• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Obama's Peace Plan

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
63
Points
530
I dont see this as going to be a very good solution - unless Hamas and the PLA surrender their weapons first.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece

Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.

The proposal gives Israel an effective veto on the return of Arab refugees expelled in 1948 while requiring it to restore the Golan Heights to Syria and allow the Palestinians to establish a state capital in east Jerusalem.

On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.

The Arab peace plan received a boost last week when President Shimon Peres, a Nobel peace laureate and leading Israeli dove, commended the initiative at a Saudi-sponsored United Nations conference in New York.

Peres was loudly applauded for telling King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who was behind the original initiative: “I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people.”

A bipartisan group of senior foreign policy advisers urged Obama to give the Arab plan top priority immediately after his election victory. They included Lee Hamilton, the former co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Democrat former national security adviser. Brzezinski will give an address tomorrow at Chatham House, the international relations think tank, in London.

Brent Scowcroft, a Republican former national security adviser, joined in the appeal. He said last week that the Middle East was the most troublesome area in the world and that an early start to the Palestinian peace process was “a way to psychologically change the mood of the region”.

Advisers believe the diplomatic climate favours a deal as Arab League countries are under pressure from radical Islamic movements and a potentially nuclear Iran. Polls show that Palestinians and Israelis are in a mood to compromise.

The advisers have told Obama he should lose no time in pursuing the policy in the first six to 12 months in office while he enjoys maximum goodwill.

Obama is also looking to break a diplomatic deadlock over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons technology. A possible way forward, suggested last spring by Dennis Ross, a senior Obama adviser and former Middle East envoy, would be to persuade Russia to join in tough economic sanctions against Iran by offering to modify the US plan for a “missile shield” in eastern Europe.

President Dmitry Medvedev signalled that Russia could cancel a tit-for-tat deployment of missiles close to the Polish border if America gave up its proposed missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Ross argued in a paper on How to Talk to Iran that “if the Iranian threat goes away, so does the principal need to deploy these [antimissile] forces. [Vladimir] Putin [the Russian prime minister] has made this such a symbolic issue that this trade-off could be portrayed as a great victory for him”.

Ross and Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, accompanied Obama on a visit to Israel last July. They also travelled to Ramallah, where Obama questioned Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, about the prospects for the Arab plan.

According to a Washington source Obama told Abbas: “The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco.”

Kurtzer submitted a paper to Obama on the question before this month’s presidential elections. He argued that trying to reach bilateral peace agreements between Israel and individual countries in the Middle East, was a recipe for failure as the record of Bill Clinton and George W Bush showed. In contrast, the broader Arab plan “had a lot of appeal”. A leading Democratic expert on the Middle East said: “There’s not a lot of meat on the bones yet, but it offers recognition of Israel across the Arab world.”

Livni, the leader of Kadima, which favours the plan, is the front-runner in Israeli elections due in February. Her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Likud, is adamantly against withdrawing to borders that predate the Six Day war in 1967.

Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, last week expressed his support for Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank Golan and east Jerusalem.
 
I have never understood why every "peace plan" that comes out in the middle east involves Israel "giving up" something to appease the Arabs........it was not Israel that initiated and continued the unrest, but if Israel had let it's guard down for one minute, guess who would/has attack(ed)....
 
Pre 1967 borders IMHO aint going to happen, is it.


Regards,

OWDU
 
Overwatch Downunder said:
Pre 1967 borders IMHO aint going to happen, is it.

Regards,

OWDU

I agree probably not going to happen.

GAP said:
I have never understood why every "peace plan" that comes out in the middle east involves Israel "giving up" something to appease the Arabs........it was not Israel that initiated and continued the unrest, but if Israel had let it's guard down for one minute, guess who would/has attack(ed)....

Images coming out of Palestinian areas have earned Israel zero goodwill in the region (I.e the people they ultimately have to live with). Keeping in mind Israel has expanded by defense against invaders and also by displacing civilian populations. If they "appease the Arabs" in the region, then the need for conflict in the eyes of your moderate Israeli and Arab is moot. The only ones left fighting at that point would be the extremists on both sides.

And that is my opinion.
 
There is an obviously pro-Israel bias and it is with good reason.  First thing is you cannot be ignorant of the Jewish expectation of a Biblical Israel.  It is intimately attached to the Jewish identity - as far as Jewish history goes.  There are several centuries of history to back that up.

The Arabs (throughout their history but more so under Islam) have also had a historical connection to the region and its politics, chronologically preceding the Jewish claim by 13 years via the firstborn of Abraham, Ishmael through his wife Hagar (Genesis 16:3 New Jerusalem Bible).  The connection joins again with the Biblical prophet, Jethro who was the source of Moses' conversion to G-D and whose story we all know.

In particular is the issue of the the Masjid Al Aqsa in place of the Temple Mount.  Never will the Jew be convinced to relinquish the site (impossible given the history) and equally, the Muslim will not agree to relinquish.  Both expect respective Messiahs to sort things out.

My opinion: everybody stand down until he appears.

Then all heck can break loose again!
 
Abbas demands Israel return to its 1948-9 border or face war. :eek:
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas sent a letter to PA Arabs on Saturday saying Israel must retreat to its 1949 borders or face war. “The passage of years... will not force us to abandon or surrender a single inch,” of Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem, Abbas said in the letter, which was published by PA media.

The next Israeli PM has the unenviable job of moving Israel ahead with no allies and enemies around them. Will the Israeli people surrender to the arabs or will they fight against all odds ? Armageddon anyone ? Naw the Bible aint real - or is it ?

 
Back
Top