the people of Gaza.
This is a good question, I believe if a 2 state solution is reached. And the citizens of Gaza are allowed to leave their enclave, and travel to and from the newly established state, have an oppurtunity to get better jobs, better education, better healthcare and sniff the freedom of a wider world, they will see the light. This will weaken the hamas government. If hamas refuses to step down, the P.A. must be armed for a military conflict, U.N. troops comprising of soldier's from other arab countries in a supporting role is also a good idea, hopefully it doesn't come to this. But the Gaza issue can be taken care of after the 2 state solution(as that is the large chunk of territory that the majority of Palestinians will be residing in).
Seems like this this will be one more step in the demise of Israel which most of the world would celebrate.
This will show the world Israel is willing to compromise, and will garner it more support.
 

ido_

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
3,406
Reaction score
1,561
Location
Israel
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is a good question, I believe if a 2 state solution is reached. And the citizens of Gaza are allowed to leave their enclave, and travel to and from the newly established state, have an oppurtunity to get better jobs, better education, better healthcare and sniff the freedom of a wider world, they will see the light. This will weaken the hamas government. If hamas refuses to step down, the P.A. must be armed for a military conflict, U.N. troops comprising of soldier's from other arab countries in a supporting role is also a good idea, hopefully it doesn't come to this. But the Gaza issue can be taken care of after the 2 state solution(as that is the large chunk of territory that the majority of Palestinians will be residing in).
Looking at it from our prespective, the border with Gaza cannot be opened to allow free travel as long as Hamas are in power. Doing so will mean a new era of suicide bombers in the heart of Israel, even if you will let them enter through Egypt - Jordan, when they will reach the west bank they will have easier access into Israel after a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians will be signed. In order to ease the lives of the people of Gaza, the Hamas must abandon its way of terror or that the PA will retake the control over the strip and clean it from terrorist groups as it does (or at least trys to) today in the west bank.
 
Last edited:

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,491
Reaction score
3,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Looking at it from our prespective, the border with Gaza cannot be opened to allow free travel as long as Hamas are in power. Doing so will mean a new era of suicide bombers in the heart of Israel, even if you will let them enter through Egypt - Jordan, when they will reach the west bank they will have easier access into Israel after a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians will be signed. In order to ease the lives of the people of Gaza, the Hamas must abandon its way of terror or that the PA will retake the control over the strip and clean it from terrorist groups as it does (or at least trys to) today in the west bank.
Thanks for the response. The part I am not as comfortable with is the UN participation. Perhaps I am mistaken but I understand that they have not done a good job making sure Hezbellah is not rearmed. So it is not that they are hostile to Israel. But less than optimum in enforcing their will when Hezbellah did not work with tehm.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
IMO, the possibility of direct negotiations is an encouraging development. Direct talks hold the best prospect of producing a mutually acceptable agreement.

That being said, there are rumors about the Madrid Quartet's statement going beyond UNSC Res. 242 and specifying what amounts to preconditions. Israel should make clear that even as it will participate in the direct talks (something it has wanted to do for quite some time, even as the Palestinian leadership refused to enter into direct negotiations) that it does not accept the preconditions and will not be bound by those preconditions. Hopefully, the Madrid Quartet will take a pragmatic approach, extend an invite to talks, and avoid trying to impose preconditions.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The U.S. extended the invitation to the talks, which will begin on September 2. No preconditions were attached.

The New York Times reported:

Mrs. Clinton said that she hoped an agreement could be reached within a year and that the negotiations would cover all the so-called “final status” issues. Those issues have long included the borders of a future Palestinian state, the political status of Jerusalem, security provisions for Israel, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

But Mrs. Clinton pointedly did not mention using Israel’s pre-1967 borders as the basis for territorial negotiations — a basic plank of previous talks — or set any other basic terms for the negotiations. Nor did she press the Israeli government to extend a moratorium on the construction of Jewish settlements, which would remove a potential hurdle to a deal.
 

ObamaYoMoma

Banned
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The two-state solution has always been a farce designed to manipulate the USA into weakening Israel on the behalf of Muslims and to provide political cover for that to be accomplished until the final assault on Israel can take place. Indeed, it’s designed to reduce Israel to the indefensible Auschwitz borders. In fact, given the current state of affairs in the Middle East today, nothing could be more detrimental to Israeli and US interests, which is why the Obama administration is pursuing them, of course. Not to mention that even if threes states become imposed on Israel, because Hamastan will never be reunited with the so-called West Bank without a war, it still would not end the endless jihad being waged against Israel because the jihad is permanent.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The two-state solution has always been a farce designed to manipulate the USA into weakening Israel on the behalf of Muslims and to provide political cover for that to be accomplished until the final assault on Israel can take place. Indeed, it’s designed to reduce Israel to the indefensible Auschwitz borders. In fact, given the current state of affairs in the Middle East today, nothing could be more detrimental to Israeli and US interests, which is why the Obama administration is pursuing them, of course. Not to mention that even if threes states become imposed on Israel, because Hamastan will never be reunited with the so-called West Bank without a war, it still would not end the endless jihad being waged against Israel because the jihad is permanent.
Such a line of reasoning would transform what is a highly complex and difficult political dispute into an irreconcilable theological one, It would accomplish little more than to perpetuate confrontation. Few arguments can be made that perpetual confrontation is preferable to reduced tensions.

Under such a perspective, Israel would never have achieved peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Instead, Israel would continue to be confronted with the risk of renewed warfare from either state. Such an outcome would consume economic, financial and human resources. In turn, Israel's standard of living would be lower than it is today, as would be the case for Jordan and Egypt, as well, and all three states would also be less secure than they are today.

Israel can and should ensure that its critical interests are achieved in negotiations. Doing so does not require no negotiations whatsoever. It does require establishing firm boundaries beyond which Israel won't cross when it comes to its core needs, particularly security. It also allows for cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,051
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah, well, lotsa luck there, since mideast peace talks have been SO productive in the past. :roll:
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yeah, well, lotsa luck there, since mideast peace talks have been SO productive in the past. :roll:
Seeking to achieve a final agreement within a year is an extremely demanding aspiration. It probably won't happen. But perhaps some meaningful progress can be achieved.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,491
Reaction score
3,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Seeking to achieve a final agreement within a year is an extremely demanding aspiration. It probably won't happen. But perhaps some meaningful progress can be achieved.
How long did the US negotiate with Vietnam to resolve that issue. Putting a one year timeline or any deadline is almost certain to either cause frustration or allow one or the other party to just run the clock.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Putting a one year timeline or any deadline is almost certain to either cause frustration or allow one or the other party to just run the clock.
To be fair, Secretary Clinton did not establish a one-year deadline. She expressed hope that an agreement could be achieved in that timeframe. IMO, no timelines should have been mentioned, as doing so can foster or nurture unrealistic expectations. Once those expectations are not fulfilled, a disincentive to sustain the process could emerge. Hopefully, meaningful progress will be achieved and the parties will persevere until they can reach a mutually acceptable peace agreement.
 
Last edited:

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,491
Reaction score
3,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
To be fair, Secretary Clinton did not establish a one-year deadline. She expressed hope that an agreement could be achieved in that timeframe. IMO, no timelines should have been mentioned, as doing so can foster or nurture unrealistic expectations. Once those expectations are not fulfilled, a disincentive to sustain the process could emerge. Hopefully, meaningful progress will be achieved and the parties will persevere until they can reach a mutually acceptable peace agreement.
Perhaps you are right. It was my understanding that the one year was out there and that Obama would try and impose a solution if the date was not going to be hit.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Perhaps you are right. It was my understanding that the one year was out there and that Obama would try and impose a solution if the date was not going to be hit.
I don't believe any attempt will be made to impose a solution. Early on, there had been rumors toward that end. But as far as I know, that naive and counterproductive notion has been put aside. The U.S. will offer bridging proposals if the two parties ask for U.S. suggestions, but it won't attempt to impose a solution.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,491
Reaction score
3,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I don't believe any attempt will be made to impose a solution. Early on, there had been rumors toward that end. But as far as I know, that naive and counterproductive notion has been put aside. The U.S. will offer bridging proposals if the two parties ask for U.S. suggestions, but it won't attempt to impose a solution.
That being the case this could hopefully be the beakthrough many have been hoping for for a long time!
 

ObamaYoMoma

Banned
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Such a line of reasoning would transform what is a highly complex and difficult political dispute into an irreconcilable theological one, It would accomplish little more than to perpetuate confrontation. Few arguments can be made that perpetual confrontation is preferable to reduced tensions.
What you mean transform into a theological one? It has always and will always be a theological one. The jihad against Israel is a part of the greater global jihad in which Israel is the canary in the coal mine.

It would accomplish little more than to perpetuate confrontation. Few arguments can be made that perpetual confrontation is preferable to reduced tensions.
I prefer to accept reality instead of deluding myself with political correctness by pretending that the jihad being waged against Israel, the West, and indeed all unbelievers around the world isn’t permanent, as history more than demonstrates that I’m right and that you are wrong. In fact, the jihad the world faces today, is the same exact jihad our forces faced in Tripoli at the turn of the 19th century, as the jihad has been taking place perpetually ever since the days of Muhammad and will continue to take place perpetually until either the Muslims are rendered too weak to wage jihad or otherwise until the entire world becomes subsumed by Islam and Sharia.

Hence, any solutions that we seek to undertake without taking into account the larger global jihad at large will inevitably be counterproductive. As a matter of fact, both the Iraq and the Afghanistan fiascos couldn’t have been more counterproductive, as in each instance we created Sharia states that began opposing us even as we continued to prop them up.

Under such a perspective, Israel would never have achieved peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.
Those Hudnas aren’t worth spit, as Israel isn’t at war with Jordan and Egypt, it is at war with the ummah. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt after Mubarak dies next year, how much do you think those Hudnas will be worth? If Iran gets nukes and successfully runs the USA out of the Middle East, how loyal to America do you think Jordan will remain? Islam is fighting a millennial jihad and intends to fully subjugate the world. Hell, the Crusaders conquered and ruled the Holy Land for nearly two hundred years before the Crusades eventually succumbed to the jihad. The Muslims fully believe that in time they too will be victorious over Israel. Indeed, to them it is inevitable and just a matter of time.

Not to mention that since it is impossible that the so-called peace process will result in peace, then why even pursue it? Because we are bored and don’t have anything better to do? Because Obama hates Jews and it weakens Israel while keeping the spotlight on them? Because it deflects unwanted attention away from Obama’s failure to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons? Because it will provide another convenient opportunity to blame Israel for its inevitable failure? Because we can use the so-called peace process as cover to mask the fact that we are supporting terrorists in Lebanon and the West Bank under the guise of peace?

And what about Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran, will they suddenly all end their genocidal jihad against Israel too if Israel agrees to commit Jewicide? Hell, creating a third Palestinian terrorist state wouldn’t even stop the so-called Palestinians living in the West Bank from ending their jihad against Israel, much less the rest of them. Hence, unless the intention is to weaken Israel, then why even pursue it?

Israel can and should ensure that its critical interests are achieved in negotiations.
Israel can negotiate with Muslims till the cows come home, but it will never end the jihad being waged against it, as that jihad is permanent. It’s like the Euros and now Obama negotiating with Iran, Iran will never ever compromise unless forced into compromising, and even then it is only until they can regain the upper hand. There is no such thing as reaching permanent and lasting peace with Muslims. You either render them too weak to wage jihad or otherwise you face permanent jihad. Remember, I said that if you fail to take into account the greater global jihad at large when developing solutions, you may as well as shoot yourself in the foot.

The reality is Israel is helpless to end the endless jihad against it on its own. It is only the collective West that could act to end the global jihad. However, at this point the West for the most part is still blind by political correctness although there are encouraging signs that it is beginning to wake up.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That being the case this could hopefully be the beakthrough many have been hoping for for a long time!
The obstacles e.g., differences between the parties are very significant. It will be a formidable task. Given how reluctant the Palestinians were to enter into direct negotiations in the first place, there is always the risk that when they are confronted with the reality that they will need to compromise, they could walk away.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What you mean transform into a theological one? It has always and will always be a theological one. The jihad against Israel is a part of the greater global jihad in which Israel is the canary in the coal mine.
Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan suggest otherwise. There is a theological aspect to the Hamas issue, as Hamas anchors its rejectionism in religion. Hamas is not likey to accept compromise and, if the peace process is to include the Gaza Strip, that matter will need to be resolved. Otherwise, Hamas will obstruct peace.

I prefer to accept reality instead of deluding myself with political correctness by pretending that the jihad being waged against Israel, the West, and indeed all unbelievers around the world isn’t permanent, as history more than demonstrates that I’m right and that you are wrong.
No one suggested that Islamist radicals are not waging war against the U.S., Israel, West. Your error is assuming that all Muslims are doing so. That simply has no basis in fact. There are different schools, nuances in thought, a wide range of cultural/historical experiences, etc., all at play, each of which influences perspectives. There are radical revolutionary movements. But there are pragmatic ones, as well. Salafists and Sufis, among others, do not think alike in terms of worldviews, goals, aspirations, flexibility, etc.

Those Hudnas aren’t worth spit, as Israel isn’t at war with Jordan and Egypt, it is at war with the ummah. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt after Mubarak dies next year, how much do you think those Hudnas will be worth?
I highly doubt Israel's people believe those two agreements are worthless or that the interval of tranquility they have brought is meaningless. The rewards to all parties have been significant and tangible. Nevertheless, there is always the risk that a change in government/circumstances could bring an end to the peace agreements. If that happened, such a development would not be unique to the Islamic world in general and Egypt in particular. For starters, European history is littered with agreements that were sealed and then broken. Arabs or Muslims were not responsible for making those agreements or later shattering them.

If Iran gets nukes and successfully runs the USA out of the Middle East, how loyal to America do you think Jordan will remain?
No one has argued that a nuclear armed Iran would not present profound balance of power issues. It most certainly would. The difference in opinion concerns how to limit the risk of that development. Time (1-3 years) remains. Options remain. If, ultimately, a military operation is to be carried out, then so be it. But there is no urgent need for such an operation today, tomorrow, or next week.

Not to mention that since it is impossible that the so-called peace process will result in peace, then why even pursue it?
Difficult does not mean impossible. Just because a task is challenging, one should not throw up one's hands in despair and simply give up. Even if agreement is not reached, and formidable obstacles exist, perhaps some incremental progress can be made. Over time, incremental progress can lead to a building of trust/nurturing of a new coexistence narrative/willingness to compromise. In turn, that experience could allow for a final settlement to be reached.

Egypt's peace agreement didn't happen in a matter of days. Slow and persistent diplomacy led by Henry Kissinger beginning at the end of the 1973 war paved the road for President Sadat's dramatic visit to Israel, the Camp David Agreement of 1978, and peace treaty of March 1979. Numerous setbacks occurred along the way.

Because we are bored and don’t have anything better to do?
Increasing stability in the Middle East is in the U.S. national interest. Helping reduce threats confronting Israel, a key strategic ally, is in the interest of the U.S. Access to oil is a vital U.S. and Western interest. Novel as it might seem, significant events in the Middle East do impact the U.S. Hence, there is no escaping it. Increased stability benefits the U.S. and it makes eminent sense for the U.S. to invest time, effort, and resources into facilitating increased stability. The idea that the U.S. is involved out of some naive and idealistic altruism is ridiculous. It betrays a fundamental failure to recognize or understand the existence of important U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Because Obama hates Jews...
There is no credible evidence that he hates Jewish people. Although I strongly disagreed with the pressure he placed on Israel in the past, such pressure does not automatically mean he "hates Jews."

Because it deflects unwanted attention away from Obama’s failure to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons? Because it will provide another convenient opportunity to blame Israel for its inevitable failure?
There is no evidence whatsoever that the U.S. would "blame Israel" if Iran attains nuclear weapons.

And what about Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran, will they suddenly all end their genocidal jihad against Israel...
Comprehensive peace won't unfold immediately. Furthermore, a comprehensive approach should not be pursued. Such an approach would only give the most extreme party a veto over the entire effort. Peace should be pursued on a step-by-step basis, focusing on individual tracks, not one grand track. With each party that moves away from confrontation/conflict, Israel's security is improved. Israel's security improved when Egypt ended its confrontation with Israel. Israel's security improved further when Jordan entered into a peace agreement. If the West Bank agrees to peace (assuming Hamas thwarts the Gaza's joining an agreement), another contribution to Israel's security would be made.

Hell, creating a third Palestinian terrorist state wouldn’t even stop the so-called Palestinians living in the West Bank from ending their jihad against Israel, much less the rest of them.
The number of terrorist attacks that originated in Egypt or Jordan since peace has been reached has been minimal. There is no automatic guarantee that frequent terrorist attacks would originate in the West Bank.

Hence, unless the intention is to weaken Israel, then why even pursue it?
Peace, if it is based on accommodation of the parties' core needs (and Israel's security is a core need), does not translate into weakening Israel's position. If the mentality that "peace = weakening a country's position" were prevalent, peace agreements would not be reached and a much less stable geopolitical situation would exist. No one is asking Israel to capitulate. Fears that peace would weaken Israel, assuming Israel negotiates a framework that safeguards its core needs, are far-fetched.
 

jmh423

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
76
Reaction score
25
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
To be fair, Secretary Clinton did not establish a one-year deadline. She expressed hope that an agreement could be achieved in that timeframe. IMO, no timelines should have been mentioned, as doing so can foster or nurture unrealistic expectations. Once those expectations are not fulfilled, a disincentive to sustain the process could emerge. Hopefully, meaningful progress will be achieved and the parties will persevere until they can reach a mutually acceptable peace agreement.

With all due respect, this charade has been going on since the Carter administration, and all that has happened is more illegal settlements by the Israelis and more disenfranchisement for the native semitic people. What is indicated in Palistine/Israel is REGIME CHANGE....The only real solution is to remove the current leadership and hold elections that ALL citizens of Palistine/Israel can participate in...The pay massive reparations to all who have been damaged.

Thanks
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The only real solution is to remove the current leadership and hold elections that ALL citizens of Palistine/Israel can participate in...
A single state solution is not viable. It won't be on the table.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,691
Reaction score
9,981
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
For those who are interested, the Madrid Quartet's statement was as follows:

The representatives of the Quartet reaffirm their strong support for direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve all final status issues. The Quartet reaffirms its full commitment to its previous statements, including in Trieste on 26 June 2009, in New York on 24 September 2009, and its statement in Moscow on 19 March 2010 which provides that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should "lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors."

The Quartet expresses its determination to support the parties throughout the negotiations, which can be completed within one year, and the implementation of an agreement. The Quartet again calls on both sides to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric. Welcoming the result of the Arab Peace Initiative Committee in Cairo on July 29, the Quartet notes that success will require sustained regional and international support for the negotiations and the parallel process of Palestinian state-building and the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace as envisaged in the Madrid terms of reference, Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. The Quartet Principals intend to meet with their colleagues from the Arab League in September in New York to review the situation. Accordingly, the Quartet calls on the Israelis and the Palestinians to join in launching direct negotiations on September 2 in Washington, D.C. to resolve all final status issues and fulfill the aspirations of both parties.

New York, 20 August 2010
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
49,789
Reaction score
31,600
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
realistically, what could israel expect to realize from these talks that it does not already have?
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
realistically, what could israel expect to realize from these talks that it does not already have?
Maybe it wants to rehab its global image.

:shrug:
 

ObamaYoMoma

Banned
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
81
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan suggest otherwise.
All it demonstrates is both Mubarak and King Hussein are secular strongmen whose whims flow with the political winds. If the USA loses influence in the Middle East and suddenly stopped paying the jizya to them, watch how fast those Hudnas get dumped, as both strongmen scrambles to form new alliances. Not to mention that it is not like both countries are open to Israeli tourists and commerce.

By the way, what kind of price did Mubarak’s predecessor pay for the Hudna he made with Israel? The truth is he was a dead man walking the minute he inked that deal.

Moreover, those Hudnas not worth the paper they are written on will never stop the so-called Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, not to mention all the other Muslim regimes behind the scenes, from pursuing genocidal jihad against Israel. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, they are useless. Hence, you can ignore reality and the greater global jihad at your own peril if you prefer to delude yourself that way, but don’t be surprised when your supposed solutions inevitably blowup in your face. You want to understand the Middle East, study and learn Islam because Islam dictates everything that occurs in the Middle East.

Anyway, according to you, what will creating another terrorist state in the West Bank accomplish and how will it result in permanent and lasting peace, because if it doesn’t result in permanent and lasting peace, then why even pursue it?

There is a theological aspect to the Hamas issue, as Hamas anchors its rejectionism in religion. Hamas is not likey to accept compromise and, if the peace process is to include the Gaza Strip, that matter will need to be resolved. Otherwise, Hamas will obstruct peace.
Actually, the so-called PA faction is theological too, however, they were trained to hide and couch their jihad as a nationalist secular movement by the KGB, and this has more than been documented. Anyway, how is resolving the Hamas problem going to ever result in peace? What about Hezbollah, Syria, and the ruling mullahs of Iran? Do you think that after Iran gets nukes they are going to be more accommodating towards the Israelis? Like I said, if a two state solution, which is really an absurd farce, isn’t going to result in permanent peace, then why even pursue it. Just to prove to the Islamic world how blinded by political correctness we in the West are in order to embolden them even further?

No one suggested that Islamist radicals are not waging war against the U.S., Israel, West.
I’m afraid it is more than just a tiny minority of Islamic radicals that is waging jihad against Israel, the West, and indeed all unbelievers.

Your error is assuming that all Muslims are doing so.
All devout Muslims. Your error is not studying and learning Islam. You are either a slave of Allah or you are the infidel. Islam accepts nothing but total undivided submission.

That simply has no basis in fact.
What do you mean, there are literally libraries of documentation that prove otherwise?

There are different schools, nuances in thought, a wide range of cultural/historical experiences, etc., all at play, each of which influences perspectives.
I never said Muslims are monolithic and if anyone suggest otherwise, you tell them they don’t know what they are talking about. Of course, there are many differences within the ummah, however, the jihad ideology, which, by the way, is the sixth pillar of Islam, couldn’t be any more mainstream within Islam, as it is taught and advocated by all sects and divisions within Islam and by every school of Islamic jurisprudence. Hence, while the majority of Muslims in the world may or may not agree with OBL, because they may disagree with his strategy and tactics, that majority of Muslim nonetheless does share his same goal, a world where Islam and Sharia reigns supreme.

There are radical revolutionary movements. But there are pragmatic ones, as well.
Yep, sort of like there are some hot jihadists, i.e., AQ and Iran, and there are some cold jihadists, i.e., the House of Saud and the Gulf states. The only difference between the two different competing factions is the strategy and tactics preferred. However, both groups agree on the same exact goals and both groups will and do cooperate on occasion.

Salafists and Sufis, among others, do not think alike in terms of worldviews, goals, aspirations, flexibility, etc.
One of the biggest myths I see espoused by the Left is that the Sufis are peaceful non-violent Muslims. However, if you look back in history you find that some of the most violent jihadists of all time in history were Sufis. Sufis are mystics; it doesn’t mean they aren’t jihadists, as all sects embrace jihad as Islam’s sixth pillar.

I highly doubt Israel's people believe those two agreements are worthless or that the interval of tranquility they have brought is meaningless.
Please, Jordan and Egypt were both too weak to wage hot jihad against Israel, as the price would have cost far too high for both of them. Hence, why not finagle a clueless USA to pay jizya to them. I mean the Hudna with Jordan in 1994 was totally unnecessary and in reality very stupid. Of course, it was done in the spirit of Oslo, which was nothing but a big pitfall for Israel, as today Israel is far worse off because of it. Anyway, those Hudas will last only as long as it is convenient for either of them and as long as the jizya keeps coming in. However, if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt, all bets are off. Nevertheless, at least for the time being, it is Israel's military superiority that maintains the peace more than anything else or a piece of paper not worth the ink used to print it.

The rewards to all parties have been significant and tangible.
Yep, it was a windfall for all of them thanks to billions of dollars in US tax dollars.

The difference in opinion concerns how to limit the risk of that development.
There is only one way, oust the Mullahs and destroy the nuclear program. Anything else will mean disaster.

But there is no urgent need for such an operation today, tomorrow, or next week.
More “just in time” diplomacy…yeah right. Meanwhile, Iran keeps hardening their nuclear facilities and acquiring more and more advance defense systems.

Difficult does not mean impossible
So are you suggesting that creating another Sharia state in the West Bank would cause Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran to all simultaneously end their endless genocidal jihads? Yeah right.

Even if agreement is not reached, and formidable obstacles exist, perhaps some incremental progress can be made.
The peace process is very destructive for Israel and exceedingly counterproductive to our own interests.

Over time, incremental progress can lead to a building of trust/nurturing of a new coexistence narrative/willingness to compromise.
Yeah…I have a bridge for sale. There has never been a single time in history where infidels made a long and lasting peace with Muslims except by rendering them too weak to pursue jihad.

In turn, that experience could allow for a final settlement to be reached.
Which is literally impossible. Indeed, I can promise you that in your lifetime there will never be peace between the Palestinian proxies and Israel, much less Israel and the remainder of the Islamic world.

Egypt's peace agreement didn't happen in a matter of days. Slow and persistent diplomacy led by Henry Kissinger beginning at the end of the 1973 war paved the road for President Sadat's dramatic visit to Israel, the Camp David Agreement of 1978, and peace treaty of March 1979. Numerous setbacks occurred along the way.
Funny, that’s not the way that I recall it. Of course, the story has been greatly embellished over the years to accentuate certain people’s careers. Too bad Sadat had to pay the ultimate price though, which was inevitable, but he did last longer than I thought he would.

Increasing stability in the Middle East is in the U.S. national interest
I can promise you that weakening Israel is not the way to create stability in the Middle East.

Helping reduce threats confronting Israel, a key strategic ally, is in the interest of the U.S.
Excuse me but how is being a willing dupe for Muslims to weaken Israel for their benefit in our national interests, or in Israel’s interests, for that matter?

Increased stability benefits the U.S. and it makes eminent sense for the U.S.
I couldn’t agree with you more, but not by being willing dupes for Muslim interests and to the detriment of both Israel and US interests. Please explain why it isn’t better just to acknowledge that the peace process is taqiyya and nothing but a scam used to weaken Israel and to harm American interests? Unless you believe the US playing the part of the useful idiot is somehow beneficial.

The idea that the U.S. is involved out of some naive and idealistic altruism is ridiculous.
Come on…the USA has been little more than a useful idiot for the past 40 plus years. It goes far beyond naivety and gullibility.

--continued
 
Top Bottom