06 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Any country has the wherewithal to be a broker if it has the backing of players with "clout".
With the qualification that I am referring to countries that have the wherewithal to actually be brokers, yes.
You seem to be saying that the U.S. is an honest broker although it is "pro-Israel" and although it has "belief in the morality of the fundamental Israeli position" and that if the U.S. took the step of endorsing the facilitation of a third party "honset broker", come what may - i.e. neutral arbitration - it would not accept any settlement that it disagreed with. Given all this, on what basis do you claim that the U.S. is closer to being an honest broker than anyone else?
06 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You equate "clout" [or "wherewithal"] with "honesty" when it comes to settling a dispute? Serious question. Please don't just blow it off.
With the qualification that I am referring to countries that have the wherewithal to actually be brokers, yes.
06 Jan 12
1 edit
1) I think the US genuinely wants peace in the middle east.
2) I think the US is more sympathetic to the Israeli position, whether because of genuine sympathy or political pressure or a combination doesn't really matter.
3) In spite of the US sympathy, I think the US could be a fair broker between the parties by virtue of its political clout and its fervent desire to see a peace agreement that is palatable to all sides; if for no other reason that US self-interest in currying favor with other middle eastern countries and the respect of the rest of the world. For example, the 1979 agreement at Camp David was a generally fair agreement. The agreement that was almost completed at Camp David in 2000 was a relatively fair agreement as well.
A mediator could be sympathetic to one side and still be an "honest" broker.
4) Norway and the like do not have the ability to cajole the parties to the negotiating table right now without strong US support. The US is not going to (and should not) delegate is political and financial muscle.
That is my position. If you disagree with it, fine. You're certainly entitled to. I am not interested in being cross-examined about the meanings and connotations of specific words.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76You appear to be saying 'U.S. backs Israel, like it or lump it' and 'the U.S. is a broker because of its "clout", like it or lump it'. But then you also claim that the U.S. is closer to being "honest" than anyone else in its role as a broker. Can you not see how this last one - the appropriation of the the word "honest" - is not convincing in the circumstances? Could it in fact be counter productive?
That is my position. If you disagree with it, fine. You're certainly entitled to. I am not interested in being cross-examined about the meanings and connotations of specific words.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76In my lifetime every "agreement" has been broken. That doesn't bode well for new negotiations. In most of human history, the only thing that resulted in lasting peace between long time enemies is the utter and complete defeat of one or the other.
Both sides are willing to give up something.
Any deal struck between the parties could be enforced by the United States. They could work in that as part of the agreement. The agreement could state that the US promises to cut off aid to Israel if Israel breaks the agreement and de-recognize the Palestinian state if the Palestinians break the agreement.
Ne ...[text shortened]... this Barghoutti quote, it seems apparent that he fits squarely into the latter category.
If Israel capitulated and gave a Palestinian state everything they asked for, besides the last Jew swimming west in the Mediterranean, there would be no peace.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFHow effective were the Oslo accords?
Norway, for instance, has better credentials as an 'honest broker' than the U.S. Norway brokered the Israel/PLO Oslo Accords . Thye brought the 30 year separatist
GAM/Indonesia conflict to an end. They played a key role in ending the war in Bosnia. Norway were successful mediators in Guatemala. They have earned respect for their
work in in Colombia, Sudan, S ...[text shortened]... U.S. offer to back - with its "clout" - whatever deal the Norwegians broker, for instance?
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by FMFWas the US more an honest broker under Clinton, than under Bush or Obama? If so, why did those brokered agreements not last?
You appear to be saying 'U.S. backs Israel, like it or lump it' and 'the U.S. is a broker because of its "clout", like it or lump it'. But then you also claim that the U.S. is closer to being "honest" than anyone else in its role as a broker. Can you not see how this last one - the appropriation of the the word "honest" - is not convincing in the circumstances? Could it in fact be counter productive?
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by normbenignLasting peace between long-time enemies actually results when circumstances change. From the Norman invasion in the eleventh-century to the Napoleonic Wars, England / Britain repeatedly engaged in conflict with France. There were generally sound geopolitical and strategic reasons for this during those centuries. There aren't any more, and so Britain hasn't been at war with France for a very long time.
In most of human history, the only thing that resulted in lasting peace between long time enemies is the utter and complete defeat of one or the other.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has specific and concrete causes and motives. If those can be dealt with, then the conflict will end.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Please sh76 -- claiming that the US is an "honest broker" or "the only broker" is nonsense! The US veto in the UN security council is THE ONLY reason that peace has not yet been achieved! Had that not been, Israel would have been forced by world sanctions to negotiate a settlement long ago.
1) I think the US genuinely wants peace in the middle east.
2) I think the US is more sympathetic to the Israeli position, whether because of genuine sympathy or political pressure or a combination doesn't really matter.
3) In spite of the US sympathy, I think the US could be a fair broker between the parties by virtue of its political clout and its ferve ...[text shortened]... ot interested in being cross-examined about the meanings and connotations of specific words.
The US is THE major stumbling block to Mideast peace -- as much or more than the 2 parties themselves.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76I've never read so much mulch.
Both sides are willing to give up something.
Any deal struck between the parties could be enforced by the United States. They could work in that as part of the agreement. The agreement could state that the US promises to cut off aid to Israel if Israel breaks the agreement and de-recognize the Palestinian state if the Palestinians break the agreement.
Ne ...[text shortened]... this Barghoutti quote, it seems apparent that he fits squarely into the latter category.
You're dogma has blinded you to reason, it is a fault in lots of people.... don't worry it can be cured.