Back to the old ME

[GePap]

From NYTimes:

France and Britain Urge Push for Mideast Peace
By ELAINE SCIOLINO


ARIS, April 9 — Even as war rages in Iraq, the foreign ministers of France and Britain today agreed on the urgent need for a new diplomatic initiative to end the war between Israel and the Palestinians, a view that could pressure the Bush administration to move forward.

Exchanging broad smiles and big compliments, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, sought to repair the deep even bitter rift between their countries over the war in Iraq by identifying areas of common interest.

Most notable was their agreement on the need to end the cycle of violence in the Middle East as the only way to bring stability to the world.

"Dominique was saying to me upstairs, and I agree with him, that the thing that has caused the greatest degree of anger in the Arab and Islamic world has not actually been Iraq, but it's been this profound sense of injustice felt by the Palestinians and the vicious circle as the huge insecurity from terrorism felt in Israel by the Israelis," Mr. Straw said following breakfast at the Foreign Ministry. He added, "If there is a single issue in the world in which for the stability of the world as well as the future of those people we have to deal with, it is on the Middle East."

The British foreign secretary also praised both French President Jacques Chirac and Mr. De Villepin for their efforts to re-start the moribund peace process.

For his part, Mr. De Villepin, who has long held that the Palestinian-Israeli crisis is much more profound for global stability than Iraqi weapons, called for the restarting of Middle East peace talks, based on an internationally-backed three-year roadmap for peace, which calls for the creation of a Palestinian state by 2005.

Mr. de Villepin is scheduled to visit Egypt on Friday and to tour Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia over the weekend to discuss postwar Iraq and the Middle East peace process. Prime Minister Tony Blair has long pressured President Bush to make public the roadmap. Mr. Bush reiterated to Mr. Blair in their meeting in Northern Ireland on Monday that he would do so after the Palestinian Authority installs a new prime minister and cabinet alongside President Yasir Arafat.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has already said that he will not accept the roadmap in its present form.

Mr. Straw and Mr. De Villepin also stressed the need for the United Nations to play a role in Iraq's reconstruction, although neither gave any indication that they agreed on when or how that might happen.

Mr. Straw said while the war coalition wants a democratic government in Iraq, military forces must stay in the country to ensure its security and stability. Mr. de Villepin agreed that coalition forces have "the primary responsibility" in securing Iraq, but added, "It is important that the legitimacy of the international community be upheld, and for this the United Nations needs a central place."

France opposes a post-war reconstruction for Iraq that is is determined by the Untied States, while anti-French feeling in the United States is running so high that it will be unlikely France will have much of a say in the process.

Today's meeting follows a period of intense strains in French-British relations. Britain embraced that American cause in Iraq and sent troops to fight alongside the United States, while France led European opposition to the war, insisting that intrusive international weapons inspections were successfully disarming Iraq.

The diplomatic battle had even become personal. At one point, Mr. Straw told the House of Commons that France's threat to veto a war Security Council resolution paralyzed the negotiations and insured failure at the United Nations. Mr. de Villepin retorted that he deplored the language used by British officials in blaming France for the failure of the diplomatic effort, adding that the French government was "shocked and saddened" by what Mr. Straw and other officials had said.

Today, Mr. Straw and Mr. de Villepin gave the impression that they were dear old friends who had merely engaged in a lively debate.

"Life would be very boring if friends always agreed," Mr. Straw said. "This is a grown-up relationship."

Said Mr. de Villepin, "I am especially glad that we met today after several difficult weeks between our two countries," adding that even in the most difficult moments, "The dialogue has never stopped between us, and in fact our friendship has never stopped either."

First, good to see the brtis remember that France exists...

Second: so, once the Palestinian PM takes office, according to the Bushies (out of the horses own mouth), the "roadmap" will be presented as is to both parties. The Pals' have accepted it as is, the Israelis have stated they won;t accept it as is.

So, how hard will Bush push Sharon on this issue?

A lot? A bit? Ignore everything he said, like so many other times, and let the thing slide?

[Arrian]

I'd dearly love to see a US President actually grow the balls to actually "push" Israel on something. That would be nice.

But I ain't holdin' my breath.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

You're not supposed to interject reality, you're just supposed to because (some) of the Iraqis are doing that in (some) parts of Baghdad, and all our problems are now solved, since we've given Iragi Freedom^TM

Afghanistan isn't newsworthy, because the flash and bang are done with, and who cares about the dirty little details of what happens in crappy little excuses for third world countries?

This is the war on terrorism, that'll last as long as we say! We're liberating people left and right, so don't be party poopers!





In other words, don't expect anything other than the same old BS in US foreign policy in that part of the world.

[Arrian]

From the Toronto Star:

The Catch-22 of Middle East peace

Former U.S. secretary of state James Baker spoke at the Empire Club of Canada in Toronto last week about the challenges facing his country after the war in Iraq. Here is an edited excerpt from his address:

Looking forward, the United States and its allies will need to achieve substantive progress towards resolution of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

The tragic conflict between Israelis and Palestinians continues to elude resolution. But I believe that there exists a window of opportunity similar to the one that existed in the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991. At that time, we used that opportunity to convene the Madrid Peace Conference, the first-ever face-to-face meeting of Israel and all of its Arab neighbours.

Today, Washington has a similar vehicle — in the form of the so-called "road map" made public by President George Bush two weeks ago — that can help move the stalled peace process forward. So, too, will the appointment of the moderate Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime minister.

Of course, the United States cannot "create" peace in the Middle East. Only Arabs and Israelis can do that. Washington's responsibility is to help them.

Above all else, we need to remember certain truisms about this dispute:

Only the U.S. can effectively act as an honest broker between the parties.

There can be no military solution to this conflict.

A political process and dialogue are essential, and whenever the political process breaks down, there will be violence on the ground.

And this Catch-22 applies to the dispute. Israel will never enjoy security as long as she occupies the territories, and the Palestinians will never achieve their dream of living in peace in their own state as long as Israel lacks security.

This is a tragic version of the old chicken-and-egg problem.

Land for peace under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, therefore, is the only basis upon which the dispute can be settled.

Any decision to reopen the "road map" to substantive amendment, for instance, is an open invitation to interminable delay. And there should be no conditions whatever to Israel's obligation to stop all settlement activity.

The United States must press Israel — as a friend, but firmly — to negotiate a secure peace based on the principle of trading land for peace in accordance with UNSC Resolution 242.

The U.S. must keep up the pressure on the Palestinian Authority as well, particularly by requiring a 100 per cent effort to stamp out terrorist violence.

But the bottom line is this: The time for talking about a road map is over. We have one. And, when the war is over, we need to begin using it.

Wouldn't that be nice?

-Arrian

[gsmoove23]

Maybe Bush will push a regime change in Israel. Well, I can always dream. Seriously, Bush can topple 3rd world dictators and push around european pinheads but it will take Sharon to show us all the Bush administration with its tail between its legs. I hope he doesn't leave Powell in the lurch again this time. As much as I dislike the guy for workin for Bush I still kinda like the guy.

[GePap]

Bah..regime change beckons in Syria!

when we hava tanks in Damascus, that's when the ME problem will be solved!

Baker is old school..Wolfowitz, thats the new school!

[Arrian]

From the Jordan Times:

Washington watch
Whither the roadmap?
James J. Zogby


THE HEATED discussion in the United States regarding the release of the Middle East peace “roadmap” is really quite interesting to observe. The document, a product of the Quartet (United States, Russia, the European Union and the UN), was ready for release many months ago, but has been withheld by the Bush administration. At each point, the administration has provided different reasons for the delay.

In late 2002 when the roadmap was expected, Washington's advocates for release lost the internal debate to those seeking a delay. At that time, Israel was in the lead up to national elections and roadmap advocates within Israel and the United States hoped that by putting the document before the public, it would help promote a national debate on the steps needed to move towards a resumption of the peace process.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and supporters of his Likud government sought to delay release of the roadmap until after the election, and their pressure apparently won the day. Some Washington analysts speculate whether or not it was a coincidence that shortly after the decision was made to delay release of the roadmap those in the White House who had been advocating for the document's quick release were removed from their posts.

In any case, when the administration announced that the roadmap would not be made public until after the Israeli elections, Sharon and company breathed a sigh of relief that their campaign would not be encumbered by external pressure.

With the Israeli elections over, the debate about the roadmap's release resurfaced once again, with peace advocates calling for the document's issuance. The war with Iraq was looming and some felt that a US recommitment to an international effort to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would send an important signal to both the Arab world and to Europe as well. Here, the US supporters of the roadmap found an ally in the person of United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair. Once again, however, this group lost the debate and two new reasons were put forward for the delay. An argument was made that the roadmap should not be released before the war, so as to avoid any appearance of “linkage”. A second and new reason was put forward as well. The administration argued that it would only present the roadmap to the parties when a “fully functioning” and “independent” Palestinian prime minister was installed in office.

Now, with the Iraq war well under way and the process leading to the establishment of a Palestinian prime minister with a new cabinet nearing completion, the world is awaiting the arrival of the long delayed roadmap. At this point, Israel supporters have changed their approach. Instead of seeking to further delay the issuance of the document, they are working to modify it before it is released — in their continuing effort to frustrate any restart of a meaningful peacemaking process.

Since the roadmap has never been formally issued and unofficial drafts of the document remain difficult to find, most of the discussion about the illusive roadmap resembles shooting in the dark at a hidden target.

A draft, available on a Palestinian ministry website, reveals some insight into what may concern the Israeli side. As it appears in the draft, the roadmap represents a wedding of Bush's vision for two states with both the Tenet and Mitchell plans. As such, the roadmap endorses the idea that Israeli security, the end of occupation and the emergence of a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state are inextricably intertwined. With the ultimate goal of two secure and independent states, the roadmap, like the Mitchell Plan, provides a series of simultaneous and progressive steps that will assist the parties' return to the path of peace.

The objections raised by Israel's supporters focus on five points. They oppose the notion of “simultaneous steps” — a replay of their objections to the earlier Mitchell Plan which proposed that the parties agree upfront to steps that each must take. Israel's supporters counter with the demand that steps to be taken must not be simultaneous, but sequential, with the Palestinians first fulfilling all their requirements and only then the Israelis would be required to act. To make their point, Israel's supporters also draw on Bush's June 24, 2002, speech in which he endorsed Sharon's sequential approach to peace.

Israel supporters also object to the roadmap's mandates and timetables. Israel wants the stipulation that the roadmap's call for a provisional Palestinian state be based not on a mandate but on Israeli-Palestinian negotiation and the completion of an Israeli-Palestinian treaty. Israel's supporters also want to eliminate the roadmap's mention of Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative — as endorsed by the Arab League Summit — since that initiative speaks of Israel's return to the June 1967 borders. Finally, they want the roadmap to specifically call for Palestinian acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state, meaning that Palestinians would agree upfront to relinquish the right of return.

In this context, developments during last week's Washington meeting of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Israeli lobby, are worth noting. One of AIPAC's political demands coming out of that meeting was to pressure members of Congress to endorse Israel's concerns. Towards that end, they called for legislation to send a clear message to the administration to modify the roadmap to meet Israel's requirements. Already letters are circulating in both the House and Senate, endorsing these demands and calling on the administration to place the burdens of restoring the peace process solely on the Palestinians' shoulders. In an especially virulent speech, House majority leader, Republican Tom Delay criticised the supporters of the roadmap, stating that “negotiations with [the Palestinian National Authority] is folly, and any agreement arrived at through such empty negotiations would amount to a covenant with death”.

Thus far, the response of the administration has been to hold firm. The United States UN ambassador, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice were all quite clear in rejecting any pressure to change the roadmap. While President Bush may have given the Likud government a signal of softness when he addressed the roadmap issue during his March 14 Rose Garden speech, indicating that he was open to the views of the parties, Rice closed that door, making it clear that what the president meant were that comments might be welcome but that the document itself was not subject to renegotiation.

A counter campaign launched by some Arab-Americans and American Jewish supporters of the peace process has also begun, with these peace advocates calling for an immediate release and full implementation of the roadmap as is.

It is not clear who will win, but if history is any judge of the matter, congressional pressure will no doubt have an impact on the administration.

Even if the roadmap is finally issued and remains in its present form — assuming that the available draft is accurate — real problems remain. This roadmap only leads the parties back to the negotiation table; it does not provide a map to move the negotiations towards their desired end. Unless a way is found to address the asymmetry of power, that has to date frustrated all previous efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace-making, the roadmap, even in its best form, will only lead to an impasse.

I dunno about the supposed inside info (the "draft available to the Pal Authority"), since I see inside info claims a lot in Arab media that are extremely far-fetched. Still an interesting article, I feel.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Quite a collective group of suckasses accumulating in this thread.

[Arrian]

I may just choose to take that as a compliment, considering the source.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Quite a collective group of suckasses accumulating in this thread.

You can join Lancer and curtsibling.

See you in two days.

And Arrian - don't go there. You stopped short of namecalling, so you get off with a warning.

[Menlas]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In other words, don't expect anything other than the same old BS in US foreign policy in that part of the world.

Probably true, as long as Sharon and Bush stay in power. Unless Bush realizes pushing Israel to end this conflict would greatly improve USA image in the world...

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by Menlas


Probably true, as long as Sharon and Bush stay in power. Unless Bush realizes pushing Israel to end this conflict would greatly improve USA image in the world...

Much as I hate to admin it, there are things that can't be blamed entirely on Bush and Sharon. Clinton and Netanyahu, Clinton and Barak, and Clinton and Sharon didn't really get very far either.

[Arrian]

And Arrian - don't go there. You stopped short of namecalling, so you get off with a warning.

Fair enough, MtG.

-Arrian

[Ned]

I think that Bush now has "credibiliy" - even in Israel. Perhaps we can now make progress.

However, I also agree with the observation that Syria remains a problem. Rumsfeld against pointed out that Syria deliberately chose to side with Saddam and to accept leading Baath party officials fleeing in face of revenge-seeking Iraqi's.

We may end up in a war with Syria - or Israel may take Syria out without our interference. Hoperfully, the Syrian regime is more sensible than the Iraqi regime and will not push things that far.

[Ned]

dp

[Q Classic]

what would be our reason for invad- er, liberating syria?

[gsmoove23]

Oh jeez, people are actually thinking we should invade Syria? God save us.

There is no reason. Syria is under no obligation not to support Iraq. The worst we could feasibly do are sanctions.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
what would be our reason for invad- er, liberating syria?

Oil, of course, hasn't that been our reason for every war since the civil war?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
what would be our reason for invad- er, liberating syria?

Stupidity.

[Q Classic]

i don't think we would go to war with syria, honestly, no matter how much rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and them might be rarin' to go.

i was just curious as to how ned came to that conclusion.

[Q Classic]

and edan, it hasn't.

ww1 wasn't over oil, really. ww2 wasn't either. nor was korea or vietnam.

[Edan]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Stupidity.

Nonesense, the US has an abundent supply of stupidity, we don't need to import any from Syria.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and edan, it hasn't.

ww1 wasn't over oil, really. ww2 wasn't either. nor was korea or vietnam.

I was kidding.

It's not like Syria has any oil anyways...

[Q Classic]

of course syria has oil. it's a) arabic, and b) right next to iraq.

they're hiding these fuels of mass potential and will not allow inspectors to drill for them.

[GePap]

Well, we will see how far this admin. will take it's "screw anyone who disagrees with us" policy.

The only glimmer of hope I have is that this admin. has a good tracrecords at not giving a sh*t about what anyone else thinks that they might just steamroll those that want to delay the process..i mean, thje president wants it... and anyone who disagree while our boys are in danger is a traitor!

[gsmoove23]

Our president has already been quite ignominiously shot down by Sharon and its hard to imagine the Bulldozer getting steamrolled by anyone. Perhaps though, the prospect of American soldiers policing Iraq for a year or more will light a fire under Bush's ass to generate some goodwill in the ME.

[Andrew1999]

Syria's been successfully added into the Axis of Evil. It fits so neatly into the Secular Arab Dictatorship spot being vacated by Iraq. They're even run by the Baath party.

[gsmoove23]

Does anyone know what the Baath party stands for when its not Saddam's mouthpiece? Some commentators make it seem like the Nazi party and talk about DeBaathizing the country.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
i don't think we would go to war with syria, honestly, no matter how much rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and them might be rarin' to go.

i was just curious as to how ned came to that conclusion.

Rumsfeld was very pointed about Syria's continue support of Iraq, about Syrians moving into Iraq and about Syria harboring Iraqi war criminals.

Powell earlier said that Syria has to stop supporting terrorism.

Bush has yet to speak on the topic.

Israel has warned Syria - the threat was clear that Israel would destroy the Syrian regime if war came.

Add this all up, it seems that we are going to confront Syria. if they do not respond positively, things may escallate. This is why I said that I hope that they do no underestimate Bush as did Saddam. If Bush makes a statement on Sryia's obligations on a going-forward basis, I hope they listen.

[gsmoove23]

Going into Syria would be quite definately overplaying Bush's hand. Its hard to make an arguement against them when the war against Iraq wasn't UN sanctioned to begin with. I hope Bush tries though. He'll get shouted down so quickly his head'll spin. At least I hope.