THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Mandark on November 27, 2007, 08:08:10 PM
-
And they want to reach a deal by the end of next year (ie Bush's term). (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/22172.html)
Also, Yitzhak Rabin was killed over 12 years ago. That makes me feel old.
-
I cant keep track of that place anymore.
-
it sure will be an epic day when little jew boys and little arab boys play duke nukem forever together in the gaza strip
-
Right now they just play Nukem.
-
I cant keep track of that place anymore.
In this case, there's nothing to really follow other than the symbolism that will hopefully kick start an actual process down the road. There were no agreements signed or even proposed, and no substantial negotiations. It was a one day event with 50 or so countries invited, so they were never aiming for that.
What's important is that 1) The US is actively and visibly pushing the peace process, 2) Bush spoke at the event, which tells everyone else involved that Rice and whoever else is involved with this has his backing and has the authority to cut a deal, and 3) Israel and Fatah leaders both committed to giving this a go.
The one big pitfall I can see is that Hamas (which runs Gaza) is being left out. The US and Israel would be trying to put together a lasting peace deal by dealing only with Fatah, and I don't think that's possible. The administration's habit of giving the silent treatment to governments it doesn't like hasn't paid off yet.
The other big pitfall, I suppose, would be that shit always goes wrong at some point, but I don't want to be fatalistic.
-
Seems like this is a PRETTY big move, which means it will probably survive 'shit going wrong'
-
it sure will be an epic day when little jew boys and little arab boys play duke nukem forever together in the gaza strip
:lol :lol
-
MAF: I hope so.
Right now, there's much more acceptance in the Palestinian and Arab communities of Israel's existence than there has been in the past. It might be a permanent shift in the way people look at things, but it also might shift back if no agreement is reached. I'd hate to see a window of opportunity close like that.
Also, there's pretty broad agreement on what the final outcome would look like (http://www.geneva-accord.org/general.aspx?FolderID=250&lang=en) (two states, using roughly the 1967 borders, no full right of return, a divided and/or internationally monitored Jerusalem, etc.).
The puzzle is building up political support within the different groups, and trust between them, to get everyone involved to actually take the steps needed to get there.
-
I guess I just got so used to stuff going to shit over there, news of this didnt phase me much. But reading more into it its clearly a big deal
-
I'm sorry, doesn't anyone else see this as a desperate attempt for Bush to save face?
I mean, it's great and all that there's a peace conference happening, but seriously. Bush bombed Iraq. The US is probably going to have a permanent troop presence in the country, and now he is wanting the Palestinians to have their own state? Sorry, does not compute.
Then again, I may be misinformed. My only knowledge of this comes from CNN, and I only watched for about five minutes before I started cursing Bush's name and running to my dorm room.
-
Haha well yeah, I dont credit bush for any of this.
-
Seems like this is a PRETTY big move, which means it will probably survive 'shit going wrong'
Nah, these talks were set up because there was no real way that they could fail since they are just about STARTING a process. There was also no real way they could really be successful, since the talks never had hard negotiations in them to begin with. So the press will of course run it as a "It's a new start" happy-feely sort of thing when in reality things are still moving at a glacical pace.
Also, it is impossible to not work with Hamas on these issues. I would say that brave new leadership is needed on all sides to push things forward-but that's what I said before Arafat died and I'm not sure if it can really exist. :(
-
now he is wanting the Palestinians to have their own state? Sorry, does not compute.
That's been his position for a long time; previous to the invasion of Iraq IIRC.
-
He's actually been pretty progressive on the whole Palestinian state thing.
-
Problem with this whole peace process thing is that neither side will likely hold to their end of the bargain. Power structures being what they are and all....
-
He's actually been pretty progressive on the whole Palestinian state thing.
You crazy.
Bush has always supported the idea of a Palestinian state, but that support has mostly been rhetorical and very conditional (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020624-3.html).
That's even the case now, which is why Frag and I are fretting over the attempted end-run around Hamas.
Wasn't there some discussion here when Giuliani said similar things in his FA piece? Didn't MAF post that? This forum needs a better search function and/or I need better recall.
-
Here it is. (http://www.evilbore.com/forum/index.php?topic=11643.0)
Basically, it's saying that the Palestinians can't get a state until they can organize themselves to the point where a stable, legally-defined organization can exercise a monopoly on violence within their territories and force citizens to comply with whatever deal is achieved.
Which is kind of what a state is. So they don't get a state until they already achieve the main functions of one.
-
Yeah, but prior to Bush, the US didn't formally recognize the rights of the palestinians to have a state, did it?
-
No, it was definitely recognized before that. The Oslo Accords in 93 provided an explicit framework for the transition from occupied territories to Palestine.
As far as I know (admittedly not far), the United States' official position has always been in favor of the two-state solution.
-
My dad is far more informed on this than I am, but I am under the distinct impression that Bush was the first US president to come right out and say that they recognized the right of a state called "Palestine" to exist. It was a pretty big deal when he first said it.
-
This seems to cover what you're talking about. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401410.html)
-
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking about. Thanks for the link.