Arab League to visit Israel

[Keepitsimple]

When I read the papers this morning, I found this article to be the best news I've heard about the Middle East in a long time. Perhaps the tactics of Hezbollah and Hamas have unwittingly backfired. As this article (and a similar one in the Star) indicates, the 22 countries of the Arab League seem to be just as uncomfortable with "Islamic Fundamentalism" as the West is. This is very promising indeed.

Arab League lifeline

Envoys seek way to prop up Abbas through peace with Israel

By AP

JERUSALEM -- The 22-country Arab League will send envoys on a historic first mission to Israel this week to discuss a sweeping Arab peace initiative and how it might prop up embattled Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli and Arab diplomats said yesterday.

The announcement came the same day Israel's cabinet approved the release of 250 Palestinian prisoners, hoping to bolster Abbas in his power struggle with the Islamic militant Hamas.

An official League visit would be a diplomatic coup for Israel. The League has been hostile toward the Jewish state, but has grown increasingly conciliatory in response to the expanding influence of Islamic extremists -- a concern underscored by Hamas' violent takeover of Gaza last month.

Jordan's foreign ministry said the Jordanian and Egyptian foreign ministers would arrive in Jerusalem on Thursday for talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli officials.

Link to entire article: http://www.torontosun.com/News/World/2007/...pf-4325016.html

[Bonam]

While the fact that they want to negotiate is good news, they also ask too much in return for their offer of peace. While forming a seperate state on Gaza and the West Bank is a reasonable request and one that sooner or later will have to be implemented, the ceding of the Golan heights to Syria and the demand to split Jerusalem in half again are not. But I guess at least it's a starting point for talks.

[White Doors]

A dollar short and 50 years too late.

[weaponeer]

While the fact that they want to negotiate is good news, they also ask too much in return for their offer of peace. While forming a seperate state on Gaza and the West Bank is a reasonable request and one that sooner or later will have to be implemented, the ceding of the Golan heights to Syria and the demand to split Jerusalem in half again are not. But I guess at least it's a starting point for talks.

Too bad they could not make Jerusalem neutral, it's own entity like the Vatican, open to all the religions. As for the Golan, I am sure Israel will give them up for peace with Syria.... IMHO

[Mad_Michael]

The enemy of your enemy is NEVER you friend.

[Higgly]

I watched the coverage of this visit on BBC World and the Arab League representative said that they came representing not only Egypt and Jordan, but also Lebanon and Syria. The last one is very important. It looks as though the tide of power has shifted in the Middle East and Iran has been cut out.

Looking at the posts in this thread, I see that there are the usual whining from the "nothing is too good for Israel" crowd. But of course, these are people who never miss an opportunity to miss an opprotunity.

[Black Dog]

Not news, really. Arab governments have never exactly been cosy with fundamentalist movements, given the overthrow of secular and western-backed Arab regimes (such as those in Syria and Egypt) has been a "Islamist" goal for 50 years.

[Higgly]

Yes, that is true. But the addition of Syria to the list, and with it, Lebanon, is very meaningful. The Arab League Rep said this in a public press conference with the Iraelis present. The geography at work here is potentially very ground breaking.

<<edited for spelling>>

Edited July 26, 2007 by Higgly

[Rue]

I watched the coverage of this visit on BBC World and the Arab League representative said that they came representing not only Egypt and Jordan, but also Lebanon and Syria. The last one is very important. It looks as though the tide of power has shifted in the Middle East and Iran has been cut out.

Looking at the posts in this thread, I see that there are the usual whining from the "nothing is too good for Israel" crowd. But of course, these are people who never miss an opportunity to miss an opprotunity.

The only whining Higgly is coming from you. Speak for yourself and refrain from projecting your paranoia on people who do not agree with you.

More to the point as usual you get it wrong. The Egyptian Foreign Ministry clarified the Egyptian and Jordanian Foreign Ministers were not part of an official Arab League delegation. They know damn well Algeria, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan do not support them but Morrcco , the UAE and Tunsia do.

That said, I have no doubt in practical reality they have enough clout to go back to the Arab League and win the other countries over except Syria and probably Libya.

Try understand the Arab League is a set of nations who very rarely agree on anything so you don't shoot off at the mouth saying you represent them all without running the risk of alienating some of all of its members.

Its called diplomacy Higgly.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Rue

[Higgly]

The only whining Higgly is coming from you. Speak for yourself and refrain from projecting your paranoia on people who do not agree with you.

...

Try understand the Arab League is a set of nations who very rarely agree on anything so you don't shoot off at the mouth saying you represent them all without running the risk of alienating some of all of its members.

Sad Rue. Once again you have descended into hysterical name calling. I was describing what was said in full view of the cameras and broadcast around the world by the BBC. I actually thought it might be a hopeful sign. I know it's tough when you are foaming at the mouth but try to stay rational will you, Rue? Of course, when it comes to whining for Israel, nobody can hold a acandle to you.

Edited July 27, 2007 by Higgly

[M.Dancer]

The enemy of your enemy is NEVER you friend.

Really? Don't forget Poland.

[Jerry Galinda]

The enemy of your enemy is NEVER you friend.

Really? Don't forget Poland.

??

Why are you mentioning Poland ?

[M.Dancer]

The enemy of your enemy is NEVER you friend.

Really? Don't forget Poland.

??

Why are you mentioning Poland ?

MM writes that the enemy of your enemy is Never your friend. This is demonstratably false.

Take Poland for example........is poland our ally?

[sharkman]

The only whining Higgly is coming from you. Speak for yourself and refrain from projecting your paranoia on people who do not agree with you.

...

Try understand the Arab League is a set of nations who very rarely agree on anything so you don't shoot off at the mouth saying you represent them all without running the risk of alienating some of all of its members.

Sad Rue. Once again you have descended into hysterical name calling. I was describing what was said in full view of the cameras and broadcast around the world by the BBC. I actually thought it might be a hopeful sign. I know it's tough when you are foaming at the mouth but try to stay rational will you, Rue? Of course, when it comes to whining for Israel, nobody can hold a acandle to you.

Higgly, your bias prevents you from seeing hysterics in action from the anti-Israel crowd on this forum, but can we all avoid the personal attacks?

Personally I take a wait and see approach to this news.

[Rue]

The only whining Higgly is coming from you. Speak for yourself and refrain from projecting your paranoia on people who do not agree with you.

...

Try understand the Arab League is a set of nations who very rarely agree on anything so you don't shoot off at the mouth saying you represent them all without running the risk of alienating some of all of its members.

Sad Rue. Once again you have descended into hysterical name calling. I was describing what was said in full view of the cameras and broadcast around the world by the BBC. I actually thought it might be a hopeful sign. I know it's tough when you are foaming at the mouth but try to stay rational will you, Rue? Of course, when it comes to whining for Israel, nobody can hold a acandle to you.

Your response that triggered my response was as follows;

“Looking at the posts in this thread, I see that there are the usual whining from the "nothing is too good for Israel" crowd. But of course, these are people who never miss an opportunity to miss an opprotunity.”

You clearly initiated dialogue meant to inflame and insult through a negative generalization.

This is precisely then why I accused you of being paranoid. Your exercise of creating and engaging in a negative slur against the and I quote "nothing is too good for Israel" crowd is typical of your constant name calling and subjective slurs as to anyone who will not agree with you as to the Palestinian conflict.

Since you initiated such name calling I have the absolute right to call you on it and suggest it is your paranoia or can I be even more specific, subjective projection based on your own insecurity. How else do we explain your need to engage in negative subjective slurs?

That said you then respond to me and state to justify the above comment and I quote;

“I was describing what was said in full view of the cameras and broadcast around the world by the BBC.”

I now call you out Higgly once again. You were NOT describing what the BBC said and you know precisely that I did not question what the BBC said. You hid behind the BBC comment because in my opinion you are a coward and will not admit the above comment engaging in the "nothing too good for Israel" crowd has nothing to do with what I criticized and everything to do with why I am lambasting you for being arrogant and smug in your need to insult people you don't agree with.

My further comment to you criticized yet again a generalization you made not the BBC. Read your comment. You made a comment that made assumptions without any basis trying to pass off your personal opinion as fact. This has nothing to do with what the BBC reported and everything to do with you insisting on making subjective unsubstantiated comments as if they are facts. That is why I lambasted you.

Read what I wrote Higgly. I attack what you wrote.

Now read back your responses which are personally directed at me.

See the difference between us Higgly is when you fling the sheeyit and its flung back at you, you then try portray yourself as a victim but then engage in the very tactics you claim you are criticizing me for one again exhibiting a blatant contradiction and inconsistency in your comments which makes me question your credibility and personally feel you are an enormous hippocrate.

The other difference Higgly is when I respond, I do not engage myself in the name calling you do.

I make no apology exposing your comments as subjective nonsense and name calling and calling you out on it. Your playing the victim with me Higgly only confirms to me what I know about you already.

I find people who expect to be treated one way and treat others the exact opposite of how they demand to be treated - contemptable and open to strong harsh criticism.

Here Higgly read back and enjoy your consistent, non contradictory responses;

"Rue.... Once again you have descended into hysterical name calling....

it's tough when you are foaming at the mouth

try to stay rational will you

Of course, when it comes to whining for Israel, nobody can hold a acandle to you."

Tell us again Higgly, how is it you play the victim of name calling but engage in it not just once with your original subjective comments against anyone who disagrees with you over Israel, but then not once but three times above?

Do tell us all Higgly why it is you initiate name calling, then respond you are not name calling and try suggest it is dialogue about a BBC comment, and then play victim and then name call again?

Come on Higgly do tell us all why you are a victim.

In the neighbourhood I grew up in Higgly people that engaged in the above we called cowards because I was taught you must stand tall and be consistent and practice what you preach.

What values do you have that have you name calling then switching to claiming you are the victim of name calling? Please explain to me the school of thought you subscribe too that enables you to do that.

Edited August 1, 2007 by Rue

[Higgly]

Rue, what can I say? I quote valid references with maps (yes Rue, historians really do use maps)and you curse me for using maps. You quote the canoe web site (good heavens, the Toronto Sun as a historical reference, now there's a concept), and bring us terminology invented by crackpots with personal web sites (dhimmitude - now really, Rue).

[Rue]

Rue, what can I say? I quote valid references with maps (yes Rue, historians really do use maps)and you curse me for using maps. You quote the canoe web site (good heavens, the Toronto Sun as a historical reference, now there's a concept), and bring us terminology invented by crackpots with personal web sites (dhimmitude - now really, Rue).

I have read what you have to say including your comments that Israel was started by Europeans.

You have not only quoted invalid references, but many a time you have not quoted references at all but simply fabricated facts or presented subjective opinions and tried to present them as if they were established facts.

No Higgly you are not worthy of anyone taking the time to debate you.

Buffy I will bother to try respond to.

You Sir, can find someone else to bait.

[Higgly]

Avi Shlaim; The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World

Tom Segev: One Palestine Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate

Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World; Margaret Macmillan.

Thanks for asking.

[jbg]

Too bad they could not make Jerusalem neutral, it's own entity like the Vatican, open to all the religions.

It already is "open to all the religions" the same way that New York City or London is.

As for the Golan, I am sure Israel will give them up for peace with Syria.... IMHO

Not likely, since all that they would have to do to shut Israel down is cut off its supply of water. That was one of factors leading to 1967 war.