NPR : Rice Sets Stage for Mideast Peace Conference

Israeli, Palestinian leaders meet

Are we hopeful or is it too soon to be? The US will host a Mideast Peace Conference later this year. Saudi leaders said they might be there. When you think of the Mideast conflicts, what comes to mind first? Who should be in attendance at the Mideast Peace Conference and what should be on the agenda? "Arab states viewed as moderate by the US"...would that include Saudi Arabia?

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

Hi,

As long as the American government doesn't recognise the freely and democratically elected Hamas and doesn't include it in the talks, no peace process will ever work. After all, you have to accept the results of what you preach.

Why should other Arab states decide for the Palestinian people? even more when those arab states (moderate only means that the dictator or ruler follow the US government, whatever it takes) are the most undemocratic and barbaric. What good can come of it?

I do believe that one major reason why peace hasn't been given a chance in Palestine is because of the totally unbalanced support given by succeeding american governments to Israel.
this is one of the biggest injustice of the 20th and now 21st century.

I do not believe that the situation will change soon and for the better. If it does change, it will only be for Israel to be allowed to steal more land from the Palestinian people in all impunity.

The fact that Tony Blair was sent as a peace envoy whilst he is the second most hated man in the Middle-east (after W. Bush) is a joke. A cynical one, but a joke. This man has been part of the disaster of Iraq, didn't intervene when Lebanon was bombed and couldn't care less about Afghanistan. so what good can he do in the Middle-East? But he needed a job so here you go Tony, be a peace envoy after being a war monger. Makes me feel sick. its like asking a wolf to keep your sheep: useless and cruel.

The UN should have been taking care of the Israelo-Palestinian conflict for a long time and as a fair judge; at least, no country should have been allowed to veto any resolution against Israel atrocities. Nothing like what we have seen in the past 45 years with one side doing what it wants whilst oppressing the other side.

I do not condone the actions of the palestinian militants but do believe that they are caused by such an oppression from Israel and not the contrary, as Israel would like the world to believe. I would compare Israel policies to those of south-Africa during the apartheid.

Ask yourselves: if the situation was reversed and an Arab state had been oppressing the Jewish people like Israel did and do to the Palestinian people now, would the american government have accepted and encouraged it? Would it have waited 50 years to intervene? I don't think so.

The solution to this conflict in my eyes is to remove the US government of the equation and use a universal independent body to fairly listen to both sides and acts for both interest.

Until then, the situation will stay what it is: one of the greatest shame on the world.

FreeSpirit

__________________
Freedom is the oxygen of the soul. ~Moshe Dayan

The US does recognize Hamas. Of course that does not mean it must support them. That would be contrary to the goal of peace. Hamas should be crushed.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Dear hairballxavier,

The US Government is preaching the same fake democracy in the Middle-East as it did in south America with the results we now know.

As much as I dislike the Hamas, I respect the choice of the Palestinian people.

How hypocritical is it to advocate democracy to the palestinian people and then reject their choice?
If the US government was really playing fair and square, then it should accept the choice of the people, even if it doesn't like it.

What right does the West have to bully other countries and boycott their elected government because it doesn't please its interests?

This kind of fascist interventionism has already been seen many times in South America when elected governments were replaced by CIA approved dictator like the infamous Pinochey.

This is one of my biggest problem and concern with the US government. On one hand it presents itself as "Leader" of the "free world" but on the other hand, it commits as much if not more atrocities as the people it points the finger at.

We need a multipolar world where the whole humanity decides for the world and not a unilateral world where one country decides what's best for others with no concern whatsoever for the consequences on the people but only the aim to affirm its imperialism disguised as "democracy".

Luckily, humanity is stronger than fascism, as it was proven in South america with the arrival of people like Chavez, brought by the people and for the people. South America is slowly but surely getting out of the corporate american grasp which strangled the freedom of its people for decades.

The same will certainly happen in the Middle-East and the sooner the better for the world and peace around the world.

Crushing your opponent sounds more like a dogma from the Pentagon than a call for freedom, peace and democracy. But your answer wasn't that surprising as I guess a good part of the american population supports this kind of undemocratic meddling in other countries business.

As long as petrol is cheap in America, the blood of the Middle-East can run.

Free

__________________
Freedom is the oxygen of the soul. ~Moshe Dayan

yep chavez is a good dude

when the palestinian people elect a terrorist organization to be their "world spokesmen" ( in theory) they screw themselves

its just not america that recognizes hamas as the murderous thugs they are

Perhaps, the US could be preaching on how best to export democracy, in the form of states rights; and forms of self-determination through some form of political union that includes all of the states and territories in the region as deliberative participants.

<As much as I dislike the Hamas, I respect the choice of the Palestinian people.>
As much as I dislike Hitler, I respect the choice of the German people.
As much as I dislike Saakishwilly, I respect the choice of the Georgian people
and so on...

I will agree with you Mark6.
Each people have their own sense of who to trust and I don't know if you can blame anyone.
It seems that we are conditioned in one way or another by "others"(if we don't use or minds properly)

I am of the opinion that we could simply be providing infrastructure to less developed economies instead of attempting export states rights, with the coercive use of force of a State.

Afghanistan would probably enjoy greater domestic tranquility if we had provided "conduits to markets" for the populace of that region, as a form of opportunity cost.

Funded UN mandates would have been much less expensive.

I am of the opinion that it's stupid to resurrect a thread that's almost a year and a half old.

But that's me...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...