« Report: Subprime Loans DECREASE Home Ownership Rates | Home | Can We Win for Progressive Change? »

Peace Now?

user-pic

The meeting of Arab states in Saudi Arabia is an historic moment that must not be dismissed by the U.S. or Israel, yet due to the weak leadership in America and in Israel today, it just might be.

When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat came to Israel, he showed the Israelis that there was someone with whom they could talk, who would recognize their status as a nation in the region. Now, the Saudis, in their own way, are doing the same, along with the slim, but still hopeful, chance that there could be a resolution to the Israeli/Palestininian conflict. But, the leadership in Israel, under Ehud Olmert, is the weakest --and perhaps most corrupt--in Israel's history. And with a White House under seige, it's difficult to see what Condi Rice can pull off without extra reinforcement from President Bush himself. yet, the stakes couldn't be higher--for the U.S., for stability in the region, and for Israel and the Palestinians.

For the first time, there is an Israeli journalist in Saudi Arabia as part of the press pool. Orly Azouly is covering the summit and offering the Israelis a glimpse into the Saudi kingdom firsthand. Olmert, the Israeli PM, is lukewarm at best to this initiative and to what appears to be Condi Rice's paper clip approach to reviving the peace process. (a result of her recent trip was the announcement of regular meetings between Olmert and Abu Mazen, the Palestinian president, but without serious negotiations, all that these meetings do is serve to manage the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians, which has to be unacceptable). Meanwhile, the Israelis are, for all intents and purposes, beginning an election season, as the Labor Party gears up for a May 28 vote for a leader to replace Amir Peretz (Peretz is also running, but it's highly unlikely that he can survive a vote) with the two top contenders being Ehud Barak and Ami Ayalon. Nearly everyone in Olmert's Kadima party is under serious criminal investigation--Olmert has several inquries against him and the Israeli Attorney General questioned his fitness to serve on Israeli radio this week. Bibi Netanyahu is chafing to take back the Israeli top seat and based on current polls, he could.

Abu Mazen, a well-meaning but weak leader, has already announced that he won't run for re-election and has about a year and a half on the world stage to try to move things in a positive direction. The most powerful Palestinian leader is sitting in an Israeli jail, Marwan Barghouti, and probably the man who could bring about a peace agreement at least on the Palestinian side.

In our own country, an election season always brings too much rhetoric and weakens the resolve of Democratic candidates, especially, to show israel "tough love," but that's what's needed, for the U.S., for Israel and for the region. And, that's what all the polls show that the Israeli people want--and that American Jews want, overwhelmingly. They want peace; they want two states--before it is too late, and the late hour is upon us.

The Saudis, meanwhile, are racing against Iran, even as they displace Egypt as the big political power in the region. Even in this moment of weak leaders worldwide, is it too much to hope for a break in this terrible cycle?


46 Comments

| Leave a comment

Your points are well taken. However, the Arabs are so dishonest. They have been sidling up to Israel since the Lebanonese War precisely because they are afraid that the U.S. will do what the U.S. always does get bored and leave Iraq with the Sunni Arab nations left to face Iran alone. The Arabs know that only Israel can protect them. However, they and their stooges have spent so long denouncing Israel's existence that they are afraid to break the news to their citzens that they need Israel.

While corruption is a serious problem in Israel it is not corruption is not true explanation of Olmert's or Peretz' political weakness. The cause of that is the failure to inflict enough damage on Hezbollah. Israelis were willing to endure more missile strikes in exchange for eliminating the Hezbollah threat. Instead, whether because Halutz is inept or Israel listened to Rumsfeld the war was botched. Olmert has not recovered from that.

You did fail to mention the three soldiers being held by Arab groups. One gathers that until they are released or at least a deal made for them Israel is going to be very skeptical about any deal.
Daniel A. Greenbaum

Today, Mahmoud "Abu Mazen" Abbas said,

"We hope our summit would result in the formation of an Arab committee headed by the Saudi Arabian monarchy, the head of the summit, to follow up implementation of the Arab initiative."

"We hope..."?  Considering that the Riyadh summit's stated purpose has been to re-launch the exact same initiative initially launched from Beirut five years ago, why does the idea of a singular committee that could facilitate a diplomatic channel for a comprehensive approach to its initiative come up only now on the second and final day of the Arab League summit? 

Does the Arab League even want to include Israel in its initiative?  Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said yesterday, "The Israeli response was to ask for an amendment. We tell them to accept it first."  How does this exercise add up to much more than "Do what we say, then maybe we'll talk"?

If the leader of Saudi Arabia flys to Israel after the summit to deliver, in person, a peace proposal. Then there will be something to talk about.

It would also help if the peace proposal was not offered in the form of an ultimatum. i.e. accept this proposal or it's war. No Arab nation is preparing to go to war with Israel over these issues. It is true that the current situation is a simmering war, but the words of the Saudis seem to indicate that, if not for this peace proposal, armies will soon be on the march.

It is also worth noting that the Israeli journalist, who is apparently "a US-based" correspondent for an Israeli publication, was given not given a visa. That journalist, Orly Azoulay, was actually denied a visa. Not only that, but the visa itself could only be applied for under the journalist French passport (she holds both Israeli and French citizenship). Because she was part of the U.N. reporter pool, she flew to Saudi anyway. Once there, they let her in.

As it stands, an Jewish Israeli journalist, living in Israel, covering Israeli news, who doesn't work for an international organization, doesn't have a chance of setting foot inside of Saudi Arabia.

Don't get me wrong, I find these developments, overall, to be encouraging. But, the details do show that the Arab nations still have many internal discomforts with the idea of a legitimate Israeli nation living amongst. This discomfort lives independent of the existence (or lack of existence) of a Palestinian state.

pkafin,

That journalist, Orly Azoulay, was actually denied a visa. Not only that, but the visa itself could only be applied for under the journalist French passport (she holds both Israeli and French citizenship). Because she was part of the U.N. reporter pool, she flew to Saudi anyway. Once there, they let her in.

I'm afraid your account differs from Ms. Azoulay's,

The [Saudi Information Ministry] official showed me the list of journalists who had received entry permits to the conference: My name and the name of the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth appeared on the list. Saudi Arabia has for the first time officially opened its doors to an Israeli journalist.

While it isn't clear from her account that she had specifically applied for the visa with her Israeli passport, the fact that the visa was initially rejected suggests it wasn't a French passport.  In any event, it appears from her own account that she was outwardly representing Yediot Ahronot, an obvious Hebrew publication.

Your points are well taken. However, the Jews are so dishonest. They have been sidling up to Saudi Arabia since the Iraq War precisely because they are afraid that the U.S. will do what the U.S. always does get bored and leave Iraq with the Israel left to face Iran alone. Israel knows that only the Sunni Arabs can protect them. However, they and their stooges have spent so long denouncing Arabs that they are afraid to break the news to their citzens that they need the Saudi's and their allies.

While corruption is a serious problem in Saudi Arabia it is not corruption is not true explanation of Faisal's or Achmad' political weakness. The cause of that is the failure to inflict enough damage on Israel. Saudi's were willing to endure more missile strikes in exchange for eliminating the Zionist threat. Instead, whether because Sadat is inept or the Saudi's listened to Carter the war was botched. Arabs have not recovered from that.

You did fail to mention the many Arabs being held by the Israeli secret police. One gathers that until they are released or at least a deal made for them Arabs are going to be very skeptical about any deal.

See. That wasn't racist at all.

Thank you, Daniel A. Greenbaum for the excellent reminder as to why I chose to stay away from Israel/Palestine threads.

Best wishes and warmest regards.

Valdron (if you're still here), can you do anything but lift your leg, claim a little turf and move along?

I recognize there is a philosophical, and indeed ideal, aspect of what I quote below.


You did fail to mention the three soldiers being held by Arab groups. One gathers that until they are released or at least a deal made for them Israel is going to be very skeptical about any deal.

I think back to a number of incidents involving the US and other major powers, such as making a peace deal with North Vietnam without a full accounting of POWs and MIAs. I think of various situations, for UN powers, with North Korea and prisoners.

In other words, many countries will look at the greatest good for the greatest number, and not necessarily make a peace dependent on a small number of sadly affected individuals. Different countries work different ways; the fUSSR almost never traded for the return of captured spies, while the US CIA made considerable efforts to get people back -- and each country had its own rationale.

I am not challenging as much as asking: what is the Israeli position on why the status of three soldiers appears to be a total precondition to a larger agreement?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

I am not challenging as much as asking: what is the Israeli position on why the status of three soldiers appears to be a total precondition to a larger agreement?

Are we sure that it is?  After all, we're talking about an Arab League summit.  The three Israeli soldiers remain captive of Hizbollah.  And while Hizbollah is in fact a Lebanese party/militia, it is allied with Iran, which is not an Arab League member nation.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought Daniel was saying that these soldiers had to be returned for any discussions with anyone. I agree that the Arab League would not appear to be a party to this issue, but that's what I thought he was saying.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Maybe I'm the one misunderstanding, but it appeared to me as if you were tying Daniel's opinion to Israeli foreign policy.

Vague suspicions of "who's on first..."

Sorry for any confusion. I was trying to find out if Daniel's opinion was just that, or if his statement accurately reflected Israeli policy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

And with a White House under seige, it's difficult to see what Condi Rice can pull off without extra reinforcement from President Bush himself.

I'm guessing this paragraph just sort of wrote itself. I picture the writer having assimilated so much of the literature about how the US used to play an honest broker role and how much effort President Clinton made to try and bring the two parties together that random firings of neurons caused it to flow effortlessly from her fingers.

If only President Bush would throw his immense prestige in the region behind these efforts...

/end sarcasm

Actually the reason Condi can pull it off is one you probably don't want to think about.

Try to visualize a standard AIPAC/Democrat campaign demanding that Congress block the President from selling out Israel to Arab terrorists and blah blah blah...

Wouldn't work, would it?

There isn't any way to stop Condi pulling it off. The Israel lobby has been out-maneuvered.

"We hope..."?  Considering that the Riyadh summit's stated purpose has been to re-launch the exact same initiative initially launched from Beirut five years ago, why does the idea of a singular committee that could facilitate a diplomatic channel for a comprehensive approach to its initiative come up only now on the second and final day of the Arab League summit?

Actually, Zionista, I read a report yesterday that there are committees being set up to work on the plan. (I did a cursory search to find the article with no luck, but if you doubt me, please say so and I'll find it. It seems to me fairly meaningless on which day committees were discussed anyway, btw.)

"Do what we say, then maybe we'll talk"?

Isn't it Israel who is saying this, by asking for amendments to the plan before it is even negotiated? 

This is a historic opportunity for peace. Not only Israel's Arab neighbors have signed on to the plan, but other Muslim countries:

Three other Muslim states are likely to join this framework: Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia, who were invited to attend the summit as guests, and who are expected to broaden the initiative to the Muslim world and offer Israel a greater incentive. (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/843368.html)

This plan offers a wider peace than any previously proposed, and would have the added benefit of reducing the appeal of Hamas. As Jo-ann has pointed out, if action is not taken soon, there's a chance that Netanyahu will be elected again (Ominous note: Wolf Blitzer had him on as a guest contributor not that long ago - I'm sure the neocons will be pushing for his election). As you know, Netanyahu will be likely to lead Israel away from any real peace with the Palestinians. Is that what you want, Zionista?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Wordie,

Isn't it Israel who is saying this, by asking for amendments to the plan before it is even negotiated?

It was negotiated in Beirut five years ago.  The expressed purpose of the summit is to RE-launch the Beirut initiative.

And you ask if I want Netanyahu elected PM?  Go cheney yourself with that. 

Zionista,

I'm afraid your account differs from Ms. Azoulay's,...While it isn't clear from her account that she had specifically applied for the visa with her Israeli passport, the fact that the visa was initially rejected suggests it wasn't a French passport.

Here is what the news wires were reporting yesterday:

Orly Azoulay, the Washington bureau chief of Yediot Aharonot, was unable to obtain a visa to Saudi Arabia despite assurances the Saudi mission in New York gave the United Nations last week, said Michéle Montas, Mr. Ban’s spokeswoman.

Ms. Montas said that both Lebanon and Saudi Arabia initially refused to grant Ms. Azoulay a visa, but that Lebanon had dropped its objections last week and given her the needed stamp.

Ms. Azoulay, 53, an Israeli-born dual citizen of France and Israel, sought the visa on her French passport.

I believe my comments were accurate. It is still unclear whether she ever received the actual visa. Did she officially receive one? or was just allowed into the country as an unregistered guest of the U.N. press pool?

Valderon,


However, the Jews are so dishonest.

you know there is a difference between Jews and Israelis don't you?

You do realize that there are 1 million Israelis who are not Jews (most of them are Muslim with some Christians and Druse mixed in). And that there are 10 million or so Jews that are not Israeli.

If you're talking religion, then it's Jews and Muslims.

If your talking ethnicity, then it may be Jews, Israelis, Arabs; but probably not Muslims. There are many differing ethnic groups that claim Islam as their primary religion.

If you're talking nationality (which I think you were), then it's Israelis, Syrians, Egyptians, etc.

There are those who consider the individual Arabic countries artificial constructions and that "Arab" is a nationality. Of course those folks would then not believe in the existence of "Palestinians". In the view of the Pan-Arabists, the Palestinians are just Arabs who live in the Israeli/Palestinian region.

There was much noise from those folks in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's (Nassar, for example). In the end, the Palestinians were not helped by this perspective.

user-pic

Hey friends,

Can we calm down a bit? Throwing around who is and isn't a racist doesn't seem to get anyone anywhere. It would be great if you could ratchet the rhetoric down and just make the different points.

I've been receiving lots of complaints on these threads, so I'd appreciate it if we could all just take a deep breath and make it so that I don't have to read every comment to make sure someone hasn't called someone else a racist or an antisemite. Quite frankly, I think we all have more productive things to do.

Andrew

I couldn't rate Valdron more as it was just a one liner, but it certainly expressed my frustration and why I'm not posting more here. You guys enjoy your moral superiority, with the luxury in reveling in it all the more when others work toward peace and you don't, and I'll find somewhere else to have a rational conversation.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Thanks for the 1-rating Wordie.  You can throw the old Likudnik accusation at me, and I'm supposed to take it and like it.  It's good to know the rules.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, quoted yesterday,

"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace. Then (the conflict) goes back into the hands of the lords of war."

Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres, quoted today in Ha'aretz,

"Let's sit together as we are supposed to and work on it as we did before with Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinians," he told Al Jazeera television in remarks dubbed in Arabic, but he did not say if Israel accepts or rejects the Arab bid....

"It is time now to start negotiating and not only to make announcements," Peres said. "We should think about the tactics [for peace] and how to implement them," he said.

"We either do this [peace steps] unilaterally or bilaterally. If you do that unilaterally then you are making a declaration but bilaterally there would be an Arab stance and an Israeli stance and these will include some difference," he said....

"We propose that we meet without setting pre-conditions and negotiate," he said. "We also want comprehensive peace that tackles all of the stagnant issues," he said.

"Yes there are some differences about the refugees and Jerusalem so we should sit together and solve this issue there is no other way."

So, I guess this means war.

pkafin says:

If the leader of Saudi Arabia flys to Israel after the summit to deliver, in person, a peace proposal. Then there will be something to talk about.

Why? Why should this be necessary for Israel to consider the peace initiative? It seems like just another demand, like the others that Israel has used for so many years in order to avoid negotiations and the unpleasantness of compromise. It's interesting to note that, although they've agreed to discussions, Olmert is also refusing to talk about anything substantive with Abbas. It's time for a change!

It would also help if the peace proposal was not offered in the form of an ultimatum. i.e. accept this proposal or it's war.

Nobody said "accept this proposal or it's war."

You also have stressed the issue of the journalist, but have offered no link to any sources that claim the visa was initially denied. Please provide a link.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Wordie:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/world/middleeast/24cnd-saudi.html

As for peace or war, read this very article.

Zionista.

Why are you continuing to post a dishonestly edited version of al-Faisal's comments when I provided the quote in full on your own blog on this issue yesterday? Just for the record, I will once again provide the corrected version of al-Faisal's words:

"If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3382241,00.html

PS. Earlier on this thread you state that Hizbollah is holding three Israeli soldiers. The number is two, which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the events surrounding the summer war well knows.

When I follow the link, the NYT site says the page does not exist...

Also, earlier you said "news wires" so does that mean you had more than one source? If so, please post what you have on this. 

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Andrew.

Could you please clarify something here? From your statement above, I take that it's the namecalling by individual posters directed at another poster that's objectionable.

Does that imply that obviously racist/anti-semitic statements are to be given a pass and that to point out that the words themselves could be considered as such is also out-of-bounds?

While I'm sure you do receive a lot of complaints on these threads, I hope you are considering the sources and taking note of the merit of the complainers' objections. I know you have a larger brief than to moderate threads and suggest that you consider asking commenters who are objective to help out.

As always, good luck!

lally,

You are correct, only inasmuch as Yediot Ahronot reports a different translation from that in Ha'aretz.  I attempted sarcasm, not dishonesty.

Jo-Ann: Thanks for a great article. I found some excerpts published in the Beirut Star of the recently released Riyadh Declaration, the final communique of the Arab League summit (which also dealt with other issues). Here are a few highlights:

- Affirm a just and comprehensive peace as a strategic option for the Arab nation and the Arab peace initiative that draws the right path for reaching a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the principles and resolutions of international legitimacy and the land-for-peace formula.

- Call on Israel to "accept the Arab peace initiative and seize the available opportunity to resume direct and serious negotiations on all tracks." [emphasis mine}

- Create working groups to carry out contacts with the United Nations, United States, Europe and Russia to mobilize support for this initiative and start serious negotiation.

This makes it pretty clear that the claims that the initiative represents an ultimatum are false, and are probably no more than propaganda points thrown out by those who do not wish peace, or, more precisely, by those who wish to avoid the compromises that reaching a true peace will entail.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Via Wordie,

Create working groups to carry out contacts with the United Nations, United States, Europe and Russia to mobilize support for this initiative and start serious negotiation.

It looks as if the Arab League member nation delegations are leaving Riyadh with a good plan to initiate dialogue with the UN, US, EU and Russia.  But why no working group to carry out contacts with Israel?  (And while it reveals the sorry state of our discourse that I even have to make such a statement, just because this concerns me, it doesn't mean I want any party to avoid compromises to achieve resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.)

lally,

PS. Earlier on this thread you state that Hizbollah is holding three Israeli soldiers. The number is two, which anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the events surrounding the summer war well knows.

Oh, only two?  That's OK then.

Zionista: that the Saudis are seeking support for their proposal in states other than Israel first, is no reason to disparage them, nor to dismiss or criticize the plan.

Do you think Israel is willing to accept the plan as the basis for negotiation? Do you think Israel should accept the plan as the basis for negotiation?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

"Call on Israel to accept the Arab peace initiative"

So what do it mean? What it doesn't mean?

Wordie,

I appreciate your interest in real sources. this link should work:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/25saudi.html

Perhaps the link earlier pointed to a logged in Times archive account. The link here is to a public posting of the article.

I've seen the text in a few other sites, so I'm not sure if it was a NY Times exclusive or more of an AP posting. I can't promise it's entirely true. However, nothing specifically contradicts it as far as I know.

Either way, I find it positive that the journalist was ultimately allowed in. It speaks to some level of sanity on the part of the Saudis. For whatever reason, the institutions of the state couldn't quite deliver through the normal channels. Btu when faced with a real situation, someone was able to make the appropriate thing happen.

It is my hope, that a peace process would be conducted with a similar methodology. That is: everybody takes positions that are internally acceptable to their own people, and then everybody makes decisions at the bargaining table that facilitate a real solution.

One can hope.

Just in case that link continues to misbehave:

** I just updated the quote here. My first posting put some selected paragraphs together without all the text between. This quote is complete up until it ends (the article continues beyond that point).

New York Times 3/25/07 Saudis Bar Israeli Covering U.N. Chief’s Trip

By WARREN HOGE
Published: March 25, 2007

Saudis Bar Israeli Covering U.N. Chief’s Trip

Published: March 25, 2007

CAIRO, March 24 — The United Nations said Saturday that Saudi Arabia had barred entry to a Washington-based Israeli journalist traveling with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Mr. Ban, who is on a tour of the Middle East, will go to Riyadh on Tuesday for two days of the summit meeting of the League of Arab States.

Orly Azoulay, the Washington bureau chief of the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, was unable to obtain a Saudi visa despite assurances the Saudi mission in New York gave the United Nations last week, said Michèle Montas, Mr. Ban’s spokeswoman.

Later, Marie Okabe, the deputy United Nations spokeswoman, said Mr. Ban telephoned Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, from Jerusalem late Saturday night and asked him to intervene. She had no word regarding the Saudi response.

Ms. Montas said that Lebanon had also initially refused to grant Ms. Azoulay a visa, but it dropped its objections last week.

Ms. Azoulay, 53, an Israeli-born dual citizen of France and Israel, sought the visa on her French passport. She said she had traveled in the past two years to Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq and Pakistan and had gone to Saudi Arabia in 2000 with correspondents covering the American secretary of state.

When the Saudi consulate in New York returned the passports of the 11 reporters and broadcasters to the United Nations on Friday, only Ms. Azoulay’s bore no Saudi visa. Ms. Montas said that occurred despite repeated appeals to the Saudis during the week from Vijay Nambiar, Mr. Ban’s chief of staff......

Why? Why should this be necessary for Israel to consider the peace initiative?

Why?  Because Israel is a democracy and leaders who attempt to ram unpopular diplomatic initiatives down the throats of an unwilling public are voted out of office.  The post-Oslo terror offensive, the election of Hamas, and the responses to the unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza has made the Israeli public extremely pessimistic about the prospects for peace.  The Israeli public is skeptical that the Arab League offer is genuine.  A psychological breakthrough is necessary - and a visit to Jerusalem by Abdullah would provide such a breakthrough.

A brief refresher on how the mood of the Israeli public impacts the dovishness or hawkishness of the Israeli government

1992 (optimistic) -> Rabin-led Labor wins

1996 (pessimistic) -> Likud's Bibi defeats Labor's Peres

1999 (optimistic) -> Labor's Barak defeats Likud's Bibi

2001 (extremely pessimistic) -> Sharon defeat Barak

2003 (extremely pessimistic) -> Likud makes large gains, Labor collapses

2006 (less pessimistic) -> Olmert's centrist Kadima wins the most seats, Likud collapses     

Support for Likud crashed to a low of 12 seats (out of 120) in the 2006 elections.  But one year later, as a result of the Hamas win, the Qassams and the Lebanon war, current polls show Bibi getting 30-35 seats and being capable of forming a right-wing-religious coalition.  (Olmert garnered a whopping 2 percent approval rating in a recent poll !!!)

A Likud revival will likely result in the Arab League initiative becoming still-born.  Supporting the Saudis misplaced priorities of soothing the rejectionists rather than appealing to the Israeli electorate is tantamount to supporting a Likud victory.        

Zionista. I am using this post to reply to both of yours.

First, the point is that your error on the number of Hizbollah captive IDF soldiers is surprising given your interest in Israel. Just in case, the third soldier held by Arabs, as per Daniel, is being held bt Hamas and was captured in Gaza two weeks before the successful attempt by Hezbollah.

My answer to "Oh, only two? That's OK then." is as follows:

Nice try.

Second, my reply to the following remarks:

"lally,

You are correct, only inasmuch as Yediot Ahronot reports a different translation from that in Ha'aretz. I attempted sarcasm, not dishonesty."

The notion that Haaretz or Yedioth Aharonoth has a problem "translating" the original interview with al-Faisal in the British Daily Telegraph is silly.

In this case, it's the Ynet writer who gets props as he actually went to the Daily Telegraph source while the lazy Haaretz correspondent made do with quoting the AP version (which neglected to even mention who interviewed Saud al-Faisal in the first place). Wankers.

mhpine.

The Likud revival was well underway long before the latest business about the Arab initiative arose and is primarily linked to the perceived failures of The Second Lebanon War and the endless eruptions of corruption scandal after corruption scandal. Halutz, Peretz and Olmert have been so hapless and clueless that they make Sharon et al look good in comparison. Leaks from the Winograd Commission and myriad other sources about the mess made of the war have contributed to the malaise, especially since Israelis now know that the planning for the war began in March of 2006.


Insisting that Abdullah should appeal to the Israeli electorate rather than the priorites of "the rejectionists" doesn't show much interest in or respect for the realities of the ME.

Attempting to apportion any blame for a prospective Bibi/Likud victory to Abdullah is nonsense. It would make more sense to blame Bibi's American fans and the fact that his recent meeting with Cheney enhances his standing in the eyes of the Israeli electorate.

If Israelis are so disgusted with the current bunch and elect the formerly disdained Bibi, they can find parallels with the Palestinians' choice of Hamas over the corrupt Fatah.

pkafin: Well, apparently, since this article was written on March 25, the Saudis, to their credit, did decide to allow the reporter to cover the Summit. So why should this be an issue now?

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

Before the ever popular exchange of insults Jo-Ann wrote

a result of her recent trip was the announcement of regular meetings between Olmert and Abu Mazen, the Palestinian president, but without serious negotiations, all that these meetings do is serve to manage the Israeli occupation

It pains me to agree with Condi or the Adminstration but........ I do.

Scheduling one of those all talking , all singing, all dancing conferences seems usually to be taken , by those who don't want it to happen, as a challenge to do something horrible to make sure it won't .

If Olmert and Abbas are meeting twice a month
maybe the bi-national ,you can't do business with ..(insert name).....cohort will get atrocity fatique. And if all that does is cut down on the killing , great.If in addition the two guys actually exchange a quiet word or two in the corridor while shouting insults for publication , maybe peace happens faster.

Anyway , for me it's chickensoup.Guess I'll see
what bitterlemons says.