What's aggression in the form of Israel?

Year 2008 has passed. Time to welcome a new day in the year 2009. commemorate the future of the more beautiful of course. But all is lost as it were. All happiness in the new year this seems outdated. When the news to hear that there has been an outrage committed by Israel Zionis to the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. Outrage that we can see from his ongoing attacks of Israel to Gaza. The attack was launched in sporadic. Viewpoints without feathers. Children, women, men, adults, in the same shot-fighter planes of Israel. HAMAS members-renowned radical and does not compromise on the Israel-member military, police, civil people, all shot in the same F-16, super-sophisticated aircraft owned Israel. Dolor Palestinian people's suffering and this is the cause of turnover this year is miserable. And some Arab countries also do not celebrate the turn of the night feeling of concern for the year, hormatnya and solidarity to the Palestinian people. So that the New Year this year also got a mourning, because it opened with a depth dolor. Tragedy is the world condemn this.

Been the attack by Israel is very apprehensive. Gaza Strip as a target of Israel. Imagine, the length of Gaza Strip, only about 40 km and has a width of no more than about 10 km with a population of approximately 1.5 million people, a small area and dense population in the destroyed military equipment such as sophisticated Israeli F-16 and F-15. And Palestine through the Al-Qassam Brigade, HAMAS military wing, could only reply to attack Israel with rocket-missile that can only make a hole no more than 1 m in it. Ibaratkan If we fight this fight, we might be like a weight class that Israel and the Palestinian featherweight. This is what happened in Gaza. Palestine so small that its military strength in the face of Israel that has military equipment super powerful ..

The conditions have caused many victims who fell on the Palestinian side. Data last the more than 1000 lives killed and many more have other injury, both heavy and light. So that this incident also attracted worldwide attention. Country has many world leaders who criticize or condemn this Israeli aggression. Some also have the assistance of medicines and food. However, the difficulty aid into Gaza to be withdrawn constraints. In addition to not have access because it was closed by Israel. Israel also fire on ships that will deliver assistance to the Palestinians. This is also aggravate the situation in Gaza. In addition, many of the actions various countries show a sense that Israel rejected the aggression. Not only from Muslim countries. Countries of Europe and latin american countries also participate in the share performance against Israel feeling.

However, there are very miris, when as a sovereign Palestinian State should be in the aggression but the UN can only investigate and criticize. UN institutions as the World maintain peace and guarantee human rights should be doing more, not only investigate and ordered Israel to immediately stop the attacks, but also as decision to drop the resolution of Israel. Although the UN resolution probably will not be obeyed by Israel. So also with the attitude that only the U.S. still supports even attack Israel. U.S. forget with enthusiasm about the first human rights, democracy and independence. We know the U.S. is a country who "sell" to human rights throughout the world. But why he supports The Israel that this is clearly a violation of human rights. China during the first murder in Tibet, the U.S. is the country's first "itching ears" and the first State of censure. Even Nuclear Iran is not necessarily exist and are threatening mankind, so the U.S. offs bring this case to the UN DK, Iran also get a penalty. But why this case is not going to Palestine and Israel?

In addition to the above is a fact that the interests of others may not know many people. The interests of Israel invasion to Gaza (Palestine). If Israel quibble is that the interests of their reply to rocket attacks Hamas, certainly not logical. This is because of the HAMAS is always first rocket launched its territory to Israel, why this new time of the attack was launched as well as a tremendous response

Political observers of the Middle East point that the interests of Israel at this time is related to the Israeli elections will be held on 10 February 2009. In Israel there are perpolitikan stage 2 of the party in Israel, Likud and Kadima. Kadima party, led by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livnin down in popularity in the community of Israel. Because that is the Gaza attack was the fruit of the policy taken by Tzipi aims to increase the popularity of Kadima Party. The observers also said that the Palestinian attack into place as the race, who can destroy HAMAS or Palestine or even the Gaza Strip is a return that will get support from the people of Israel. This is a cause Tzipi Livnin, as the head of the Kadima Party general, so enthusiastically want to wipe out Gaza. How cruel is it?. Moment for the sake of (political), not guilty of thousands of people died and many others injured.

Read more »

Obama would spend bailout funds on housing crisis

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama would spend the remaining $350 billion of a financial bailout fund on expanded lending and reduced foreclosures and would not use the money to help other industries, lawmakers said Wednesday after discussions with Obama emissaries.
The Senate was set to vote Thursday on whether to release the money. Lawmakers insisted that Obama advisers put their assurances in writing before the vote.
Seeking to secure votes from wary members of both parties, Obama aides fanned out across the Capitol on Wednesday. Their lobbying effort culminated in a closed door meeting between Senate Republicans and top Obama economic adviser Larry Summers and incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
The private guarantees went further than what Obama's team has been willing to discuss publicly about his plans for the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Obama has asked Congress for the money and has been trying to overcome misgivings from lawmakers over how the Bush administration spent the first half of the fund.
Democrats were growing increasingly optimistic that the Senate would agree to release the money to the new administration. And even reluctant Republicans praised Obama's outreach.
"These folks have much more credibility already than Secretary Paulson," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said, referring to the Bush administration's treasury secretary, Henry Paulson.
Still, Republicans demanded that the incoming Obama administration put in writing details of the conditions and goals for the money.
"There is a real concern that it's one thing to say it in the privacy of that room; it's another thing entirely to put something on the record," said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.
While the criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the bailout has been bipartisan, Republicans were especially opposed to using the bailout funds to help out nonfinancial sector industries. Money from the fund has been used to assist insurance giant American International Group Inc. and automakers General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Summers and Rahm "did not represent they are in favor of industrial policy."
"We'd like to see something publicly stated with reference to that issue," he added.
In the House, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Summers assured him that Obama would commit a significant portion of the bailout money to foreclosure relief.
The House on Thursday was scheduled to vote on Frank legislation that would place broad restrictions on the bailout program. One major provision would require that the new administration spend between $40 billion and $100 billion on reducing the number of foreclosures.
"I believe they would have done this anyway," Frank said after speaking to Summers on Wednesday.
Obama's transition office would not comment on discussions held with members of Congress.
The House bill has little chance of passing the Senate.
Summers this week submitted a three-page letter to congressional leaders as part of Obama's request for the money that outlined the Obama economic team's goals. But several Republicans and Democrats said the letter was not specific enough and said they needed more information from the president-elect.
Congress built in a safeguard by requiring that after the first $350 billion of the bailout fund was spent, Congress could reject spending the second half. Obama has said he needs the additional money to help extend loans to small businesses, consumers, homeowners and local governments.
Lawmakers from both parties have complained that the Bush administration did not spend the money as it initially intended.
Paulson told legislators last year that the money would be used to buy toxic assets held by the banks in hopes that would help them make more loans. But the Treasury soon changed course and used the money to make direct infusions of capital into financial institutions with few strings attached. Lawmakers complained that the money has not appeared to loosen credit.
"It is critical we provide a real road map on how this funding will be spent," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
Republicans argued that Frank's bill was a futile effort.
"That we would just go ahead with the bill that everyone acknowledges is not going to become law as cover for us to then release the $350 billion is just plain wrong," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif.

Read more »

Obama Uses Campaign Tactics to Sell Stimulus Plan

By Hans Nichols and Lorraine Woellert
Jan. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama’s top political aides are adapting their campaign tactics to selling policy, using data from polls and focus groups to shape the debate over a stimulus plan that may cost at least $775 billion.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political adviser, along with campaign media adviser Jim Margolis, are encouraging lawmakers to use the word “recovery” instead of recession and “investment” instead of “infrastructure.” Those recommendations came from focus-group research indicating that such framing would make the package more appealing to voters.

The Obama camp is trying to build support for the stimulus proposals, which have encountered resistance from lawmakers of both parties over size and cost. Republicans have employed similar tactics in past policy debates, notably when they labeled the estate tax as the “death” tax in arguing for its repeal.

“Not unlike news organizations, we poll public attitudes about where the economy is,” Robert Gibbs, Obama’s choice for White House press secretary, said in an interview yesterday. “We’re not polling to see what should be in an economic-recovery plan.”

Axelrod and Margolis briefed Senate Democratic leaders on Jan. 7 and their House counterparts at lunch yesterday on the details of the research, participants in the meetings said.

Reinforcing the message, Obama said yesterday the U.S. risks sinking deeper into an economic crisis without an infusion of government spending and a cut in tax rates. He urged Congress to act quickly on a stimulus package.

‘Potential and Promise’

In a speech at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Obama drew a portrait of a nation where family income is falling, the unemployment rate is rising and a “generation of potential and promise” may be lost without federal action.

“I don’t believe it’s too late to change course, but it will be if we don’t take dramatic action as soon as possible,” he said.

Obama officials are using polling data to determine how to frame the economic proposals for voters and what language should be used, Gibbs said. They want to know “how America reacts” to the president-elect’s stimulus proposals and the public’s “attitudes toward the economy,” he said.

Axelrod and Margolis encouraged the senators to change the way they were discussing the stimulus plan and adopt language that the aides tested in focus groups, said a Democratic official briefed on the meeting.

Wrong Signal

The two Obama advisers said the old way of talking about the plan sends the wrong signal, the Democratic official said, adding that the substance of the package was also discussed.

The Democratic senators, including Dick Durbin of Illinois and Tom Carper of Delaware, were given data showing that about half the poll’s respondents favored making huge investments that would expand government during a recession even if such measures result in a $1 trillion deficit.

Obama’s language on the stimulus has won praise from Republican political advisers, who said he understands he can dictate the direction of the debate by controlling the terms used to describe it.

“The language he is using is brilliant because it’s future- focused,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster.

“He’s using the best language of the progressives and the best language of the conservatives,” he said. “This is linguistic fusion.”

Obama’s economic stimulus proposals encountered opposition yesterday in the Senate, where some members of his party criticized elements of the plan as ineffective.

‘Largely a Bust’

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said he doubted a $140 billion tax proposal to give $500 to individuals and $1,000 to families by withholding less from their paychecks would do much to boost the economy. Conrad said the idea was similar to rebate checks sent last year by the Treasury Department, which he said were “largely a bust” in terms of fixing the economy.

“I’m very skeptical that’s going to make a difference,” he told reporters in Washington. “For the average family, it’s going to add $20 a week -- I mean, how much lift is that going to give?”

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin said he was “a little concerned” by the approach favored by Larry Summers, Obama’s nominee to be director of the White House National Economic Council. Summers met with Senate Democrats yesterday to discuss the stimulus plan.

‘Trickle Down’

“To me it still looks like more of this trickle down,” Harkin said. “What I’m hearing from Mr. Summers and others is that they’ve got perhaps a different view, a different approach.”

Axelrod dismissed any notion that Democrats were divided or weren’t committed to acting swiftly. “What I sense is a real spirit of cooperation,” he said yesterday in an interview after briefing House leaders.

“There’s an enormous appetite in this country for action,” he said. He declined to provide specifics about his polling and focus-group data.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she was satisfied with the conclusions of Axelrod’s polls, which she called “very, very positive.”

‘Like the Brand’

“People don’t know the details but they like the brand,” she said.

It isn’t unusual for White House aides to commission polls to determine where the public stands on an issue, though the law prohibits them from using federal money for polling that might be construed as election-related, said Dick Morris, who conducted polling for former President Bill Clinton.

“We polled everything, every policy initiative, everything you can think of,” Morris said. “It’s become pretty standard.”

By contrast, he said, President George W. Bush “didn’t really poll policy; he polled the presentation.”

Jan Van Lohuizen, who conducted surveys for Bush, said that once the White House settled on a policy, the pollsters were tasked with discovering how to package it.

‘How Do We Sell It’

He cited Bush’s proposal to overhaul Social Security, saying polling was conducted to determine “how do we sell it and what are the words and what’s the language.”

“But we never did: Is privatization the right solution?” he said. “That’s where the boundary was.”

Bush ultimately dropped the proposal in the face of resistance from Congress.

Obama, who takes office Jan. 20, has said his economic package won’t be influenced by political calculations. He has instructed his advisers “to make sure that we are proceeding on projects and investments based on national priorities and not based on politics,” he told a news conference on Nov. 26

Congressional Republicans dismissed the Democrats’ plans to use poll-tested language to help pass a stimulus package.

“President-elect Obama’s real problem is that congressional Democrats don’t believe that tax relief is critical to revitalizing the economy and is overwhelmingly supported by the American people,” said Brad Dayspring, spokesman for Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the second-ranking House Republican.

To contact the reporters on this story: Hans Nichols in Washington at hnichols2@bloomberg.net; Lorraine Woellert in Washington at lwoellert@bloomberg.net

Read more »

"What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?"

About This Topic

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world's longest standing conflicts, extending back centuries. Many people feel that resolving this conflict is the key to resolving the various conflicts throughout the Middle East. Many observers see this conflict creating Arab resentment towards the "West" and fueling radical Islamic terrorism. Although the conflict generates massive public discussion and debate, there are relatively few (if any) forums that inherently maintain an impartial and non-partisan approach to understanding it. We intentionally expose the massive variations of opinion, narrative and fact, to give our readers the best "big picture" understanding of the conflict and its potential solutions.

PRO Israel/CON Palestine

The Pro-Israel camp generally base their arguments on the following principles:

a) Israel is the historical "homeland" of the Jewish peoples who have lived there continuously since biblical times.

b) Many Jews believe that they deserve a "Jewish" state because of historical injustices, such as the Holocaust, and because they have international support and recognition through the U.N.

c) The majority of Israelis support a "two-state" solution, creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.

d) Other Israelis support the idea of "one-state", either by annexing all occupied territories into the Jewish state (far right view), or incorporate the occupied territories into one secular democratic state with equal rights for all (far left view).

CON Israel/PRO Palestine

The Pro-Palestinian camp generally base their arguments on the following principles:

a) The Palestinian people have lived in the area of Israel/Palestine since biblical times. They see most Israeli Jews as foreign colonizers who began arriving within the last 100 years.

b) Palestinians consider themselves a national entity, deserving of the rights of all nations, including a Palestinian state.

c) Many Muslim Palestinians and their supporters see the land as Islamic holy land, and are strictly opposed to non-Muslims owning and establishing a state on Muslim land.

d) Palestinians vary widely in what they see as a just solution to the conflict. They include: the total destruction of Israel; a "bi-national" or "one-state" solution; and a "two-state" solution.

Read more »

Top 10 Pros and Cons

The PRO and CON statements below give a five minute introduction to the debate on the Israeli - Palestinian conflict.

PRO Israel and/or CON Palestine Statements
PRO Palestine and/or CON Israel Statements

1. Two-State Solution

PRO: "Well, there has emerged, over the course of the past ten years at least, a sense that the only way out of the situation in the Middle East is to establish a State of Palestine alongside Israel so that there will be an end of conflict. There is no other solution to end the conflict in reality. There is an international consensus about it as reflected by the so-called Road Map Quartet [the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations], which is after all the whole world. You have the United States, you have Europe, you have the Russians and the United Nations, which is the whole world, and then there is the Arab League, which is twenty-two different states, and there is the previous Palestinian administration, and the Israeli administration, all of them committed to the two-state solution."

-- Ziad J. Asali, MDPresident and Founder of the American Task Force on Palestine
Interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on
Foreign Relations
June 2, 2006

CON: "The paradigm of the Two States will not bring about stability. No! . . . (The Two-State solution) is not relevant. Not relevant . . . (The Palestinian state) will undermine the State of Israel. From there, the confrontation will go on.
The State of Israel is ready to give the Palestinians an independent Palestinian state, but the Palestinians are not ready to give us an independent Jewish state . . . Every agreement you make will be the starting point of the next irredenta. The next conflict. The next war.
The establishment of a Palestinian state will lead at some stage to war. Such a war can be dangerous to the State of Israel. The idea that it is possible to set up a Palestinian state by 2008 and to achieve stability is disconnected from reality and dangerous."

-- Moshe YaalonLieutenant-General and former Chief-of-Staff of the Israel Defense Forces
Quoted by Uri Avnery in "The Bogyman"http://gush-shalom.org
May 3, 2005

2. Significance of Jerusalem to Jews and Muslims

PRO:"For the Jewish people, Jerusalem is not a city containing holy places or commemorating holy events. The city as such is holy and has, for at least two and a half millennia, served as the symbol of the historic existence of a people hunted, humiliated, massacred, but never despairing of the promise of its ultimate restoration. Jerusalem and Zion have, become 'the local habitation and the name' for the hope and meaning of Jewish existence, and of its continuity from the days when, according to the authors of the biblical books, God spoke of a certain place that he would choose, to the days of the return which -- however improbable it might seem -- was never in doubt for the Jew. Understanding the symbolic function of Jerusalem in Jewish tradition, we come to see that even the avowed secularist's use of this symbol has a measure of legitimacy about it, unparalleled in other traditions."

-- Zwi Werblowsky, Dès LProfessor of Comparative Religion at Hebrew University"Meaning of Jerusalem to Jews, Christians and Muslims,"
Israel Universities Study Group for Middle Eastern Affairs1978

CON: "According to Islamic tradition, it was the second caliph, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, who recognized this location [Jerusalem] as marking the site of the Prophet's night journey. The caliph is supposed to have done so immediately after the conquest of Jerusalem, during a visit to the city whose historicity is in question, but which most scholars agree probably took place. The Muslim conquerors understood that this entire site had been the location of the temple first built by Solomon whose repeated destruction is described in the Qur'an, and what they found on their entry into the city was in fact the deserted platform on which the Herodian temple described by Josephus had stood until its demolition by Titus in 70 A.D., At the southern end of this platform the caliph 'Umar ordered the erection of the first of several structures to bear the name of al-Masjid al-Aqsa, the al-Aqsa Mosque, adjacent to which his successor 'Abd al-Malik was to build the Dome of the Rock a few decades later."

-- Rashid Khalidi, PhDEdward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University
Jerusalem in History2000

3. Refugee Populations

PRO: "During United Nations debates in 1947 over the partition of Palestine, Arab delegates warned that the formation of a Jewish state might lead to violent retaliation against Jews in their countries. 'The masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained,' an Iraqi diplomat said at the time.

The immediate outcomes ranged from anti-Jewish riots in Yemen and Syria to the revocation of citizenship for Jews in Libya to the confiscation of their property in Iraq. After the overthrow of King Farouk of Egypt in a military coup in 1952 and Israel's invasion of Sinai in 1956, Egypt declared Jews enemies of the state.

For its part, Israel mounted operations to transport tens of thousands of Jews from Iraq and Yemen. While 856,000 Jews lived in Arab nations in 1948, only 7,800 were there in 2001, the American Sephardi Federation reports. About 600,000 went to Israel, the remainder to the United States and Western Europe."

-- Samuel G. FreedmanProfessor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
"Are Jews Who Fled Arab Lands to Israel Refugees, Too?"
New York Times
Oct. 11, 2003

CON: "At the end of hostilities early in 1949, the United Nations estimated that there were 726,000 Arab refugees from Israeli-controlled territories, about 70 percent of the Arab population of Palestine. The exact number is difficult to determine because it is impossible to know the true number of Arab illegals living in Palestine when the war broke out and the number of Bedouin who had become refugees. A figure of about 600,000 to 760,000 is probably more accurate...

Exact figures are not possible, but according to Benny Morris, in his study of the Palestinian refugees, the British estimated in February 1949 that about 320,000 Palestinians moved into, or already resided in, the eastern portion of Palestine, which was controlled by the Arab Legion, and into Transjordan. Approximately 210,000 were in camps in the Gaza region, 100,000 went into Lebanon, and 75,000 to Syria. A few went to Egypt and others to Iraq. Some 150,000 remained within the Jewish state."

-- Ian J. Bickerton, PhDProfessor of Middle Eastern History at the University of New South Wales and
Carla L. Klausner, PhDProfessor of Modern Middle East at the University of Missouri-Kansas CityA Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict2002

4. Palestinian Refugees' "Right of Return"

PRO: "Implementing the Palestinian 'right of return' amounts to abolishing the Jewish people's right to self determination. It will make the Jewish people a minor ethnic group at the mercy of Muslims, a 'protected minority', just as fundamentalist Islam would have it. It would mean eradicating Israel."

-- Amos OzFounder of the Peace Now movement"Doves Should Re-examine Their Perch," The Guardian
Jan. 5, 2001

CON: "Many people do not believe that any ethnic group has the right to guarantee an ethnic majority in a nation-state, and therefore do not believe that Israeli Jews have the right to demand a perpetual Jewish-majority state. However: even those who support a Jewish majority in Israel should be able to accept the Palestinian Right of Return, since acceptance of this right will not necessarily overturn the Jewish majority in Israel."

-- Palestine Solidarity Committee/SeattleJoint position statement with Palestine Information Project
Posted on their website http://www.palestineinformation.org/
Accessed on Apr. 10, 2007

5. Legality of Israeli Settlements in the West Bank

PRO: "Israel possesses legal rights with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip that appear to be ignored by those international observers who repeat the term 'occupied territories' without any awareness of Israeli territorial claims. Even if Israel only seeks 'secure boundaries' that cover part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, there is a world of difference between a situation in which Israel approaches the international community as a 'foreign occupier' with no territorial rights, and one in which Israel has strong historical rights to the land that were recognized by the main bodies serving as the source of international legitimacy in the previous century."

-- Dore Gold, PhDFormer Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations"From 'Occupied Territories' to 'Disputed Territories'"
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs editorial
Jan. 16, 2002

CON: "Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

-- United NationsSecurity Council Resolution 465 (PDF) 14.3KB
Mar. 1, 1980

6. Terrorism

PRO:"If infidels conquer even an inch of the Muslims' land, as happened with the occupation of Palestine by the Jews, then Jihad becomes an individual duty, and therefore, suicide attacks are permissible."

-- Hamed Al-BitawiHead of the Palestinian Islamic Scholars Association
Quoted in Al-Hayat
Apr. 25, 2001

CON: "...the Zionist state remains the cause of more regional grievance and sheer terror than all the Muslim states combined. Read the melancholy Palestinian Monitor on the Internet; it chronicles the equivalent of Madrid's horror week after week, month after month, in occupied Palestine. No front pages in the West acknowledge this enduring bloodbath, let alone mourn its victims. Moreover, the Israeli army, a terrorist organisation by any reasonable measure, is protected and rewarded in the west."

-- John PilgerAustralian journalist and documentary filmmaker
"The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism," AntiWar.com
Mar. 20, 2004

7. Israeli Wall / Security Fence

PRO: "Some argue that the fence is a barrier to peace. Wrong. It is the very lack of a fence that has made it possible for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to hold the peace process hostage, since they initiate attacks every time progress seems possible. By taking the strategic threat of suicide bombings off the table, both sides would have more latitude for serious negotiations."

-- Mortimer B. ZuckermanEditor in Chief of U.S. News and World Report
"The Price of Intransigence," U.S. News and World Report
Dec. 15, 2003

CON: "This wall is not about security. It is about entrenching the occupation and the de facto annexation of large areas of the Palestinian land."

-- Nasser Al-Kidwa, DDSPalestinian Ambassador to the U.N.
"Palestinians Open Case Against Barrier,"Associated Press
Feb. 23, 2004

8. Arab State Relations with Israel

PRO: "It must be a peace that makes Israel a part of the neighborhood, a neighborhood that extends from the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, across the breadth of the southern Mediterranean, to the coast of the Indian Ocean...

On behalf of all those who seek and strive for peace in my part of the world, I ask you now to exert that leadership once again. We ask you to join with us in an historic effort of courage and vision. We ask you to hear our call, to honor the spirit of King Hussein and Yitzhak Rabin, and help fulfill the aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace today."

-- Abdullah bin Al Hussein, IIKing of JordanSpeech before a joint session of the U.S. Congress
Mar. 7, 2007

CON: "Israel is our enemy and does not want peace. Peace would mean that Israel would have to return the occupied territories again. Israel was built on aggression and the rejection of peace, and nothing changes."

--Bashar Al-Assad President of the Syrian Arab RepublicQuote from meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in Damascus, Syria
Apr. 2006

9. Hamas and the Peace Process

PRO: "We should give Hamas time. I'm sure that Hamas will develop, will evolve. We should not prejudge the issue. We object to whatever policies on the part of the Israeli Government right now that are cutting the right of the Palestinians to receive their dues. So it's only a matter of time on that. We are sure that the Palestinians will recognize the requirements of the situation as they stand today: the roadmap; the need for a political peaceful settlement amongst the Israelis and the Palestinians; they need to see the two states living side by side in secure and recognized boundaries for both. So these are issues that the Palestinians and the government of Hamas, when composed, will have to face such requirements."

-- Ahmed Ali Aboul GheitEgyptian Foreign Minister
Quoted from meeting with U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice in Cairo, Egypt
Feb. 21, 2006

CON: "It is clear that in light of the Hamas majority in the PLC [Palestinian Legislative Council] and the instructions to form a new government that were given to the head of Hamas, the PA [Palestinian Authority] is - in practice - becoming a terrorist authority. The State of Israel will not agree to this. Israel will not compromise with terrorism and will continue to fight it with full force. However, there is no intention of harming the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population. Israel will not hold contacts with the administration in which Hamas plays any part - small, large, or permanent."

-- Ehud Olmert, LLBIsraeli Prime MinisterRemarks to the Israeli Cabinet
Feb. 19, 2006

10. United States as an "Honest Broker"

PRO: "It is critical that the United States take an active role in helping to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by playing the role of the honest broker at the negotiating table - with the trust of both sides and ability to facilitate direct talks between the parties. The U.S. is the only country that can be successful in this role because of its longstanding and special relationship with the State of Israel."

-- Howard Dean, MDChairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
Remarks at the Arab American Institute (AAI)
Oct. 18, 2003

CON: "To say that the United States is an even-handed broker is a preposterous mischaracterization. The United States is very much in Israel's camp. All the information we have on the negotiations during the last seven years of the peace process has shown that the United States has presented the Israeli point of view in the discussions and remains a partisan of Israel."

-- Edward Said, PhDThe late Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University
Culture and Resistance: Conversations with Edward W. Said
2003

PRO Israel and/or CON Palestine Statements
PRO Palestine and/or CON Israel Statements

Read more »