Mid East Reruns

  Bush is trying to get folks from the Middle East around a table to sing a few choruses of cumbuya and I just keep hearing this must be bad because it’s Bush’s party. Somehow, people have the idea that Bush is only doing this because he is trying to build a legacy. Yeah, you know you are going to make a lot of progress when the Saudis tell you they won’t even shake hands with the Israelis right from the git go. Let’s get real, every president holds one of these dog and pony shows just to show he cares even though he really thinks they all act like a bunch of childish asses. So this is really little more than the obligatory meeting where the president gives the Rodney King, "can’t we just all get along" speech. The only president that built a legacy on Mid East peace was Jimmy Carter. Good job Jimmy! Think Jimmy Carter’s legacy and a toilet bowl flashes through your mind. Hell, Billy Carter has a better legacy than Jimmy in my mind.

Not to be outdone Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is holding what appears to be an anti-peace conference in Tehran. The anti peace conference will host the finest Middle East thug groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You might wonder what they will talk about since they pretty much agree that Israel should be destroyed, all infidels should die, blah blah blah; but the conference is really quite important when the talk turns to what to name your 76 virgins. After all, you don’t want to be the guy that goes unprepared and has to name one Ethyl.

Comments

[Senthil]

Almost exactly what I was thinking about the Annapolis talks.
But, I'm coming to think of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the biggest catch-22 on earth. There are some Palestinians and Israelis who want peace (I don't know whether this can be defined as the majority or not. It is a very subjective matter where polls cannot capture the complexity of views, opinions and emotions of the populations).
The problem for the Palestinians is that without a strong centralised government and form of control (not in the communist sense), it is difficult to bring everyone to this point of political acceptance towards co-existence and the two-state solution, therefore there are militant factions who separate themselves from a government who can engage in dialogue with Israel, and who believe that war is the solution. On the other side, Israel has a centralised governing body (the Knesset), and yet if they don't deal with the threat of terrorism from militant groups then the leading party/coalition are seen as appeasing the anti-Israeli factions, and as such they cannot maintain their political mandate to govern the country. The result from this is the counter strikes and the ensuing collateral damage which only turns the opinions and emotional reponses against Israel feeding the separatist militant groups.
Therefore both sides continue the war.
Yes, I know there are many people that will disagree with this (summarised) theory of mine... but rest assured, I have read (so) many articles and opinions from both sides and from a multitude of viewpoints (that I am depressed by the whole situation). The last thing that will change my opinion on this matter is a hostile response. From my perspective, dialogue at the end of the day is the only way forward, and if this is not your belief then I would ask these questions; is the only solution the annihilation of the opposition? If not, then what do you propose?