Peace process over: Bush folds like expected

[The diplomat]

Bush should never had done that Aqaba Summit last week. It was overly premature announce a peace process when they knew that serious obstacles to the road map like terrorism had not been solved.

I fully suppport this "change" of position. I hope that Bush continues to support Israel's right to target Hamas. If the US has the right to target Al Queda, then Israel should have the right to target Hamas.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by elijah

I think we British should sort it out, we have experience with the analogous Northern Ireland situation, and perhaps a little more dexterity than the Americans.

Northern Ireland is hardly cut and dried yet. Any side could take the offensive again at any moment - and how many Unionist weapons have been decommissioned?

Maybe a dozen SMGs?

How many Provo weapons have been decommissioned?

None confirmd (although many alledged).

Hardly a recipe for peace.

Anyway, considering the balls up that was the UK in Israel in 1947 (look up King David Hotel bombing) I'm surprised you want to send UK people to go and get slaughtered - AGAIN.

Did you ever serve in NI? I doubt it. Neither did I - but at least I've had a chance to converse and LISTEN to those that did.

They dislike those COIN jobs.

[GePap]

This admin. is inherently pro-Israel, and feelings that Israels 'fight" and "our fight" are the same run high.

The inhrent porblem is that Israel can't crack down on Hamas effectively. if Israel can't shut down Hamas on the West Bank, where they have tens of thousands of troops, how the hell will they crack down on Hamas in Gaza, were Israel is highly unlikely to attempt the same level of total control becuase of the bloodbath it would first entail? At best, israel can force them to duck for a while, but while that keeps the number of Israeli dead down, it does not stop the violence and does not end up with peace.

It makes why wonder why, for 2.5 years, Israel spent most of its time bombing the PLA and destroying their facilities, and left Hamas, the organization doing most of the killing, relatively alone. And now the PLA is supposed to take out Hamas.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why is the US expected to champion these things anyway?

Because you got your nose firmly digged into all stuff middle eastern.

[DinoDoc]

That was a 2 part question Roland.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

It makes why wonder why, for 2.5 years, Israel spent most of its time bombing the PLA and destroying their facilities, and left Hamas, the organization doing most of the killing, relatively alone. And now the PLA is supposed to take out Hamas.

Exept that the PA has been just as connected to terrorism and the killing as Hamas has been. Are we forgetting the Korine A? And Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Fatah - both directly linked to and aided by Arafat - have killed more Israelis than Hamas has, IIRC.

[Edan]

"We must fight terrorism as if there are no negotiations and we must negotiate as if there is no terrorism."

[Velociryx]

Let's just pave over a one square mile area, have each side hand-pick 250 people. Arm them with clubs, and let them in.

Winner take all.

That way, both sides could get their rocks off with another round of bloodshed, and it'd be decided once and for all.

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

think we British should sort it out

Like you did back in the late 40s?

“We were very close to an agreement with the Palestinians to end the suicide bombings,” said a senior Arab diplomat who spoke to Powell yesterday. “But every time we come close to an agreement, the Israelis launch a disproportionate attack.”

And the Israelis can say the same type of stuff. "We were about to stop incursions, but then there was a big suicide attack."

Having said that, I am disappointed. I was hoping that Bush would be a stubborn SOB and force the parties down this "road map" in spite of whatever violence was going on.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
"We must fight terrorism as if there are no negotiations and we must negotiate as if there is no terrorism."

Fine sentiment, if it could be true. But it can;t, since negotations take two sides.

Exept that the PA has been just as connected to terrorism and the killing as Hamas has been. Are we forgetting the Korine A? And Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Fatah - both directly linked to and aided by Arafat - have killed more Israelis than Hamas has, IIRC.

Hamas was always the leader of violence. And it also depends what type of violence: suicide bombins in Israel? Hamas and Islamic Jihad have done the most of those. Attacks on israelis in the territories, and on the IDF? There certainly there Al Aksa might lead.

And Israel still gave far more attention to Arafat and Fatah than Hamas. Hmm, why go after Hamas at all? I though it was all alway's Arafat's fault? He is the single great Pal. Mastermind, no?

[Velociryx]

What I'm wondering is: What would either/both sides DO in the absence of the violence. From this side of the pond, it would seem that both sides are so enmeshed in the conflict....so wrapped up in the "you get him, he gets you" game that it has become a part of the national and cultural identity of those living there.

I'm sorry to say it, but when someone says "Jeruselem," the first thing that comes to mind is Terrorist bombings and reprisal attacks, not "oh! You mean the heart and soul of two large, important religions? A city with enormous historic and cultural value?"

Nope....doesn't even come to mind.

And I'm not sure what either side would do without the conflict. At this point, it seems like all they have left.

-=Vel=-

[Shi Huangdi]

to Bush. Israel has every right to defend itself against Hamas terrorists.

[GePap]

Both sides define themselves as "the victim". That classification is key to enough of them to keep this going. You can;t really be a victim without conflict, now can you?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
to Bush. Israel has every right to defend itself against Hamas terrorists.

So, do the pals have _every_ right to defend theirselves against oppression and occupation in other words against terror from the illegal settlers and IDF?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

Attacks on israelis in the territories, and on the IDF? There certainly there Al Aksa might lead.

Incorrect. Al Aqsa and Fatah have done attacks within Israel. In March '02, the majority of the suicide bombings were commited by Fatah and Al Aqsa, and Al Aqsa claimed credit for the deadliest bombing - the one during the Passover Seder. That is one of the reasons why the IDF targeted Al Aqsa and Arafat. Another reason is that cracking down on the militants was Arafat's responsibility. And, frankly, Arafat with his diplomatic "legitimacy", with his ability to divert funds from aid to the Palestinian, smuggle weapons and, as the PA, be the one responsible for terrorists being harbored in the territories - all made him a bigger threat and a dangerous party to continue to negotiate with. Unless you are stil under some illusion that Arafat isn't connected to terrorism.