France at it again

Printable View

May 25th, 2003, 04:22 PM
darkes

France at it again

Interesting to see that the French foreign ministers (Mr de Villepin) agenda on his visit to the middle east. His talks in Ramallah on Monday will be with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas - aka Abu Mazen, foreign Minister Nabil Shaath, but also with Yasser Arafat.
Yasser Arafat is generally regarded as a man who's time has passed, because of his support for terrorist organisations. Time for a fresh start.

Surely this is the wrong time to be stirring things, especially as France claims to be acting for the EU - why not let the two Prime ministers talk to each other first? A US summit would be an excellent idea to try and push everything forward, with concessions made on both sides.

It's obvious that despite the words between Mr de Villepin and US Secretary of State Colin Powell in Paris on Friday, there is still a huge difference with the US.

Maybe France is right, but I wonder what their hidden agenda is this time :(
May 25th, 2003, 04:38 PM
FrameWork

It looks like Sharon's Cabinet approved the Mideast road map by margin of 12 votes to 7. In theory the ball should begin to roll here.

Quote:

A US summit would be an excellent idea to try and push everything forward, with concessions made on both sides.

I agree, and there has been some talk of this now that everyone has agreed to go forward. Maybe we should fly them all into Camp David soon.
May 25th, 2003, 06:42 PM
KorpDeath

Always be cautiously optimistic when it comes to this issue. Many times in the past the Israelis have made concessions only to be bombed over and over again.

Sharon has recently said that it is in their best interest to push ahead with an independent Palestianian state, especially since the U.S. backs it in the "roadmap". The Israeli's don't want to strain U.S. ties, not now anyway.

This is the first time Ariel Sharon or any Israeli of importance has actually adm9itted that the Palestinians shold get their own state. IMO the next few steps must be taken on the part of the Palestinians to stop the attacks and reign in the terrorists. I guess we'll see if Abu Mazen is the real thing or not.

If this happens then all should be good in Israel, if it doesn't. then I'd expect a total breakdown of all talks and they'll end up right back in the crap they've been in.

May peace prevail.
May 25th, 2003, 07:27 PM
FrameWork

Your right KorpDeath, from what i understand Sharon accepted the "roadmap", but added 15 or so "reservation's", so there are still a few kink's to work out.

<sidenote>

Does anybody know how far along the Israeli's are on that big concrete/electric fence? In my opinion that is a great idea, and could cut down on alot of these "homicide" bombing's. Although nothing's full-proof, the Israeli's have the best security setup in the world, and alot of these terrorist are still getting through.
May 25th, 2003, 10:45 PM
gold eagle

Caution is the byword in the whole of the middle east, not just Israel. Maybe things will be different this time, and then again...
May 25th, 2003, 11:40 PM
FrameWork

*news flash music begins to play*....... Ok, not that funny. :p

This just in!

I just saw on the new's, where they will indeed be holding a summit sometime in the next few week's, somewhere in Jordan(not sure which city). Those in attendance will be U.S, Abu Mazin, Israel, and the King of Jordan. We'll have to see what transpires. :)
May 26th, 2003, 04:57 AM
FAQ

Quote:

Originally posted here by KorpDeath
Always be cautiously optimistic when it comes to this issue. Many times in the past the Israelis have made concessions only to be bombed over and over again.

I'm only new here (and love the place!) and don't wanna "rock the boat" so to speak.......BUT... could you please point out exactly what concessions Israel has made in the past? I understand that they recently voted to grant a Palestine state. It's the first time EVER in history that Israel has said it would recognise a Palestinian state. Only 12 out of the 23 members of the Israeli senate that voted actually voted for this. Other than that I haven't really been aware of any concessions made by the Israelis... :confused:
May 26th, 2003, 05:10 AM
FrameWork

Quote:

I'm only new here (and love the place!) and don't wanna "rock the boat" so to speak.......BUT... could you please point out exactly what concessions Israel has made in the past? I understand that they recently voted to grant a Palestine state. It's the first time EVER in history that Israel has said it would recognise a Palestinian state. Only 12 out of the 23 members of the Israeli senate that voted actually voted for this. Other than that I haven't really been aware of any concessions made by the Israelis...

Perhap's you havent been following the issue closely over the past few years. :rolleyes:

Do you remember when Barak offered 97% of what the Palestinian's wanted? Guess what the response was: the entifada!! Which mind you, continues today.
May 26th, 2003, 05:17 AM
FAQ

Quote:

Originally posted here by FrameWork

Do you remember when Barak offered 97% of what the Palestinian's wanted?

Sadly, I don't remember any of that. You can either blame that on years of alcohol abuse on my behalf or wild exaggerations on your behalf. Perhaps, instead of just posting an emoticon that rolls it's eyes you could actually post a link or something that proves your 97% theory? :rolleyes:
May 26th, 2003, 05:19 AM
FrameWork

Ok, wait just one sec, a simple google search should do fine. :o

Quote:

Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer's assessment of Palestinian requests to remove Jewish settlements in the territories was, "Is the issue of removing settlements really relevant now? It's not on our agenda. Ehud Barak offered Arafat 97% of the territories, including our Holiest of Holies. Arafat's reply was to unleash violence."

There's one, from bridgesforpeace.
May 26th, 2003, 05:27 AM
FAQ

That's not a link.....it's a quote. And it's not really what you were talking about.

Anyway, I apologise for taking this thread a little off topic. Although, I still haven't seen any real proof of Israels concessions. It's a little hard to believe an American using percentages to prove his point.... :rolleyes:

This isn't the first impression I was trying to make. Sorry if I offended. I think I'll go back to lurking for a little while..... :)
May 26th, 2003, 07:05 AM
KorpDeath

Here's just two, and in case you can't figure it out, they ARE links.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/07/24/israel020724

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/356

It seems concessions were made. A response to those concessions was made briefly following by the Palestinians.

And every time Israel makes a gesture, they are met with bombings and so forth.

It's not off topic and if you'd spend maybe 4 seconds searching the web you'd come up with dozens of links for info you're searching for, but maybe I ask too much, eh?

P.S. I don't give a flying rats ass about what first impression you wanted to make.

P.S.S. Do you have something to say or are you just playing "devil's advocate"?
May 26th, 2003, 08:24 AM
FAQ

ROFLMAO

It seems I've hit a nerve with the guy who has a "Flaming American Heart Flag" avatar. Talk about corny! LOL :D Like I said. I apologise if I've offended. I'm new here and didn't mean to tread on any toes. I was out of line... :(

The point I was trying to make was that it would be nice to see arguments backed up with supportive links, that's all. It gives it more "oomph"...so to speak.

P.S That avatar is the corniest avatar I've ever seen!

P.P.S It still is!
May 26th, 2003, 09:11 AM
darkes

Quote:

Originally posted here by FAQ

I'm only new here (and love the place!) and don't wanna "rock the boat" so to speak.......BUT... could you please point out exactly what concessions Israel has made in the past? I understand that they recently voted to grant a Palestine state. It's the first time EVER in history that Israel has said it would recognise a Palestinian state. Only 12 out of the 23 members of the Israeli senate that voted actually voted for this. Other than that I haven't really been aware of any concessions made by the Israelis... :confused:

You are quite right that this is the first time that Israel has agreed to a Palestine state, which I think is a very positive move. However this needs to be reciprocated by the Arab world in agreeing that Israel, too, has a right to exist as a sovereign state, something that much of the Arab world has not done. And Palestine needs to take action against the extreme Islamic groups that are attacking Israel, something they have refused to do in the past.

Curiously, I think Sharon was actually disappointed he won the vote.
Why? Because, if he had lost the vote he could have dissolved the current coalition which includes extreme right wing parties, and formed a new coalition with the left wing Labour party, who initially rejected him, but have since had a change of leader.
The difference with a new coalition would be that Sharon would have a much freer hand to negotiate.
May 26th, 2003, 02:10 PM
FrameWork

Quote:

The point I was trying to make was that it would be nice to see arguments backed up with supportive links, that's all. It gives it more "oomph"...so to speak.

I gave you the name of the page i got that from, i just thought you might have been able to figure that out. "bridgesforpeace" :)
May 27th, 2003, 12:58 PM
gold eagle

now we will see who is serious about peace or not. Should we even cross our fingers and hope?
May 27th, 2003, 01:10 PM
FrameWork

You have to admit though, the Israeli's are exercising alot of patience here, they are still willing to meet with Abu Mazin at that summit in Jordan after 5 "homicide" bombing's. I know my country pretty well, and i can say that if the U.S was bombed 5 times in a row that we would go kick some ass very promptly, so you got to hand it to them for being patient.
May 27th, 2003, 02:38 PM
bballad

Quote:

Originally posted here by gold eagle
now we will see who is serious about peace or not. Should we even cross our fingers and hope?

HTis will not happen until both sides can ignore the bombings and move on. Their are people on both sides of the Israli/Palistinialn conflict that are in power/stay in power bcause of it, it is in their best intrest to make sure peace dosn't happen. Untill the yare removed from Isrial and Plaistine there will be no lasting peace.
May 27th, 2003, 07:37 PM
nabylbt

Hello,

Not that i woudl want to start up again on the whole issues of concessions again, but all the links refer to western media and thus biased toward isreal....
Sorry to point that out but should you go to arabic web site you would get a whole other story....
the bottom line is that isreal doesn't want to allow the 5 Million(? + ?) palestinian back on their land. so even if this is the 3% of non concession that is still too much no ?

to support that i'll add that only the isrealis have put reserve to the road map (12 if my memory is right ...) not the palestinian... why ?

In any negociation, you got to look at what each part is willing to give up to get what they want. who has a better position and who needs a solution rather then the other side ?
make you own opinion for that and use diferent sources...

Pragmatic: in all cases neither side will be happy with the outcome and there will be much more blood before there is peace and both side will claim to have been riped off.

there is always 3 sides to a truth: theirs, the others', and the unknown's. which one do you choose ?
May 27th, 2003, 08:05 PM
FrameWork

Quote:

to support that i'll add that only the isrealis have put reserve to the road map (12 if my memory is right ...) not the palestinian... why ?

I'm sure it had something to do with Israeli security concern's. ;)
May 27th, 2003, 09:53 PM
FAQ

Quote:

Originally posted here by nabylbt
Not that i woud want to start up again on the whole issues of concessions again, but all the links refer to western media and thus biased toward isreal....
Sorry to point that out but should you go to arabic web site you would get a whole other story....

What a brilliant point!

Quote:

Palestine Chronicle is an independent internet magazine, dedicated to addressing issues and offering perspectives rarely seen in mainstream western media.

For a different point of view try reading about the conflict from an Arabs point of view. You can find the on-line magazine here.. :)
May 27th, 2003, 10:34 PM
KorpDeath

Quote:

Originally posted here by nabylbt
Hello,

Not that i woudl want to start up again on the whole issues of concessions again, but all the links refer to western media and thus biased toward isreal....
Sorry to point that out but should you go to arabic web site you would get a whole other story....
the bottom line is that isreal doesn't want to allow the 5 Million(? + ?) palestinian back on their land. so even if this is the 3% of non concession that is still too much no ?

to support that i'll add that only the isrealis have put reserve to the road map (12 if my memory is right ...) not the palestinian... why ?

In any negociation, you got to look at what each part is willing to give up to get what they want. who has a better position and who needs a solution rather then the other side ?
make you own opinion for that and use diferent sources...

Pragmatic: in all cases neither side will be happy with the outcome and there will be much more blood before there is peace and both side will claim to have been riped off.

there is always 3 sides to a truth: theirs, the others', and the unknown's. which one do you choose ?

Not that I want to point out the obvious or anything but I don't read Arabic, nor do I know of anyone who does, so I'm a little lost as to how to glean information from their scribbles. (no insult intended, it just looks like scribbles to me, probably the same way English/American looks like scribbles to them.)

The only news sources I've found that have translation capability are ones you pay for. If you'd like to point me in the correct direction I'd love to read the "other sides" comments. But I don't want to pay for the privelege of reading their insight.

And as far as your palestine chronicle goes FAQ: That's more slanted and uneven than most rags here in the U.S. Might as well read the Enquirer, IMO.
May 28th, 2003, 11:40 AM
nabylbt

security for whom ? theirs ? or the state sponsored killings ? in any case I think it's harder to judge who is right and who is wrong for they both have a lot to regret on both side ( sharon is sued for crime against humanity in belguim... for the palestinians u wathced the news ...)

so let's hope for the best !
May 28th, 2003, 02:00 PM
FrameWork

Quote:

security for whom ? theirs ? or the state sponsored killings ? in any case I think it's harder to judge who is right and who is wrong for they both have a lot to regret on both side ( sharon is sued for crime against humanity in belguim... for the palestinians u wathced the news ...)

Your right the Israeli nation does sponsor the killing of those who take innocent lives. You know those terrorist that you always see on the tv killing babies in their stroller's, ring a bell?

Harder to judge who's right and wrong, you've got to be kidding right? I think the terrorist take the wrong cake here.

And who arent the belgian's trying to sue, for God sakes they are trying to indite my President for war crimes. Belgium is a joke, and can only flex it's nonexistent muscles through a ludicrous, phony, kangaroo court. How arrogant can they be to think they have jurisdiction over the entire globe.
May 28th, 2003, 03:11 PM
nabylbt

then again you are taking it too personal...
true i could care less about what belguim think and whom they want to judge ... except that there might be some legal reasons to do it. whether they can enforce it is a entire topic.
You seems to think that the stronguer is always right. you are entitled to your opinion but at least be open minded enough to admit that there are other points of view.

the traditional response to your "Your right the Israeli nation does sponsor the killing of those who take innocent lives. You know those terrorist that you always see on the tv killing babies in their stroller's, ring a bell? " would be a rthoric question what else can they do ? they have lost the war, their land, their freedom... what else do they have to loose ? nothing much you probably think. Well once more you'd be wrong for they still have there lives to sacrifice... In my opinion it is a stupid sacrifice that doesn't solve anything but they don't see it that way. Plus without the bombing you'd never heard of them and in their situation ANY news flash is better then none...

this discussion is getting nowhere anyways....
May 29th, 2003, 05:26 AM
theuser

I am strangly optimistic about peace in this situation. Sharon is taking quite extraordinary steps towards bringing the two sides into an agreement of sorts. It seems that Sharon is even going against his party-members on this issue which could be a good sign that he will "bend" alittle on this issue. I hope something that leads to lasting peace comes out of this for once.