Metal Sludge Gossip Board

The Obama administration has recently announced it will host peace talks between Israel and Palestine, with Jordan and Egypt also coming onboard to bolster the peace drive. If all parties come to the table, it will be the first time dialogue will have been achieved in two years.

If major progress is made (and this is very speculative), how significant do you think this will be insofar as establishing stability in the region?

If successful, and combined with the eventual withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, will this be seen as a major coup for Obama? Personally, I believe it could prove more beneficial in the long run than any other issue he has tackled (or attempted to) thus far.

Why will it succeed this time, when in the past all we get from talks are agreements that are soon ignored, and half-measures?

You can't truly force peace on those who truly don't want it.

The talks will go as they always have .. nowhere.

Not that I'm hoping for that outcome, but anything else would be very surprising.

I've been thinking about both your posts.

I live in a country - the United Kingdom - that was threatened by terrorists for decades. It may seem strange to Americans to hear that, but at one time the IRA were a very real proposition. It seems bizarre now, but thanks to working at a defence electronics firm my parents were evacuated from their workplace about twice a week during the 1980s. I have been 300 yards from an bomb when it exploded.

Although many, many other factors come into play, I see the nexus of both Israel-Palestine and Northern Ireland as the same thing; legitimate home rule. For Palestine, that means recognition as a sovereign state. In Northern Ireland this has led to a devolution of central rule, and although a small number peripheral groups have continued down the path of violence I count the Good Friday agreement as a major feather in Blair's cap.

Palestine have said they will take part in the talks if Israel cease building illegal settlements. I don't see this as an unreasonable footing. As for the mediators, they are placing no preconditions. These talks could go nowhere, but Obama's administration has shown signs that it won't be so nakedly pro-Israeli as those of his predecessors. With the acceleration of Iran's nuclear programme I think the USA is starting to feel real urgency about brokering a lasting settlement. This is before we even factor in Iraq and Afghanistan as two nearby (at least in Iraq's case), unstable regions.

Then there is Jordan - a country that now plays host to more Palestinians than Jordanians. Whilst you can expect them to be nominally pro-Palestine, the truth is that they don't want to be continually flooded with displaced peoples. Also, if the USA can assist Palestine in becoming a sovereign state it will be a reasonable (though not a major) propaganda coup in some quarters of the Middle East.

Many will still remain virulently anti-America, granted - but now seems like the time to strike whilst the iron is hot. Hence, I am a tiny bit more positive about these talks than I usually am.

SmokingGun wrote:The talks will go as they always have .. nowhere.

Not that I'm hoping for that outcome, but anything else would be very surprising.

Sadly I agree. Almost seems like a waste of time.

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:Until Hamas disarms, any kind of peace negotiations are pointless.

Ah, fuck it. You're right. Are Hamas at the stage where they'll be prepared to enter into negotiations? Is this what was in mind when the administration said there would be no preconditions on the talks?

"The time will come, by Allah’s will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth."

Ziyad Abu al-Haj, Hamas cleric in Friday sermon 3 April 2009



"Regarding the Jews, our business with them is only through bombs and guns... the prophet [Muhammad] promised that we will fight you, with Allah's help, until the tree and stone say: "Oh Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

Nizar Rayan, Hamas religious and military leader, 1 Jan 2009



"We find occasional condemnation and denunciation of the resistance operations and bombings [suicide attacks], carried out by Hamas and the Palestinian resistance branches... [Eventually] everyone will know that we did this [suicide attacks] only because our Lord commanded so - 'I did it not of my own accord' [Quran] - and so that people will know that the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the world."

Source: Al-Rissala (Hamas weekly), 23 Apr 2007



"The Jews are the Jews. There never was among them a supporter of peace. They are all liars… They are terrorists. Therefore it is necessary to slaughter them and murder them, according to the words of Allah… It is forbidden to have mercy in your hearts for the Jews in any place and in any land. Make war on them any place that you find yourself. Any place that you meet them – kill them. Kill the Jews and those among the Americans who are like them… The Jews only understand might. Have no mercy on the Jews, murder them everywhere."

Dr. Ahmed Yousuf Abu Halabiah, a member of the Palestinian Sharia (Islamic religious law) Rulings Council, and Rector of Advanced Studies at the Islamic University: 13 October 2000


"Fatah is not responding [to the Goldstone Report], is not apologizing, is not sorry, and does not recognize Israel. It is the PLO that negotiates on behalf of the Palestinian people."

Ahmad Assaf, Fatah spokesman: 8 Feb 2010

The BBC 'report' that: 'Israel and the Palestinians to resume direct talks'

"Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resume direct negotiations for the first time in 20 months, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.

However the BBC's list of 'Sensitive areas' seem a little one-sided being as they comprise:

'the construction of Jewish settlements on occupied territory, the status of Jerusalem, the borders of a future Palestinian state and the right of return'

So no mention at all of recognizing Israel's right to exist within secure borders, contrary to Hamas's Charter? And no mention of ending terrorist attacks against Israel? Also no mention of ending the firing of rockets into Israel from Palestinian territories? Out of which orifice did the BBC pull this list of 'sensitive areas', do they not even consider the Israeli position for one second?

The BBC once again showing itself to be institutionally anti-Israel and pro-Islam.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11042430

enter your username wrote:

SmokingGun wrote: So no mention at all of recognizing Israel's right to exist within secure borders, contrary to Hamas's Charter?

US officials said Hamas would have no role in the talks. Not possible to amend Hamas's charter when they have no role in the talks.

The Islamist group Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, dismissed the direct talks as a US attempt to "fool the Palestinian people". However, US officials said Hamas would have no role in them.

And you believe that? That Hamas has no say, even behind the cameras or journalists? The Palestinians love Hamas, they are their leaders and heroes, and they fight for the Palestinian cause. No action will be taken by Palestine without first getting the nod from Hamas.

enter your username wrote:

SmokingGun wrote: And no mention of ending terrorist attacks against Israel? Also no mention of ending the firing of rockets into Israel from Palestinian territories?

That was covered under "protect Israel's national security interest." Read the whole article next time.

Again, a clear case of biased reporting. The BBC themselves list all the evil things Israel has to consider surrendering for the peace process to go ahead. They don't say a word about the sacrifices Palestine has to make. They quote someone with vested interests, but make no statement themselves. Why the bias? Why not either

a)make judgements concerning both sides of the dispute

or

b)make no judgements at all and simply quote representatives from both sides

Both would be fair. But they are doing a) for one side and b) for the other.