Political Crossfire Forums

[ChuckBerry]

Peace will come to the Middle East when tyrannical Arab, Egyptian, and Persian governments stop using Israel as the scapegoat for their problems. Until the Muslim world can grow up and start solving its problems rather than seeking excuses for them, there will be no peace.

[slitedeviance]

thatisnotme wrote: Israel with 6 million is surrounded by 200 million Arabs that are hostile and therefore, Israel's security trumps all other factors concerning the Arabs needs.

I wouldn't neccesarily agree, as this would seem to give far too powerful a mandate to the IDF in terms of operating outside Israel. Israel obviously needs to respond to direct military threats, but if the above was the thinking in the IDF I think this would only further the perceived hatred towards israeli actions.

How would people suggest Hamas can be engaged with? Having been voted into power, they need to be dealt with as the representatives of the palestinians, but what can be done to progress them towards recognising Israel?

Conversely, (although I'm not too sure of public opinion over in Israel, superskippy and thesanevoice feel free to jump in) is Kadima / Olmert in a weaker position to move forward unlilaterally or has this been put on hold?

[ALi*]

Quote: Until the Muslim world can grow up and start solving its problems rather than seeking excuses for them, there will be no peace.

i 100% agree with what u said.... but y muslim??? its arab u mean....
its either have war with israel and destroy it....
either convince israel to give palestinians their rights....

lets hope arab will move in teh next 10 years....
i heard a guy...a psychic... he said the zionist country age is 78 years so i dont usually elieve him.... but hes been successfully predicting stufff in leb for the last 5 years so i guess its T-10 years for teh israeli state. Good luck with arabs:P lol

[ChuckBerry]

ALi* wrote: Quote: Until the Muslim world can grow up and start solving its problems rather than seeking excuses for them, there will be no peace.

i 100% agree with what u said.... but y muslim??? its arab u mean....
its either have war with israel and destroy it....
either convince israel to give palestinians their rights....

lets hope arab will move in teh next 10 years....
i heard a guy...a psychic... he said the zionist country age is 78 years so i dont usually elieve him.... but hes been successfully predicting stufff in leb for the last 5 years so i guess its T-10 years for teh israeli state. Good luck with arabs:P lol
I include the Persians, because the genuine threat of regional hegemony comes from Iran at the moment. But all ME hegemonists are Islamists in one form or another.

[slitedeviance]

CCD wrote: I include the Persians, because the genuine threat of regional hegemony comes from Iran at the moment. But all ME hegemonists are Islamists in one form or another.

Don't take this as an affront to your homeland, but it's a bit rich for someone whose avatar is the US flag to talk about Hegemony.

Obviously, we don't want a situation where there is no counter-balance to the Iranian power. We had one before, and decided to eliminate the only other regional power with the capability to threaten this.

To create this again, we must set up a Palestinian solution (1 state, 2 state etc) which would resolve to an extent the ongoing conflict (both physical and diplomatic) between Israel and Lebanon, Hamas, Syria etc. Once this is acheived progress can move forward, with the arab states more able to develop their economy and international standing.

[thatisnotme]

slitedeviance wrote: thatisnotme wrote: Israel with 6 million is surrounded by 200 million Arabs that are hostile and therefore, Israel's security trumps all other factors concerning the Arabs needs.

I wouldn't neccesarily agree, as this would seem to give far too powerful a mandate to the IDF in terms of operating outside Israel. Israel obviously needs to respond to direct military threats, but if the above was the thinking in the IDF I think this would only further the perceived hatred towards israeli actions.

How would people suggest Hamas can be engaged with? Having been voted into power, they need to be dealt with as the representatives of the palestinians, but what can be done to progress them towards recognising Israel?

Conversely, (although I'm not too sure of public opinion over in Israel, superskippy and thesanevoice feel free to jump in) is Kadima / Olmert in a weaker position to move forward unlilaterally or has this been put on hold?

The Israeli position with Hamas has been: recognition of Israel, stop violence, and respect previous accords. That won't change in the future in my estimation. If Hamas cannot make progress, then it's up to the Palestinians to decide if they want to re-elect Hamas. The IDF will be concerned with the military aspect of stopping the violence and insuring security for the Israelis, that also won't change.

As to Olmert's convergence plan, that is dead water. It leaves Olmert without a mandate -- except for his re-construction. He will need to do more than that if he wants to be re-elected.

[ALi*]

CCD wrote: ALi* wrote: Quote: Until the Muslim world can grow up and start solving its problems rather than seeking excuses for them, there will be no peace.

i 100% agree with what u said.... but y muslim??? its arab u mean....
its either have war with israel and destroy it....
either convince israel to give palestinians their rights....

lets hope arab will move in teh next 10 years....
i heard a guy...a psychic... he said the zionist country age is 78 years so i dont usually elieve him.... but hes been successfully predicting stufff in leb for the last 5 years so i guess its T-10 years for teh israeli state. Good luck with arabs:P lol
I include the Persians, because the genuine threat of regional hegemony comes from Iran at the moment. But all ME hegemonists are Islamists in one form or another.

well no... per exemple Lebanon isnt a muslim country.
:roll:

[ChuckBerry]

slitedeviance wrote:

Don't take this as an affront to your homeland, but it's a bit rich for someone whose avatar is the US flag to talk about Hegemony.
Please explain. I am spoiling for a debate about this U.S. hegemony meme. It's poppycock, and I use the term 'hegemon' constantly and with no fear of contradiction to point out who currently has true designs for control of the Middle East.

First it was Saddam, which George Bush the First put an end to. Now, it is the Iranians, which George Bush the Second is currently putting an end to. As I have pointed out elsewhere, it is in the interest of the entire world to prevent a true regional hegemon in the ME. The U.S. is not it, and it cannot be it, unless it invaded every country and overthrew their dictatorships. The U.S. is, instead, overthrowing a particularly dangerous dictator and attempting to replace his iron fist with a pluralistic government as a bulwark against the designs of the Persians, and we get nothing but grief and cries of 'hegemony!' for it.

One must have a truly short sighted world view to believe that.

[slitedeviance]

thatisnotme wrote: The Israeli position with Hamas has been: recognition of Israel, stop violence, and respect previous accords. That won't change in the future in my estimation. If Hamas cannot make progress, then it's up to the Palestinians to decide if they want to re-elect Hamas. The IDF will be concerned with the military aspect of stopping the violence and insuring security for the Israelis, that also won't change.

As to Olmert's convergence plan, that is dead water. It leaves Olmert without a mandate -- except for his re-construction. He will need to do more than that if he wants to be re-elected.

So essentially, we may be looking at a situation where we end up waiting another 4 / 5 years until further elections in Palestine and Israel can hopefully come up with elected officials willing to deal with each other?

Do we think any deal can be done with Hamas? This, as far as I can see, is the one issue which the rest of the deal hinges on.

If Hamas recognises Israel and renounces violence, will Israel back a two state solution, recognising the sovereignty of the Palestinians and there rights as described under international law?

[slitedeviance]

CCD wrote: Now, it is the Iranians, which George Bush the Second is currently putting an end to.

Is that after doing such a magnificent job in Iraq?

This is getting off topic, I'll gladly set up a thread with regards to the US Hegemony in another section and PM you to make you aware.

For the time being lets stay on course.

[thatisnotme]

slitedeviance wrote:

If Hamas recognises Israel and renounces violence, will Israel back a two state solution, recognising the sovereignty of the Palestinians and there rights as described under international law?

Israel has done that already -- accepting a two state solution, recognising the sovereignty of the Palestinians and their rights as described under international law. The question that remains is: will the Palestinians renounce their armed struggle? If yes, then Israel is prepared to sit at the table.

However, not to create any false illusions, such things as the right of return and the pull back to 1967 border are a non-start. And the whole question of Jerusalem's status is a dicey one-- one which I believe will not be resolved even if all the other outstanding issues are resolved.

[slitedeviance]

thatisnotme wrote: However, not to create any false illusions, such things as the right of return and the pull back to 1967 border are a non-start.

Even if this could secure a peace deal? What is the problem with pulling back to the '67 borders?

[thatisnotme]

slitedeviance wrote: thatisnotme wrote: However, not to create any false illusions, such things as the right of return and the pull back to 1967 border are a non-start.

Even if this could secure a peace deal? What is the problem with pulling back to the '67 borders?

The borders of 1967 were fine... in 1967. Since then, things have changed on the ground, mainly a population growth and geographical shifting of that population. In the negotiations, deals will have to be made. Tracts of land will have to exchange hands. The 1967 borders can act as a basis, but the final outcome will be the results of negotiations. If the Palestinians are intransigeant on that issue, the peace negotiations could stall for quite a while.

[emerald]

Quote: It seems despite the difference of opinions that everyone shares at least some common ground:
* Religous sites should be open to people of all denominations / faiths. I think this is a very important point. I also like the idea of them becoming world heritage sites as they are not only important in terms of current religous faith but in terms of our collective history.

i see this as a good idea, it should not be in the control of only one side, however, superskippy made a point about Jerusalem, i think that the palestinians might have real issues with is not having any power over Jerusalem, israel cannot take control of the main city and expect palestinians not to want a share of it, howeve how this can be done i really dont know.
Quote:
* Recognition of the state of Israel is essential to the peace process. Without this there can be no guarantee of security and therefore no equivlance from the Israeli perspective.

ofcourse it is important, however, in order for this to be achieved then the stance of not negotiating with terrorists needs to stop, the palestinian people in a democratic election elected Hamas into power, that needs to also be recognised and dealt with appropriately instead of forcing them to find financial aid from idiot countries like Iran, making them more desperate and more hardline. Hamas needs to be talked to, they need to realize that in order for the situation in the ME to get better and move forwards especially for the palestinian people they need to recognize israel and that a 2 state solution is probably the best solution available. at the same time israel needs to recnize that Hamas was democratically elected whether they like it or not, and thats the choice of the people, if they can talk to them, make them realize that in the interests of the future of both countries there really needs to be compromise and the end to aggression from both sides. which will take a great deal of time, but it needs to begin somewhere.

Quote: * The rights of the Palestinian people must be also recognised if they are allowed their own sovereign state. Whilst there must be security guarantees from them as to their stance towards Israel, I feel it's important the Palestinians are able to guarantee their own safety.

thats another very improtant point, having a seperate state from israel should mean that israel should not have a military prescence in the palestinian state, israel cannot expect to control what the palestinian do or how they live, and stick to their own borders unless they feel under actual threat. the pealestinians also need to be able to defend themselves, you cannot say they are allowed a country to govern themselves without having the ability to have any military power, they should also have the right to defend themselves, the same as any other country.

Quote: Superskippy, how would you suggest that the influences of Iran and Syria are dealt with? I think it's appaling that the Palestinians are used by both countries to try and make them look like they care for all oppressed Muslims, whilst doing nothing in real terms to help them.

if the issues in palestine and israel are resolved adequately for both sides i doubt syria and iran would have much influence in palestine.

Quote: I worry that the cut off of financial aid from the EU and US will play into Irans hands in the long run, in the same way that the Lebanese conflict has incredibly bolstered their position amongst the people of Lebanon.

i agree, i think the cut off of financial aid was not a good idea, i don think it sorts out the problem, i actually beleive it just goes onto make it worse, because it only produces more anger and ahtred towards the west, and Israel, which will only make hamas more hardline.

[Kubz]

well for peace to be an option i think that everyone has to let go of all the paranoia, hate and greed.

Muslims hate the zionists and are agressive.

the Zionists hate Muslims and are living in paranoia that they are goin to be attacked and are agressive.

While both want more land and more power.

Israel should withdraw their forces from Lebanon and any Palestinian grounds. this would make the area feel more secure and start rebuilding. also prisoners on both sides should be released. it would also ease the tensions.

as the previous poster said, everyone should be allowed to enter the sacred places related to their faiths regardless who they are or where they come from.

[mendosan]

Kubz wrote: well for peace to be an option i think that everyone has to let go of all the paranoia, hate and greed.

Muslims hate the zionists and are agressive.

the Zionists hate Muslims and are living in paranoia that they are goin to be attacked and are agressive.

While both want more land and more power.

Israel should withdraw their forces from Lebanon and any Palestinian grounds. this would make the area feel more secure and start rebuilding. also prisoners on both sides should be released. it would also ease the tensions.

as the previous poster said, everyone should be allowed to enter the sacred places related to their faiths regardless who they are or where they come from.

Good post, welcome to PCF.

[emerald]

Quote: well for peace to be an option i think that everyone has to let go of all the paranoia, hate and greed.

Muslims hate the zionists and are agressive.

the Zionists hate Muslims and are living in paranoia that they are goin to be attacked and are agressive.

i think it's probabl wishful thinking, to see this happening anytime soon, i think the hatred between both sides is probably the most important reason as to why there hasnt been any peace in the area. but things need to change between both countries to prevent new generations from hating as well.

and welcome to the board.......izzayak?? :)

[the sane voice]

emerald wrote:
i think it's probabl wishful thinking, to see this happening anytime soon, i think the hatred between both sides is probably the most important reason as to why there hasnt been any peace in the area.

then how do you explain the fact that p.m ehud barak reached for peace and arafat declined?

[ALi*]

unfair peace? maybe

[superskippy]

It was the greatest offer the Palestinians ever recieved and Arafat, almost all of the territory he had desired including for some insane reason East Jerusalem, as well as some agreements on West Bank territory allotment and switches. They will never get anything better and I beleive this offer will never come again.