It is possible we are finally heading for a false peace in the Middle East
I have been disappointed So Many Times in the Past I’ve Lost Count
But there is an excellent chance in Peace Conference September 2
Sanctions & World Pressure Also Leading To Iranian & U.S. Talks
I Don’t Believe for One Second That a True peace can be Made
But the Scriptures do infer a brief false peace Before Travail!
Israel will be lulled into False sense of Safety before 2015!
I Thessalonians 5:3,4 – For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
[4] But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.
August 21, 2010
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Begin Excerpt 1 from MEMRI
Middle East Media Review Institute
Calls in Iran for Talks with U.S.
Special Dispatch No.3180
August 20, 2010
In an August 18, 2010 speech before senior regime officials on the occasion of Ramadan, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei revealed that, before Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran had held talks with the U.S. on the issue of Iraq and on another issue that the U.S. had called “an important security matter,” but that these talks had led nowhere. He added that his country is nevertheless willing to renew the talks, on the condition that they not be limited to one issue (presumably the nuclear program), and that the sanctions on Iran be lifted and the threats against it be stopped.[1]Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said
on the same occasion that “Iran welcomes talks [with the U.S.], as long as they are just, but will not waive its rights to any extent whatsoever.”[2]
Earlier, in an August 12, 2010
editorial, the moderate conservative daily Ebtekar, which frequently criticizes the policies of President Ahmadinejad, expressed a bold and unusual position, calling on the Iranian regime to hold direct talks with the U.S., without any preconditions. The daily argued that direct talks are a strategic interest of both countries, that each of them a leader of an international bloc, and that now is the opportunity to launch the talks. It also clarified that whatever happens, Iran would continue to enrich uranium on its soil.
Following are the main points of the editorial:[3]
The editorial argues that direct talks with Iran would serve the U.S.’s security and international interests, as they would have a positive impact on finding solutions to the crises in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
At the same time, they would serve Iran’s economic and nuclear interests, because Iran would be able to direct its resources towards developing its economy. The daily stresses that the talks would not prevent Iran from continuing to enrich uranium on its soil.
The article contends that, despite the sanctions imposed on Iran by U.S. President Barack Obama, the potential for direct dialogue still exists, as reflected by the decrease of hostile statements on both sides. Moreover, Ahmadinejad has stressed, “in his own style,” that Iran would be willing to talk, and Obama is also amenable to the idea.
In f act, the two sides h
ave a strategic need for each other, because neither of them can prevail over the other in resolving the important regional issues of Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.
The article goes on to say that the two countries are of similar status. Both are leaders of international blocs: Iran leads the resistance camp, including Hizbullah, Hamas, Shi’ite groups in Iraq, and Syria, while the U.S. leads the “traditional Arab bloc” (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan), as well as Israel. Moreover, Iran’s nuclear capabilities have “created a kind of political equalibrium between the two sides,” and despite the lack of trust between them, both sides recognize the lack of dialogue could lead to war.
The daily stresses that direct strategic talks do not necessarily mean friendly relations, as demonstrated by the talks between the U.S. and China in 1972, during Richard Nixon’s presidency. However, such talks could lead to rapprochement and to a situation where each side recognizes the role of the other and respects the other’s crucial interests. Both sides admit that the dangerous situation in the region threatens and harms them both.
Finally, the daily suggests that the talks between Iran and the 5+1, slated for September 2010, could be a springboard to the direct talks, which would focus on the nuclear issue, but could also encompass a range of other issues.
Endnotes:
[1] ILNA (Iran); khaandaniha.com, August 18, 2010. For excerpts from the speech in Persian, see http://khaandaniha.com/text/5063.
[2] Fars (Iran), August 20, 2010.
[3] Ebtekar (Iran), August 12, 2010.
Begin Excerpt 2 from THE JERUSALEM POST
Clinton announces direct talks to resume on Sept. 2
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER AND ASSCIATED PRESS
08/21/2010 02:24
PA wants Quartet to press Israel to end ‘provocative acts’; Hamas rejects invitation; Netanyahu welcomes decision saying reaching an agreement is ‘difficult challenge but possible.
In reaction to the announcement made by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to resume direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat said Friday that he hoped the Quartet and others would work diligently to ensure the one-year time frame for talks is reached and press Israel to end “provocative acts.”
“We hope that the Israeli government would refrain from settlement activities, incursions, siege, closures, and provocative acts like demolishing of homes, deporting people from Jerusalem in order to give this peace process the chance it deserves,” Erekat said.
Palestinian Liberation Organization leaders gathered overnight Friday and voted to accept the US invitation, according to senior Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo, AFP reported.
“The PLO executive committee announces its acceptance of a resumption of direct negotiations with Israel, in accordance with the statement by the international Middle East Quartet and the invitation by the United States,” Rabbo said.
Hamas however, rejected the US invitation, and said that it considers the “…invitation and the promises included in it empty,” according to a statement made by Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri Friday. Zuhri said the announcement is “a new attempt to deceive the Palestinian people and international public opinion.”
“The Palestinian people will not feel bound by the results of this misleading invitation,” Zuhri told AFP reporters.
“We in the Hamas movement reject the call of the Quartet and the US administration to resume the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and believe that this invitation and its consequences does not commit the Palestinian people,” the spokesman said.
Direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians are set to commence at the beginning of September and within a year should lead to the resolution of all final status issues, Clinton announced Friday.
Clinton said she had invited Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to Washington on September 2 “to re-launch direct negotiations to resolve all final status issues, which we believe can be completed within one year.”
She acknowledged that the goal would be a challenging one.
“Without a doubt, we will hit more obstacles,” she noted. “The enemies of peace will keep trying to defeat us and to derail these talks.
But I ask the parties to persevere, to keep moving forward even through difficult times, and to continue working to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region.”
Netanyahu and Abbas are expected to first meet individually with US President Barack Obama on September 1, when Obama will also hold bilateral meetings with King Abdullah of Jordan and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, topped off by a dinner for all four that night.
Clinton, who will preside over the trilateral meeting the next day, said that the negotiations themselves would start with no preconditions. They are due to be held in various places to be worked out, including at times in the region itself.
“These negotiations should take place without preconditions and be characterized by good faith and a commitment to their success,” Clinton stressed.
Israel has insisted that there not be preconditions to the talks, which has held up Palestinian participation as the latter have made demands ranging from a total settlement freeze, including building over the Green Line in Jerusalem, to talks from where they broke off under the previous Israeli premier to Israel’s agreeing to using the 1967 borders as the basis of negotiations.
Though none of these demands were met, by Clinton’s characterization, the Palestinians did get the short timeframe they have long sought.
Though Netanyahu has said that talks could conclude quickly, Israel has resisted any deadlines on the process. The Palestinians, however, don’t want to see an open-ended interim situation and have long pressed for a brief negotiating period.
US Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who spoke to reporters following Clinton’s announcement, declined to describe the one-year timeline as a deadline when pressed. Asked specifically whether it was a deadline, Mitchell responded, “We believe it can be done within a year and that is our objective.”
He also said that the terms of reference would be sorted out by
the participating parties, despite Palestinian desires that there be firm terms of reference for the negotiations.
“Only the parties can determine the terms of reference and basis for negotiations, and they will do so when they meet and discuss these matters,” Mitchell said, indicating that applied to the sequencing of final status issues as well.
“All permanent status issues will be on the table. It will be for the parties themselves to decide the manner by which they should be addressed.”
Mitchell did, however, say that the US would be ready to provide bridging proposals if necessary.
“We will be active and sustained partners,” he said. “As necessary and appropriate, we will offer bridging proposals. But I repeat: This is a direct bilateral negotiation between the parties with our assistance and with the assistance of our friends and allies.”
The Quartet of the US, UN, EU and Russia, however, made a statement Friday that provided some
of the frameworks sought by the Palestinians.
In endorsing direct talks, the Quartet expressed support for “the pursuit of a just, lasting and comprehensive regional peace as envisaged in the Madrid terms of reference, Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.”
Those documents, though, are filled with configurations that Israel has objected to. While Jerusalem embraced Clinton’s announcement, it has remained silent on the Quartet statement, with which it has reservations.
Instead, the response of the Prime Minister’s Office only mentioned the US invitation for direct talks.
“The prime minister has been calling for direct negotiations for the past year and a half,” his statement said.
“He was pleased with the American clarification that the talks would be without preconditions.”
Several Jewish organizations, ranging from the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to J Street and Americans for Peace Now, also welcomed the move to direct talks.
In addition, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and American Task Force on Palestine issued a joint statement upon Friday’s announcement, calling for serious investment from both parties.
“Both sides must take concrete steps in the short term to instill greater mutual confidence in this process and to demonstrate resolve to stay at the negotiating table as long as it takes to achieve an agreement,” the statement read. “Israelis and Palestinians have suffered for far too long. It is time to make peace.”
JPOST.COM STAFF contributed to this report.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.