Originally posted by PalynkaThere is no disengagement from Gaza.
Disengagement from Gaza IS a concession. You might think that's not enough (I certainly affirmed so), but it remains nevertheless undeniable that it's false to affirm that concessions are only from one side.
Besides, increases in the population and number of settlements is nothing new. It has been going on for years at quite a fast rate.
Originally posted by shavixmirWe're talking about the disengagement of settlements. Maybe you should read the context before giving your extremely partisan opinions.
Do daily raids and sonic-boom fly-overs not fall under engagement then?
Oh... you must be talking about Israeli press releases... yes. Then they're not there anymore.
Published on Monday, April 28, 2008 by The International Herald Tribune
Talking to ‘Terrorists’
by Jimmy Carter
"A counterproductive Washington policy in recent years has been to boycott and punish political factions or governments that refuse to accept U.S. domination. This policy deters the ability of revolutionary or uncooperative leaders to moderate their attitude and demands. [...] Through more official consultations with these outlawed leaders, it may yet be possible to revive the stalemated peace talks between Israel and its neighbors."
Surely applauding Carter's initiative in this matter is something Left, Right and Centre can agree on?
The rest of the article is here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/28/opinion/edcarter.php?page=1
Originally posted by FMFOMG, Syria has captured Jimmy Carter and brainwashed him! 😲
Published on Monday, April 28, 2008 by The International Herald Tribune
[b]Talking to ‘Terrorists’
by Jimmy Carter
"A counterproductive Washington policy in recent years has been to boycott and punish political factions or governments that refuse to accept U.S. domination. This policy deters the ability of revolutionary or uncooperative leaders t ...[text shortened]... t of the article is here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/28/opinion/edcarter.php?page=1[/b]
Originally posted by FMFApologies for starting a thread and then leaving...
Published on Monday, April 28, 2008 by The International Herald Tribune
[b]Talking to ‘Terrorists’
by Jimmy Carter
"A counterproductive Washington policy in recent years has been to boycott and punish political factions or governments that refuse to accept U.S. domination. This policy deters the ability of revolutionary or uncooperative leaders t ...[text shortened]... t of the article is here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/28/opinion/edcarter.php?page=1[/b]
Carter has vastly more credentials to talk about what is necessary to establish Mideast Peace than Condi Rice has. Yet when Carter says it is time to talk to Hamas, Rice criticizes his "interference"? Interference with what? Her lack of any significant progress?
If our UN representatives were elected, I think Carter would be the US-UN representative. Picture a UN where the democratic process could begin working again, without knee-jerk US Security Council vetoes -- Carter would not take dictation from Bush.
Funny how some people, who praise democracy as it exists today, recoil when imagining what democracy will look like tomorrow.