When the African National Congress were still involved in violence across South Africa, Botha's administration started covert discussions to try to shift them towards non-violent democracy.
While the provisional Irish Republican Army were still bombing mainland Britain, John Major started secret talks with Adams and McGiunness. Tony Bliar picked up where Major left off.
Both have now resulted in an end to terrorist campaigns and relative peace. Sure, RSA & Northern Ireland still have punishment beatings and general naughtiness, but the days of bombings and snipers in shopping malls are gone. They are both seen as responsible neighbours to volatile countries in their respective regions, and have both undergone a radical economic revival.
So is it now time to start talking to Hamas, who were voted in as Palestine's Gubberment with a free democratic mandate in an open election?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Time to talk?
Time to talk?Follow
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
It will never happen with Bush in office.
It isn't even an option with the guy. In fact it is so far from being an option for Bush that to even put it in the same sentence as the word option might cause him to have a f'ucking stroke.
Despite the examples you have cited and despite the fact that hindsight has shown that Bush has pretty much dropped the ball on the Israel/Palestine situation since he first took office leading in part to the current situation, and that his every instinct on how to properly handle the situation is about as wrong as it gets, it will never happen until he leaves because the man has put blinders on and can only view diplomatic talks as some sort of treat one gives a good child, and hamas is not a good child.
Edited, Jul 5th 2007 7:08pm by bodhisattva
It isn't even an option with the guy. In fact it is so far from being an option for Bush that to even put it in the same sentence as the word option might cause him to have a f'ucking stroke.
Despite the examples you have cited and despite the fact that hindsight has shown that Bush has pretty much dropped the ball on the Israel/Palestine situation since he first took office leading in part to the current situation, and that his every instinct on how to properly handle the situation is about as wrong as it gets, it will never happen until he leaves because the man has put blinders on and can only view diplomatic talks as some sort of treat one gives a good child, and hamas is not a good child.
Edited, Jul 5th 2007 7:08pm by bodhisattva
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
/shrugs
The Bush administration has diplomatic ties with the Fatah government. Since when isn't that a legitimate government of the Palestinian people? Indeed, I'd think it'd be a good move to make the West Bank a separate and recognised Palestinian state, apart from the rogue Palestinian state of Gaza. Then continue to starve them, shoot at them, and blockade them till they capitulate.
Meanwhile, release some of those frozen funds to the Fatah government, corrupt as it may be, and create a divide amongst the Pallys that sets up the haves vs the have nots.
Either that or Zyclone B. It's all good.
Totem
The Bush administration has diplomatic ties with the Fatah government. Since when isn't that a legitimate government of the Palestinian people? Indeed, I'd think it'd be a good move to make the West Bank a separate and recognised Palestinian state, apart from the rogue Palestinian state of Gaza. Then continue to starve them, shoot at them, and blockade them till they capitulate.
Meanwhile, release some of those frozen funds to the Fatah government, corrupt as it may be, and create a divide amongst the Pallys that sets up the haves vs the have nots.
Either that or Zyclone B. It's all good.
Totem
Totem wrote:
The Bush administration has diplomatic ties with the Fatah government. Since when isn't that a legitimate government of the Palestinian people?
Since the Palestinians elected Hamas in democratic elections, you know, the ones we are "promoting" through-out the Middle-East, until those ungrateful baStards choose a side we don't like?
So yeah, since then.
Anyway, it's painfully obvious we should talk to Hamas. We should have talked to them since they got elected. What are we hoping to achieve by ignoring people? Are we in the play ground? Is Bush waiting for Hamas to say sorry for having called him a poopy-head?
Seriously, it's beyong belief.
Even if the talks achieve nothing, and God knows a tiny bit of diplomacy goes a long way, it's still better than ignoring them.
All we're doing right now is punishing the Palestinian people for having voted, like we asked them.
But yeah, those guys never learn, do they...
I wonder sometimes if it's just my view of the administration in charge of the moment that's skewed due to unfavorable media coverage, personal bias, whatever. I try to imagine what could motivate someone in GW's position to make a lot of the choices he makes, and come up empty, like we just must not jive psychologically on some elemental level.
"Is it time to talk to Hamas?"
My gut reaction is yes. Anything to get started on the road to putting all this crazy **** behind us. I'm trying to remain objective in finidng legitimate reasons for us not to do so, but again..I come up empty. Maybe my concept of "legitimate" is suspect.
"Is it time to talk to Hamas?"
My gut reaction is yes. Anything to get started on the road to putting all this crazy **** behind us. I'm trying to remain objective in finidng legitimate reasons for us not to do so, but again..I come up empty. Maybe my concept of "legitimate" is suspect.
Recent Visitors: 361
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (361)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Time to talk?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC