Tuesday, May 28, 2024
UNDERNEWS: About 117 billion people have ever lived.
UNDERNEWS: About 117 billion people have ever lived.: Interesting Facts - There are more people on Earth today than ever before — over 8 billion , to be exact, which represents a full 7% of al...
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Positive Disengagement with Israel
2012 - It's now 2012 and the terror continues. I must qualify the remarks which follow. Six years ago, I wrote the following narrative on a political settlement with Israel, and I wrote it in the most diplomatic manner possible. But after the last six years I have lost hope for diplomacy. There is no longer any meaningful two state solution. There is only continual misery and evil. The forces for good in Israel have all left. The only forces left are those who despise the people surrounding them and feel it is their "manifest destiny" to destroy all of them.
2008 - This is a reprint from a blog I posted in 2006 in connection with our involvement in Iraq.
Due to the recent tragedies in Gaza, I have taken this portion of the 2006 blog and have elevated to the top of the list. We must all do what we can to help achieve a peace, dignity, independence and prosperity for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.
Positive Disengagement with Israel:
Beginning with the premise that we recognize Israel's right to exist, we must, however, radically change our policy to jump start a peace process. We must disengage from our military and financial support for Israel. Put Israel on notice that all military contracts, all financial aid, etc will be suspended until Israel unilaterally withdraws to the original UN defined green line. Be assured that with this move, we are not abandoning Israel. To the contrary, we would be doing this with the expectation that a final peace can come to Israel, within its original borders. Of course, this will be painful, expensive, and will depend on the political will of the Israeli government and its people. However, by our immediate act of disengagement, we will have changed our relationship with the entire Mideast area for better, regardless of how long it takes for Israel to accomplish this. The next move will be up to Israel, but at least, the US can be seen as a force for good and no longer trapped in a dysfunctional relationship with Israel.
Disengagement from Israel is absolutely the first constructive step that must be taken to create an atmosphere for peace talks resulting in a lasting peace among all countries in the Mideast. Concurrently, we must address the millions of Palestinian refugees, still living in camps (and in limbo for over two generations) through-out the Mideast. Disengagement, along with the absolute acceptance of the right for Israel to exist within its original borders will be painful for the Palestinians to accept, as well. This represents the ultimate imposition of a two-state solution, a solution that many Palestinians do not want, in favor of returning to original lands within Israel. There will unhappiness on both sides (the usual trademark of a successful compromise). However, the pain on all sides will be worth it, if peace finally comes to the people of that area, and more importantly, to the children and grandchildren of that area.
Mideast diplomacy:
Coupled with disengagement with Israel, we need to start talks with other Arab countries, previously (and unfortunately) labeled under the banner: axis of evil. This will also cause a profound change as we agree to open dialogue from a position of mutual respect, with countries like Iran and Syria, and political parties like Hamas. Of course, there are militant voices and actions in these countries, but surely the United States is secure enough to reach through the saber rattling and open up dialogues with peace as the objective.
2008 - This is a reprint from a blog I posted in 2006 in connection with our involvement in Iraq.
Due to the recent tragedies in Gaza, I have taken this portion of the 2006 blog and have elevated to the top of the list. We must all do what we can to help achieve a peace, dignity, independence and prosperity for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.
Positive Disengagement with Israel:
Beginning with the premise that we recognize Israel's right to exist, we must, however, radically change our policy to jump start a peace process. We must disengage from our military and financial support for Israel. Put Israel on notice that all military contracts, all financial aid, etc will be suspended until Israel unilaterally withdraws to the original UN defined green line. Be assured that with this move, we are not abandoning Israel. To the contrary, we would be doing this with the expectation that a final peace can come to Israel, within its original borders. Of course, this will be painful, expensive, and will depend on the political will of the Israeli government and its people. However, by our immediate act of disengagement, we will have changed our relationship with the entire Mideast area for better, regardless of how long it takes for Israel to accomplish this. The next move will be up to Israel, but at least, the US can be seen as a force for good and no longer trapped in a dysfunctional relationship with Israel.
Disengagement from Israel is absolutely the first constructive step that must be taken to create an atmosphere for peace talks resulting in a lasting peace among all countries in the Mideast. Concurrently, we must address the millions of Palestinian refugees, still living in camps (and in limbo for over two generations) through-out the Mideast. Disengagement, along with the absolute acceptance of the right for Israel to exist within its original borders will be painful for the Palestinians to accept, as well. This represents the ultimate imposition of a two-state solution, a solution that many Palestinians do not want, in favor of returning to original lands within Israel. There will unhappiness on both sides (the usual trademark of a successful compromise). However, the pain on all sides will be worth it, if peace finally comes to the people of that area, and more importantly, to the children and grandchildren of that area.
Mideast diplomacy:
Coupled with disengagement with Israel, we need to start talks with other Arab countries, previously (and unfortunately) labeled under the banner: axis of evil. This will also cause a profound change as we agree to open dialogue from a position of mutual respect, with countries like Iran and Syria, and political parties like Hamas. Of course, there are militant voices and actions in these countries, but surely the United States is secure enough to reach through the saber rattling and open up dialogues with peace as the objective.
Monday, January 15, 2007
IRAQ FOR LAND ? !!
Note the following statements coming out of the latest Mideast meetings with Rice. I'm encouraged that the link between success in Iraq and land (to the original green line) to the Palestinians is coming out in the media. What Next? We can only hope and pray.
Saeb Erekat, an aide to Abbas, said:
"The seriousness Dr. Rice reflected yesterday was genuine," he said. "She reflected seriousness, interest. She reflected an understanding of the bigger picture of what is going on in the region, and the need to put this thing behind us, the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Arab allies have been asking the Bush administration for some time to work harder for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, arguing that the lingering conflict undermines efforts to make progress on other Mideast problems, including in Iraq and Iran.
Arab officials said they now will propose a broad bargain to Rice, dubbed "Iraq for Land."
The deal reflects widespread Arab feeling that a lasting Middle East peace is impossible unless Israel agrees to hand over lands it occupied during the 1967 Mideast war to the Palestinians
Saeb Erekat, an aide to Abbas, said:
"The seriousness Dr. Rice reflected yesterday was genuine," he said. "She reflected seriousness, interest. She reflected an understanding of the bigger picture of what is going on in the region, and the need to put this thing behind us, the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Arab allies have been asking the Bush administration for some time to work harder for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement, arguing that the lingering conflict undermines efforts to make progress on other Mideast problems, including in Iraq and Iran.
Arab officials said they now will propose a broad bargain to Rice, dubbed "Iraq for Land."
The deal reflects widespread Arab feeling that a lasting Middle East peace is impossible unless Israel agrees to hand over lands it occupied during the 1967 Mideast war to the Palestinians
Sunday, January 14, 2007
IMPORTANT - DECISION NOT TO RUN
Several weeks ago, the potential candidate, who's feasibility study is the impetus of this blog, decided to go no further with the run for president for 2008. Release of this news was delayed while attempts were made to convince him to continue his run, but his decision is final. At this point, I am undecided as to whether I should continue this blog in support of the concept: "United States: A Force For Good". Since this blog was never meant to be an "official site" for the prospective candidate, I have the authorization to continue this in any manner.
There is no lack of recent news to support the importance of projecting America as a force for good. Recent headlines include:
President Bush's refusal to embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group
V.P. Cheney's remark that President Bush is not considering any alternatives to the troop "surge", as he does not want to run his war by "committee".
Current US foreign policy has successfully driven socialist Chavez to Iran's Ahmadinejad. The US could have found common ground, but instead chose the main tactic it has employed over the past 6 years: Exclusion. In the process, the US has lost a valuable counterweight in future negotiations with Iran.
Condoleeza Rice's insensitive offer to the Palestinians to accept a temporary solution of "statehood" within the pockmarked, fenced, non-contiguous, ghetto "reservations".
There is no lack of recent news to support the importance of projecting America as a force for good. Recent headlines include:
President Bush's refusal to embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group
V.P. Cheney's remark that President Bush is not considering any alternatives to the troop "surge", as he does not want to run his war by "committee".
Current US foreign policy has successfully driven socialist Chavez to Iran's Ahmadinejad. The US could have found common ground, but instead chose the main tactic it has employed over the past 6 years: Exclusion. In the process, the US has lost a valuable counterweight in future negotiations with Iran.
Condoleeza Rice's insensitive offer to the Palestinians to accept a temporary solution of "statehood" within the pockmarked, fenced, non-contiguous, ghetto "reservations".
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
IRAQ STUDY GROUP
Alert - Iraq Study Group report is due out on Wednesday, Dec 6th.
We are prayerfully anticipating the recommendation of innovative steps towards peace, not only in Iraq but in all of the Mideast
We are prayerfully anticipating the recommendation of innovative steps towards peace, not only in Iraq but in all of the Mideast
Monday, November 27, 2006
Christian Science Monitor Supports Candidate's Cornerstone Foreign Policies
Two recent Christian Science Monitor Editorials lend support to the key policies in the search for peace in the Mideast and the immigration / border issue.
PEACE IN THE MIDEAST
If you read an earlier blog, the two key ingredients to a long term solution for peace in Iraq, and the entire Mideast are direct discussions with Iran and Syria and "positive disengagement" with Israel. The following excerpt from the CS Monitor Editorial supports this:
"The Iraq Study Group...might suggest that the US work with both Iran and Syria to leave behind a stable Iraq. The price for such 'help' may need to be US pressure on Israel to create a viable Palestinian state as well as make concessions to Syria in Lebanon or over the issue of the Golan Heights"
"...Israel cannot damage US interests in the region by clinging to Jewish settlement in the West Bank or its hold on the Golan Heights, taken from Syria."
IMMIGRATION - BORDER POLICY
Another CS Monitor editorial supported the main point of this candidate's immigration/border policy. That is: While border security is important, the US must spend more attention and resources on enforcement (particularly businesses employing undocumented aliens), and on assistance to Mexico (on the scale of the Marshall Plan to post-WW II Europe.
"If anything would be 'comprehensive' beyond better enforcement at the border and in the workplace, it would be for the US to both assist and encourage reform in Mexico. Large-scale reform of that nation's uneven, slow-growth economy would reduce the desire of its citizens to flee north for a better life. Bush and the next Congress would provide carrots and sticks in trade and financial policies to help Mexicans love their country more."
Three cheers for these endorsements of the only sane policies for peace in the Mideast and prosperity for our neighbors to the south.
PEACE IN THE MIDEAST
If you read an earlier blog, the two key ingredients to a long term solution for peace in Iraq, and the entire Mideast are direct discussions with Iran and Syria and "positive disengagement" with Israel. The following excerpt from the CS Monitor Editorial supports this:
"The Iraq Study Group...might suggest that the US work with both Iran and Syria to leave behind a stable Iraq. The price for such 'help' may need to be US pressure on Israel to create a viable Palestinian state as well as make concessions to Syria in Lebanon or over the issue of the Golan Heights"
"...Israel cannot damage US interests in the region by clinging to Jewish settlement in the West Bank or its hold on the Golan Heights, taken from Syria."
IMMIGRATION - BORDER POLICY
Another CS Monitor editorial supported the main point of this candidate's immigration/border policy. That is: While border security is important, the US must spend more attention and resources on enforcement (particularly businesses employing undocumented aliens), and on assistance to Mexico (on the scale of the Marshall Plan to post-WW II Europe.
"If anything would be 'comprehensive' beyond better enforcement at the border and in the workplace, it would be for the US to both assist and encourage reform in Mexico. Large-scale reform of that nation's uneven, slow-growth economy would reduce the desire of its citizens to flee north for a better life. Bush and the next Congress would provide carrots and sticks in trade and financial policies to help Mexicans love their country more."
Three cheers for these endorsements of the only sane policies for peace in the Mideast and prosperity for our neighbors to the south.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
THE SOLUTION FOR IRAQ
THE SOLUTION FOR IRAQ AND PEACE IN THE MIDEAST
For peace to return to Iraq, the United States must begin initiatives that fundamentally change our role in the Mideast, change our relationships with the countries of that area, and the perception of our goals in the minds of the people in those areas. If we can view the turmoil in Iraq as a subset of the overall turmoil in the Mideast, and focus our initiatives on the Mideast, we will have a better opportunity at helping restore peace in Iraq.
The initiatives are twofold: Disengagement with Israel and direct talks with Syria, Iran and the Hamas political party.
Disengagement with Israel:
Beginning with the premise that we recognize Israel's right to exist, we must, however, radically change our policy to jump start a peace process. We must disengage from our military and financial support for Israel. Put Israel on notice that all military contracts, all financial aid, etc will be suspended until Israel unilaterally withdraws to the original UN defined green line. Be assured that with this move, we are not abandoning Israel. To the contrary, we would be doing this with the expectation that a final peace can come to Israel, within its original borders. Of course, this will be painful, expensive, and will depend on the political will of the Israeli government and its people. However, by our immediate act of disengagement, we will have changed our relationship with the entire Mideast area for better, regardless of how long it takes for Israel to accomplish this. The next move will be up to Israel, but at least, the US can be seen as a force for good and no longer trapped in a dysfunctional relationship with Israel.
Disengagement from Israel is absolutely the first constructive step that must be taken to create an atmosphere for peace talks resulting in a lasting peace among all countries in the Mideast. Concurrently, we must address the millions of Palestinian refugees, still living in camps (and in limbo for over two generations) through-out the Mideast. Disengagement, along with the absolute acceptance of the right for Israel to exist within its original borders will be painful for the Palestinians to accept, as well. This represents the ultimate imposition of a two-state solution, a solution that many Palestinians do not want, in favor of returning to original lands within Israel. There will unhappiness on both sides (the usual trademark of a successful compromise). However, the pain on all sides will be worth it, if peace finally comes to the people of that area, and more importantly, to the children and grandchildren of that area.
Mideast diplomacy:
Coupled with disengagement with Israel, we need to start talks with other Arab countries, previously (and unfortunately) labeled under the banner: axis of evil. This will also cause a profound change as we agree to open dialogue from a position of mutual respect, with countries like Iran and Syria, and political parties like Hamas. Of course, there are militant voices and actions in these countries, but surely the United States is secure enough to reach though the saber rattling and open up dialogues with peace as the objective.
War in Iraq:
How will all of this help in Iraq? Iraq is in a civil war, coupled with a complete breakdown of civil authority, but not all of it is internally created. There are outside forces, currently fueling the fires, that could also become major influences for a peaceful solution. The Sunni faction has its supporters in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The Shiite faction has its supporters in Iran, Syria and the Palestinians. If we had full diplomatic relations with all of these groups, we could encourage them to help us find a peaceful solution.
Regardless of the political nature of these countries, whether republic, theocracy, or monarchy, they would rather choose peace and prosperity over turmoil, if they truly believed that the United States was not a threat. If we can get beyond the rhetoric, and if other Mideast countries begin to see us, not just as a powerful military and economic force, but as a force for good, they will become our allies in forging a workable compromise that creates an environment for peace in Iraq.
The required compromises will be uncomfortable for all sides, including the United States, but the result will be peace and stability, which are needed to nurture a fledgling democracy. Diplomacy has not been a strong trait of the current administration, although past presidents of the same political party have been considerably more effective. One has only to look back at the Nixon – Kissinger era and the profound change to the world political landscape caused by opening a dialogue with China. We forget how much "saber rattling" was going on, then. We were the "capitalist pig" and they were the "red menace". However, in that single astute decision to open a dialogue with China, Nixon forever changed the balance of power and considerably defused tensions between all superpowers of that era. The same could be accomplished in this "era of terrorism", if we choose diplomacy over rejection, name calling and isolation.
The Future after Iraq
Actually, the future is now, for as soon as we begin installing these policy changes, we will have changed the future for the better. Peace in Iraq will take time and the road will not be easy, even with the consensus of all Mideast neighbors. The long term strategy, beyond Iraq, is to increase tolerance and understanding between Islam and the West. Temporary disengagement with Israel, peace in Iraq, a reduction of the US military presence in the Mideast and the diplomacy of respect and understanding will significantly defuse Islamic anger. Continuing incidents of extremist terrorism will be met with firm and effective resistance by an expanded, cooperating alliance of religions and nationalities.
A progressive administration will have a permanent Islamic task force as a source of cabinet guidance for integration of Islamic and "western" goals. This panel will include innovative thinkers like, Fouad Ajami, Merve Kavakci and Tariq Ramadan. Understanding is key to a peaceful and prosperous future. We do not want to repeat a history of 1,000 years of debilitating conflict between Islam and the West. Future generations of children growing up in peace in Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, the United States and other countries of the world, will look back on this US policy shift as one of the most significant and positive turn of events in the 21st century.
For peace to return to Iraq, the United States must begin initiatives that fundamentally change our role in the Mideast, change our relationships with the countries of that area, and the perception of our goals in the minds of the people in those areas. If we can view the turmoil in Iraq as a subset of the overall turmoil in the Mideast, and focus our initiatives on the Mideast, we will have a better opportunity at helping restore peace in Iraq.
The initiatives are twofold: Disengagement with Israel and direct talks with Syria, Iran and the Hamas political party.
Disengagement with Israel:
Beginning with the premise that we recognize Israel's right to exist, we must, however, radically change our policy to jump start a peace process. We must disengage from our military and financial support for Israel. Put Israel on notice that all military contracts, all financial aid, etc will be suspended until Israel unilaterally withdraws to the original UN defined green line. Be assured that with this move, we are not abandoning Israel. To the contrary, we would be doing this with the expectation that a final peace can come to Israel, within its original borders. Of course, this will be painful, expensive, and will depend on the political will of the Israeli government and its people. However, by our immediate act of disengagement, we will have changed our relationship with the entire Mideast area for better, regardless of how long it takes for Israel to accomplish this. The next move will be up to Israel, but at least, the US can be seen as a force for good and no longer trapped in a dysfunctional relationship with Israel.
Disengagement from Israel is absolutely the first constructive step that must be taken to create an atmosphere for peace talks resulting in a lasting peace among all countries in the Mideast. Concurrently, we must address the millions of Palestinian refugees, still living in camps (and in limbo for over two generations) through-out the Mideast. Disengagement, along with the absolute acceptance of the right for Israel to exist within its original borders will be painful for the Palestinians to accept, as well. This represents the ultimate imposition of a two-state solution, a solution that many Palestinians do not want, in favor of returning to original lands within Israel. There will unhappiness on both sides (the usual trademark of a successful compromise). However, the pain on all sides will be worth it, if peace finally comes to the people of that area, and more importantly, to the children and grandchildren of that area.
Mideast diplomacy:
Coupled with disengagement with Israel, we need to start talks with other Arab countries, previously (and unfortunately) labeled under the banner: axis of evil. This will also cause a profound change as we agree to open dialogue from a position of mutual respect, with countries like Iran and Syria, and political parties like Hamas. Of course, there are militant voices and actions in these countries, but surely the United States is secure enough to reach though the saber rattling and open up dialogues with peace as the objective.
War in Iraq:
How will all of this help in Iraq? Iraq is in a civil war, coupled with a complete breakdown of civil authority, but not all of it is internally created. There are outside forces, currently fueling the fires, that could also become major influences for a peaceful solution. The Sunni faction has its supporters in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The Shiite faction has its supporters in Iran, Syria and the Palestinians. If we had full diplomatic relations with all of these groups, we could encourage them to help us find a peaceful solution.
Regardless of the political nature of these countries, whether republic, theocracy, or monarchy, they would rather choose peace and prosperity over turmoil, if they truly believed that the United States was not a threat. If we can get beyond the rhetoric, and if other Mideast countries begin to see us, not just as a powerful military and economic force, but as a force for good, they will become our allies in forging a workable compromise that creates an environment for peace in Iraq.
The required compromises will be uncomfortable for all sides, including the United States, but the result will be peace and stability, which are needed to nurture a fledgling democracy. Diplomacy has not been a strong trait of the current administration, although past presidents of the same political party have been considerably more effective. One has only to look back at the Nixon – Kissinger era and the profound change to the world political landscape caused by opening a dialogue with China. We forget how much "saber rattling" was going on, then. We were the "capitalist pig" and they were the "red menace". However, in that single astute decision to open a dialogue with China, Nixon forever changed the balance of power and considerably defused tensions between all superpowers of that era. The same could be accomplished in this "era of terrorism", if we choose diplomacy over rejection, name calling and isolation.
The Future after Iraq
Actually, the future is now, for as soon as we begin installing these policy changes, we will have changed the future for the better. Peace in Iraq will take time and the road will not be easy, even with the consensus of all Mideast neighbors. The long term strategy, beyond Iraq, is to increase tolerance and understanding between Islam and the West. Temporary disengagement with Israel, peace in Iraq, a reduction of the US military presence in the Mideast and the diplomacy of respect and understanding will significantly defuse Islamic anger. Continuing incidents of extremist terrorism will be met with firm and effective resistance by an expanded, cooperating alliance of religions and nationalities.
A progressive administration will have a permanent Islamic task force as a source of cabinet guidance for integration of Islamic and "western" goals. This panel will include innovative thinkers like, Fouad Ajami, Merve Kavakci and Tariq Ramadan. Understanding is key to a peaceful and prosperous future. We do not want to repeat a history of 1,000 years of debilitating conflict between Islam and the West. Future generations of children growing up in peace in Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, the United States and other countries of the world, will look back on this US policy shift as one of the most significant and positive turn of events in the 21st century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)