This is the best Kerry could do? The arabs will really trust that ass clown!

Sadly, people with political ambitions avoid trying to deal with the issue. And, given the reactions here and elsewhere, I am not surprised.

We can use some foreign aid.

Our governEr keeps giving our money to his corporate sponsors.

I guess that must come with some strings attached.

Like acknowledging the existence of the "Zionist entity", no ?
Like sitting down and negotiating , no?
Like stopping the endless media anti-semitism, no ?

Seems like a fair deal to me.



Obvious sarcasm.

Not just an agreement to a conference, but real negotiations and results.

Why? Read the first sentence - this is PRIVATE INVESTMENT. Something that will happen only if the companies feel the chance to get a good rate of return exists - and that is not possible without a real solution.

To me, it suggests that in all the piece parts that Kerry has been quietly working on with both sides, what he is trying to do is to push the scales for each side to the point where they see that it is worth the risk and giving up the idea that their side can have everything to try to find a two state solution.

Both sides have done things in the past that make this incredibly difficult. To the Israelis, the Palestinians have variously been terrorists and/or implacable enemies. To the Palestinians, Israel has taken more and more of the livable parts of the contested area and made it theirs, while making every little part of their lives very hard. I really think the biggest mistake Israel ever made was when then PM Sharon pushed for creating settlements. Those settlements have made it increasingly difficult to define two states.

1. The PA recognises Israel's right to exist.

2. The PA has always been willing to negotiate even during the long year's when Israel refused to. Israel currently refuses to stop settlement expansion in the West bank, which is a very reasonable thing to ask as a precondition for negotiations.

3. While I've seen a f're things that'd have antisemitic stuff in them, how is that 'endless' or any worse than a free things about Muslims I've seen in the Israeli media? You make it sound as though Palestinian media is nothing but bigotry.

4. does the US place conditions on its aid to Israel? Do you think it should?

That you are a teacher and you have playground duty every day.

There are two kids that fight a lot. One day you tell them "look, if you two don't fight, I'll give you some cupcakes".

They agree and don't fight for a week or so. They fight again and you say "look, you boys better not fight. Why don't you shake hands and I'll give you a cupcake". So they shake hands and get a cupcake.

How long until they learn that if they fight they are rewarded with a cupcake?

Israel would be the bully
Palestine would be the victim

The teacher is giving cupcakes to the kid who gets picked on instead of punishing the bully.

But every now and then the kid getting picked up takes a shot at the bully, understandably. Particularly when it hasn't had a cupcake in a while.

The vast majority of EU aid to Palestine was stolen by corrupt Palestinian leaders. Those corrupt leaders have no desire for the conflict to end. Now they are going to get 4 billion dollars, 10-20% of it will end up in their pockets.

It's the Palestinian people who are the victims

Rather this is a coordinated effort to build the economy. Note that the $4 billion is in private investment. It would be interesting to see if there is a way to prevent the skimming off of a large part of that money.

All said, anything that helps the Palestinians get jobs and enough money to live reasonable lives in and of itself is a good Humanitarian goal. However, it seems that this comes ONLY with there being peace and stability. What is interesting is that this is the first thing different from all the past peace plans. Al the plans had nearly the same outline of what the result would be - and this one will be no different. It seems like this is part of an effort to create enough incentives to push both peoples to take the risk for peace -- rather than the default risks of the status quo.

I respect that Kerry and others are using all their intelligence and creativity to try to find a solution -- when it is very possible that things are so messed up none exits. This is important enough that I respect that a genuine effort is being led by Obama/Kerry. It is true that that it is a long shot, but doing nothing is a sure way to insure that things get worse.

local contractors will be hired, and the local contractors will have to pay bribes or they will be shut down.

money. The best way you can help the Palestinians would be to let them control their own self determination and the U.S. and West get out of the Middle East. Take American Taxpayer dollars and spend on Americans in this country. Only thing Kerry is trying to do is get more slaves for the benefit of the top percent in this country and build another elite class under their control of course. I see right through John Kerry now. He is a rich elitist, that thinks he can buy off people, and they will do anything for him. The Palestinians don't need handouts or crumbs, they need their own land and freedom.

Or the ability to blackmail world leaders into paying their bills. Arafat put Palestinian embassies in 96 countries. Ever seen an embassy in the poor part of town?

Would it have bothered you less if they used conventional weapons and tactics? Maybe if the u.s. supplied the Palestinians with conventional weapons then they could have used means of fighting more acceptable to you. I'm also curious how arafat let alone the Palestinian government is directly responsible for every action and group of individuals within Palestine.

The wealthy Arab world could arm the Palestinians to their eyebrows if it felt like it. But they don't.

Spend a minute's thought on that.

But it's cute the way you rationalize Arab murders as righteous and Jewish ones as evil.

There are plenty of oil rich people in the ME and others who should kick in.

This seems to be the sense of this thread, after all.

Interesting how far right and far left agree on that.

Major asshattery in this thread. Is that all ya got, John? Give it to me instead of Tony Blair.

To keep these funds from going to shell groups that in turn funnel the money into weapons purchases. If they can properly manage the corruption then this is a wonderful idea. Look at what has happened with reconstruction money in Iraq and poor oversight.

After all the people in the Bush administration needed some way to embezzle billions.

Next up: War in Syria on the same side as Al-Qaeda.

Last edited Tue May 28, 2013, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Kerry is working harder than anyone in the government to avoid the war in Syria continuing -- though his attempt for a peace conference there is a real long shot. It would NOT be if so many were not pushing to get into the fight.

All the minorities are.

This situation is way too tricky for our ham-fisted meddling.

I understand that Syria borders Israel, but this is not about the Syrian civil war. Kerry, incidentally, has been one of those who have been cautioning against getting more involved. His push is for the US/Russian attempt to get a political solution. What is clear is that a political solution needs to come from the Syrians - and the impulse behind it has to be to avoid more killing on the scale that has happened. It is unlikely - as the hatred there may exceed obvious common sense that a political solution, where each give up some of what they want, is in all their best interests. The rest of the world can only provide the space for those discussions. (Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of covert (and some overt) actions from many countries fueling the fighting. I am glad that Obama rejected the HRC/Petraeous proposal to arm the rebels.)

Sorta.

What we do not know is how one very large state including Pakistan, Bengla Desh and India would have done.

It may interest you that Secretary of State Marshall advised President Truman NOT to support the mandate that led to Israel. The reason was that the original UN General Assembly plan split land that was very small for one country into two parts neither of which were contiguous. His view was it was unworkable. It may still be.

The problem here is that both in Israel and in Palestine their are people who want their own state. They have a different starting point than India coming out of colonial days. There are people - including many young Jews - who favor a one state solution with everyone having equal rights. That is not something that Israel would agree to and it is not clear that is what the Palestinians want.

I can't see how this will play out.

We would much rather the Palestinians hold their hands out for our money than Russia's, for instance. The big problem I see is who gets to distribute the largesse? And who ends up getting most of it?

I think that more than the right to self-determination, more than a viable and sustainable territory, the Palestinians need hope and opportunity, and I do not think that they have enough of either right now.

And as long as they continue to believe Israel is their biggest problem, they never will.

On edit: The Palestinian refugees originally used their aid money to educate their children. They were, I once read but would appreciate confirmation, the most educated people in the Arab world. When did that stop? Did it stop? Did it end when Arafat decided it was more important to put embassies in 96 countries?

I once asked a poli sci prof how Arafat paid for his lunch.

Do you know what would happen if the Palestinians made peace and got a state? Audits.