.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

The mideast peace process

The Bush administration is getting the headlines they want out of this meeting in Annapolis, but the whole thing is a farce. The intention of the Bush structure is to try and sideline Iran, Hamas, and Hezbullah out of the process, but you can't just do that.

They're still part of the process even if they're not there.

posted by mikevotes at 11:26 AM

9 Comments:

  • It doesn't matter in the long run though. It does increase the perception that Iran, Hamas etc. are the spoilers.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:34 PM  

  • Interesting question.

    Or does it make the players that the US is propping up look like failures?

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 12:59 PM  

  • Basically it looks like the onus is on the Arabs to be more cooperative. Nothing new there. But this conference is too nuanced for the average American observer. Can't they just be good guys and bad guys?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:09 PM  

  • "...does it make the players that the US is propping up look like failures?"

    Sorry. So much stuff goes through my head when they hold these conferences. It's hard to pin it down to one sentence or two. I think Bush is only interested in US public opinion...and especially the GOP base. Of course he has to keep AIPAC happy too. So mainly all we can expect is the usual spin.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:22 PM  

  • Yeah. I think this is definitely aimed at US opinion. This thing is doomed on several levels.

    I think the most telling bit is that results aren't expected until after the 2008 election.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:06 PM  

  • Hard to imagine Giuliani as a ME Peace Conference host.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:12 PM  

  • Well, he has to get those votes in Florida....

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:01 PM  

  • And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:31 AM  

  • THE NEWER SEGREGATIONALISM

    "Separate but equal" did not work
    When it was old Jim Crow
    Propounded it--as by no quirk
    The US South did show.

    "Separate but equal" never truly
    Was equal but in name;
    So, though transition came unruly,
    Still yet transition came.

    So why that terminology
    Exact will men opine,
    Dividing, sans apology
    "Israel, Palestine"?

    "Separate but equal" sounds okay
    But when examined closer
    The segregation moves one way
    And so does the bulldozer.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home