Reply With QuoteIt was also on BBC2 last night (Monday) at 21:00 hrs. Yes, Chirac tried to upstage Albright and screwed the whole process up, a real spanner in the works. Even so I don’t think they would have signed anything.
Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs
The documentary is on KCTS (public station) in my area right now, not quite sure what channel for everyone else. Very interesting details on the peace process. Well, if you needed another reason to dislike Chirac, he basically backstabbed Albright and prevented a complete signing by Arafat for a cease-fire of the intifada.
http://www.kcts.org/seriesdetail.asp?N1=ELUP
It was also on BBC2 last night (Monday) at 21:00 hrs. Yes, Chirac tried to upstage Albright and screwed the whole process up, a real spanner in the works. Even so I don’t think they would have signed anything.
The only way peace will ever come is if the arabs stop detonating themselves in Israeli malls and buses. However for that to happen a vast majority of arab peoples would have to undergo a massive shift in opinion...and we all know that that is not in the best interests of the various ruling arab governments/terrorist organisations.
Mailman
Blaming Chirac fully, for the failure of the Peace process is silly. The peace process was doomed from the start. Arafat did not plan to sign the peace accord, simply on the basis that, not only would he be ostracized from "Palestine", where he was seen as the father of the "Palestinian" Arabs, but he would more likely be killed by the radical members of his own terror organization.
Arafat, looked towards any justification to break the accord. As it was obviously shown by the failure of the Camp David meeting, between him and Ehud Barak. He justified the breaking of the accord with Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, which was the "reason" for the launching of the second intifada by all the different terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
With Chirac's involvement, I don't deny that he may or may not have been guilty of being a force wihtin this, but he was not the ultimate reason why Arafat failed to sign the peace. It would have not happened, either way, because Arafat could not let it happen.
A tyrannical-timocratic society, needs an enemy to be at war with. "Palestine" is such a society, they will not progress and become a democracy, simply because they can not afford to, wthout giving up the culture of hate, that has arisen within their state.
-b.scheller
Well, if you did watch the documentary, Arafat unwillingness was pretty obvious. Though the point was not his unwillingness or the subjective opinion of whether the peace process would work or not, what they managed was to forced him [Arafat] into a corner where he had agree to sign it, after all, they did closed the gate on him when he was trying to leave and bang on his car's window to get him to come back, which he did. Unfortunately, Chirac brought up a point of contention in the cease-fire negotiation during his "dinner" that was previously resolved and gave Arafat the perfect avenue of escape. Of course, this being the presidential residence of France, they couldn't close the gate on Arafat and forced him to come back.
Just like that day on the White House lawn September 13, 1993 Arafat backed out at the last moment and wanted changes and those documents they signed while in front of the cameras were blank and meant nothing. They met later in Cairo and at the last moment again Arafat balked while on stage as Rabin, Peres and Mubarak were about to signe the deal,you can clearly tell who Mubarak blamed...Arafat. Eventually a reluctant Arafat signed but Rabin got shafted on the deal as he was murdered at a peace rally by a right wing nut while Arafat was allowed to return from exile.
I'm not one of those who's overly optimistic about peace and justice in the Middle East, but sometimes I wonder what might have happened if the Palestinians had a different leader than Arafat at the time of the Oslo Accords, and if Rabin had not been assassinated. Of course, we all know there'd still be extremists on both sides, but perhaps a better Palestinian leader would have been able to deliver something tangible, and have been able to put the restraints on Hamas.
Without the withdrawal of Israel on 1967 boundaries, I think there never will be peace in Middle East.
ONU resolutions are clear on this subject.
Originally Posted by DeWitte
Without the withdrawal of Israel on 1967 boundaries, I think there never will be peace in Middle East.
ONU resolutions are clear on this subject.
hahahahaha!!! you are so naive, its cute.
Without the withdrawal of Israel on 1967 boundaries, I think there never will be peace in Middle East.
ONU resolutions are clear on this subject.
A withdrawal to the 1967 border would not satisfy the radical Islamists. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have made clear that they will not end their terrorist campaign against Israel if it withdraws to the prewar frontier. These and other Muslim extremists have said they will not accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Islamic world.
The peace process .. one side wants to be basically left alone and to simply exist and will make ridiculous concessions to achieve this. The other side's ultimate aim is the eradication of the jewish state.
Why doesn't this peace process work?
If Israel wanted to roll it's merkava tanks into Damascus, Lebanon, Cairo and Riyadh who could or would stop them? The U.N. and even the U.S. would issue useless condemnations but honestly who could stop them? Israel could solve the arab Israeli conflict tomorrow if it wanted.
Only solution for Israel-Palestine conflict:
1) Israelian withdrawal on 1967 boundaries;
2) Treaty between Israel and NATO to guarantee his safety.
No withdrawal, no peace... It' simple
Only solution for Israel-Palestine conflict:
1) Israelian withdrawal on 1967 boundaries;
2) Treaty between Israel and NATO to guarantee his safety.
No withdrawal, no peace... It' simple
1)If we withdraw to 1967 boundaries , who would guarantee our safety ? And I mean , really guarantee ?
2) See one . I don't trust NATO . I don't trust UN troops . For the second we have years of years of experience . On the first , after seeing how NATO worked in former Yugoslavia , I'm really in doubt they can guarantee us something - specially with the Anti - Israeli sentiment many of you Europeans share .
No disrespect , but NATO troops aren't exactly the best candidate of stabilisation force here in ME . Things here work very differently then you are ready to expect .
And if there will be withdrawal , there will be peace ? Yea , right .No withdrawal, no peace... It' simple
Let me guess , you are from France .
Last edited by Javehn; 10-15-2005 at 05:36 AM.
Who would or could stop Israel? The whole of the Arab world, sure they may not be a lateral treaty that connects all the surrounding Arab countries now, militarily but none the less, I'm sure there would be one if Israel was to invade any single state or multiple of states.If Israel wanted to roll it's merkava tanks into Damascus, Lebanon, Cairo and Riyadh who could or would stop them? The U.N. and even the U.S. would issue useless condemnations but honestly who could stop them? Israel could solve the arab Israeli conflict tomorrow if it wanted
First, it's Israel, Israeli. Second, as clearly shown by the withdrawal of settlers from the Gaza strip, Arabs will stop at nothing. They have time and time again, shown that they're neither rational nor practical, they do not follow any rules of neither war nor politics. I'm surprised that Egypt has remained a peaceful state thus now, but I'm sure that the possible nuclear threat is a detterant.1) Israelian withdrawal on 1967 boundaries;
2) Treaty between Israel and NATO to guarantee his safety.
As for NATO troops attempting to create peace, you cannot create peace by war. What NATO did in Yugoslavia, was to be peace makers and not peace keepers. We are still seeing the effects of that in Kosovo, but it's too early to tell. Peacemaking, only works in states, where there has been a predominance of peaceful co-existance. Where up until recently, there had been a stable government. Neither the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip have ever been peaceful nor had a stable government.
I put my money on that.Let me guess , you are from France .
-b.scheller
False, withdraw means nothing to Hamas and the other Jihad morons.
The Israelis could "with draw" to the Dead sea. The Arabs wouldn't be happy until they were underwater.
Simple as this, I would say a good 70% of all Palestinians think that the only good Jew is a dead one. (And in turn all of the western non Muslim world) Land isn't going to appease an animal thirsty for blood.
The peace will come when the Muslim "leadership" stops preaching death to all non Muslims. From day one majority of Arabs are brought up to think that the Israelis are simply here to either kill Arab men, Rape arab women, or destroy Islam. And when you are brought up like that, n amount of truth is going to keep you from loading your Toyota up with TNT and running it into a checkpoint.
The Israelis have to take the offense to keep thier people safe, if they don't they will die even more than they are. And when they do, they are chastised for it, not only in the Arab media, but in Europe and some parts of America.
These people are Terrorists, not freedom fighters. If you want the Israelis to give back the land to the Arabs, then you Europeans should give back Spain to the North Africans. Simple as that.
And maybe America should absolve all of our infrastructure and give our land back to the Indians. And then the British could give back the land in Ireland, and the French could give money to the Algerians, and the Vietnamese. And the Dutch/Germans/English/Italians/Spanish/Portugese/ peoples and leaders can pay the indigenous people of the countries they had colonies in, and pay for all the resources and labor they received nearly free. Then you could spend ungodly amounts of money and resources as an entire continent to fix Africa, before you guys screwed it up.
Yeah, that sounds like a great idea
Posting Permissions
