Change I can agree with
#1
Thread Starter
Change I can agree with
Did you see the President's interview with the reporter for the Arab new paper? If not, watch it now:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/27/oba...tml#cnnSTCVideo
This is the right message and the right approach and the message was delivered perfectly. I have high hopes for our diplomacy in the middle east.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/27/oba...tml#cnnSTCVideo
This is the right message and the right approach and the message was delivered perfectly. I have high hopes for our diplomacy in the middle east.
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Westport, MA
Posts: 15,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great outlook and effort, but it fails to take into account what the Israelis and Palestinians are fighting for over there. Failure is not an option for either party involved and neither will ever consider giving in to the other. It is not a simple issue of borders and land. They are fighting for control of their holy ground. What the problem is, is that both of the sites each claims as the "holiest of holy" is basically in the same spot. It is something we cannot identify with. Being killed or maimed is no deterrence. To give up and not fight for their holy land would be akin to just asking to go to hell.
Peace talks themselves are also a highly volatile subject because they view it as negotiating with the devil. And that is not just in a metaphoric sense either. It is a literal case of demonizing ones enemy.
They have a huge mess and we should just let them battle it out. To the winner go the spoils. Interfering will do no good and only make matters worse.
Then you have the issue of a group like hamas, who does not even want to win the struggle. If they win and peace is negotiated, it will lessen their power and worth. the leaders of hamas know this and do not want to lose their strong hold of power, even if it means peace.
Peace talks themselves are also a highly volatile subject because they view it as negotiating with the devil. And that is not just in a metaphoric sense either. It is a literal case of demonizing ones enemy.
They have a huge mess and we should just let them battle it out. To the winner go the spoils. Interfering will do no good and only make matters worse.
Then you have the issue of a group like hamas, who does not even want to win the struggle. If they win and peace is negotiated, it will lessen their power and worth. the leaders of hamas know this and do not want to lose their strong hold of power, even if it means peace.
#3
Registered User
Originally Posted by HARDtoTOP' date='Jan 30 2009, 11:31 AM
They have a huge mess and we should just let them battle it out. To the winner go the spoils. Interfering will do no good and only make matters worse.
two states is the only option
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Westport, MA
Posts: 15,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bass' date='Jan 30 2009, 11:40 AM
ya that's like you fighting with a two year old -
two states is the only option
two states is the only option
#5
I sincerely and truly wish the President and Ambassador Mitchell success in this endeavor.
A success here could have profound and manifold effect on the way we interact in the entire Middle east region and beyond.
A success here could have profound and manifold effect on the way we interact in the entire Middle east region and beyond.
#7
The good news is Obama is starting this effort in his first week not his last month.
Trending Topics
#8
Registered User
Originally Posted by HARDtoTOP' date='Jan 30 2009, 04:10 PM
I hope they make nice with folks around the world too. We can all benefit from that.
But I have learned that the fight in Israel is a lost cause.
But I have learned that the fight in Israel is a lost cause.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
quickshifting
New York - Metro New York S2000 Owners
31
10-11-2007 09:06 PM