Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BlueSky_TheMan
... what do you believe are the fairest concessions both sides should accept in order to achieve a true and lasting peace ?
|
First and foremost - an honest broker. The United States - the only power in this region to be an honest broker - is power behind the aggressor and not honest. Why would anyone concede to the US as an honest broker? Oslo Accords by Norway were so fundamentally revolutionary when an honest broker could be found AND the US was supportive of negotiated (not military) solutions. This fear of a negotiated settlement is also why extremist Likud called for and got an assassination of Menachem Begin. They needed to murder the Oslo Accords.
Without an honest broker, then no peace settlement is possible. With the US, whose solution is to advocate final (military) solutions rather than negotiation, then another Norway deal also is not possible. No honest broker exists that both sides will concede to.
We are so far from solving any world violence because the 800 pound gorilla has a 'big dic' mentality. As long as the 800 pound gorilla declares war as a solution to everything (ie Axis of Evil), then an only other solution is massive death rates on all sides. Death rates so high that centrists return to where intelligence and logic survives.
How would the world fix this problem? One solution would be a massive embargo on everything into and out of any Middle East country. A US military isolated in Iraq would also address the problem. Address the problem? Yes. Scare Americans enough start voting for intelligent leaders and not for religious fanatical solutions. For example, a McCain might be a first step to making negotiations possible. Clearly wacko extremists from the 'Project for New American Century' who even advocated a possible 'attack India, Germany or Russia' solution also are not capable of unbiased and logical negotiations; necessary to start a peace process.
For those who need soundbyte reasons: we don't even talk to Hezbollah, Syria