In the crowds of Washington's Union Station last week, I bumped into George Mitchell. We were both in the city for Barack Obama's inauguration, but at that point there was only speculation that George might be made US special envoy for the Middle East – it wasn't until I returned to Ireland that the appointment was confirmed.
President Obama in his inaugural address signalled a new direction for US foreign policy. The posting of George Mitchell and the referencing of his very significant role in the Irish peace process hint at a more focused engagement by the US in seeking to secure a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinian people.
But as George and I both know from our separate but related experience in Northern Ireland, making peace is a difficult, exhausting and, at times, hugely frustrating process.
George Mitchell had been a very successful and influential Senate majority leader for the Democrats. He was known as someone who could broker a deal between opposing groups.
In January 1995, he became President Clinton's secretary of state on economic initiatives in Ireland and, later that year, he was appointed to chair the International Body on Arms Decommissioning. The report produced by this group in January 1996 contained six broad principles of democracy and non-violence, which became known as the Mitchell Principles.
But it is as the chair of the all-party negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement that George is best known in Ireland and elsewhere. Initially, the Unionists and the British government opposed his appointment. Neither wanted an independent person holding down such a key position.
When eventually George Mitchell made it to Castle Buildings in Belfast where the negotiations were to take place, the Unionists kept him waiting in a side room for two days while they debated whether he should be allowed into the room. And thereafter, they embarked on a constant campaign of challenging the ground rules and structure of the talks as a way of undermining him.
There was more to come. In late 1996, several London and Dublin newspapers carried headline stories alleging that Martha Pope, George Mitchell's chief aide, was having an affair with one of our senior negotiators, Gerry Kelly. The story was rubbish, but it had been deliberately planted by anonymous "security sources" to damage George Mitchell.
So, between interminable negotiations, almost weekly crises, dirty-tricks efforts from British securocrats and endless filibustering by the Unionists; not to mention the mindnumbing detail of a peace agreement, George Mitchell had his work cut out.
He patiently plotted a course through all of this. He brought to the process a legislative and judicial experience that saw the negotiations format changed from one of large cumbersome meetings to one of smaller groups of negotiators, usually involving the leader and deputy leader of the parties. This provided for a greater focus on the detail of the issues, and it facilitated a more workable and productive arrangement.
It also suited his particular style of getting things done. George spent a great deal of his time in side meetings with the parties. Throughout these, I found him to be goodnatured, humorous and tolerant. It is this experience that will stand him to good stead as he embarks on his journey to the Middle East.
Of course, a lot will depend on the terms of reference he has been given. Ultimately, however, no matter how good he might be, George Mitchell will not produce a negotiated agreement in the Middle East. That is for the Israeli government and the Palestinians. But to have any hope of achieving that goal, the US and the international community have to engage with this issue in a concentrated way and treat the participants on the basis of equality.
In the Irish peace process, the US involvement was generally seen as a good thing. That may not be so in the Middle East. That could be a complicating factor facing George Mitchell.
Moreover, if any renewed effort in the Middle East to reach an agreement is reduced by either side to a tactical game of winners and losers, in which the object is to use the negotiation process to inflict defeats, then it will not work. It will simply be a repeat of past mistakes and lost opportunities.
In a peace process, the goal must be an inclusive agreement that is acceptable to all sides, is doable, deliverable and sustainable. That means enemies and opponents creating space for each other. It means engaging in real conversations and seeking real solutions. It means accepting that dialogue is crucial and that means recognising the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, their own representatives.
The Israeli government and other governments have to talk to Hamas.
The recent assault on Gaza is a brutal reminder of the destructive power of war and of the human cost of failure. It is time all of this was brought to an end.
But breaking the cycle of conflict will mean political leaders – Israeli and Palestinian – taking real risks for peace. They will need help and a real and unrelenting international effort to construct a durable peace settlement that provides for two states, but in particular, for a Palestinian state that is sustainable and viable.
Comments in chronological order (Total 391 comments)
27 January 2009 5:22PM
Hey Gezza, you've been getting a lot of retrospective support from the pro-Israel brigade in the past few weeks. It must be heart-warming.
27 January 2009 5:28PM
Mr Adams
Didn't George Mitchell say some pretty insulting things about the provisional IRA in his farewell speech and didn't he use his position to get landing priviliges for Federal Express ?
Also Hamas was created by the Israeli government precisely to avoid any remote possibility of a peace process.
The Israeli government created Hamas according to Prime Minister Olmert in the Jerusalem Post.
"Netanyahu established Hamas, gave it life , freed Sheikh Yassin and gave him the opportunity to blossom"
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359844280&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Wall Street Journal:- How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
27 January 2009 5:33PM
Gerry, bad and all as you and the IRA were, you were relatively gentlemen compared to Hamas.
The are some very minimum standards and Hamas have none.
27 January 2009 5:35PM
Lets hope this will happen.
27 January 2009 5:40PM
Excellent Article.
Gerry Adams, the Irish Nelson Mandela. :-)
27 January 2009 5:42PM
This bul##t about Israel creating the Hamas just shows how shallow your knowledge and interest in this conflict.
Israel supported the Hamas back in the 80's mainly because it was suppose to be an alternative to the secular militant ASHAF.
It was a wrong assumption of course, that religious social Muslim organization will care more about the population and will be more tolerant for a 2 state solution.
Obviously the fundamental Islam actions and attitude make this look either totally Naive or as some kind of conspiracy. I guess you prefer the hollywood conspiracy narative.
Good for you.
Not even one word in this paper about the breaking of the ceasefire by Hamas today
27 January 2009 5:52PM
Sharkoo - Please provide evidance that it was Hammas and not some angry Palastinian citizen looking for revenge for his dead family who broke the cease fire.
What was the reaction of Isreal?
To move in with tanks and BULLDOZERS...
(Note: i do not support either hammas or Isreal)
27 January 2009 5:54PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
27 January 2009 6:12PM
Interesting. Thanks Gerry.
The Israeli's will cut a decent deal with the Palestinians when Iran is a nuclear power and the Egyptian dictatorship has fallen.
In the mean time they should get a US-backed deal as a stop-gap.
Obama/Mitchell will shaft them of course, but this is only the first phase of the war.
They should look at any US sponsored "Road Map/Peace Deal" (or whatever it's called this week) as a temporary measure.
No surrender!
27 January 2009 6:14PM
I'm sorry Mr Adams, but it's all wishful thinking. It's nice wishful thinking, but that's all it is. Israel will negotiate - it loves negotiating. It finds it a useful fig leaf while expanding the settlements and demolishing Palestinian homes. George Mitchell may try his best, or worst, but eventually you'll get Annapolis - lots of press conferences announcing great strides forward, huge successes imminent, then Israel will launch a massacre butchering hundreds of Palestinians again and it will all go back to the start.
27 January 2009 6:18PM
The aims of Israel and the Palestinians are similar to those of the IRA and Unionists but from both a psychological standpoint and physical quite different.
The IRA and Republican Movement wanted to absorb the six counties into a United Ireland and the Unionists determinedly resisted this with the aim of keeping the six counties seperate and part of the UK.
This might have been the position in Palestine in early 1967 where Israel covertted the West Bank and perhaps Gaza but both were under the 'protection' of other Powers.
In 2009 Israel is the 'Occupier' and still coverts the West Bank, the settlement activity is a sure sign. The Palestinians have no protective Power, the USA is firmly behind Israel, so are in a fairly desperate position unlike the Unionists. It is because the Palestinians have nowhere else to go and unlike most Unionists, they have already been displaced from their properties and way of life by the aggressor nation they may be very demanding in response now.
Unless the USA and the rest of the Quartet are prepared to set extreme conditions- negotiate find a solution or one will be imposed, Mitchell will find no progress will be made, it's the psychology of the situation.
27 January 2009 6:19PM
Well imogenblack this is the heart of the problem.
Lets say it's an angry citizen,
Since when citizens have access and training to explosives implanted with military experience?
And if they are citizens, they are under their elected government responsibility,
other wise i would really love to hear what you'd say if an israeli citizen would decide to launch an anti tank missile into the Gaza. What would you say if i'd claim hey...this guy's 5 year old daughter was killed by a sucide bomber 2 years ago in Jerusalem.
Its their elected government,
and that government has signed on a ceasefire.
tAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
Now let's take another scenario,
the one that was claimed to happen during the last Thadia,
that the ones who break the cease fire are opponents of the Hamas group.
As an Israeli, whay should i care who actually did it?
its being done, and its being done under the authority of the Hamas.
Again, SOME ONE HAS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
How can you manage agreements when there isn't one address for it?
How can you talk to an organization that declare that all previous agreements (With Ashaf) are not valid anymore?
WTF??? so every time we'll have to get back to square one?
After we make some kinds of cessions? can you grasp the level of suspicion that is common among the Israeli citizens as for the real intention of Hamas and alike?
As for the Buldozers.
I'd assume you expect me to come in there with my bear hands so it would be an equal fight? its not equal anyway, they target citizens and soldiers while a ceasefire is on. I don't have to be gentle with them.
Don't be hypocrite. I don't remember you in Falkland doing some symmetry job around there. Not to mention the reasons why you went in.
27 January 2009 6:20PM
re- FromMe2U 27 Jan 09, 6:18pm
covert should have been covet....though with Israel covert is also applicable
27 January 2009 6:26PM
pete999 - define what you believe a terrorist to be.......... what hamas has done and will most likely continue to do is bad, no one can ever condone the killing of civilians. however they are the reaction not the cause. Israel is the cause, for there to be peace israel must recognise that they stole land, and that the palestinians had and still have a right to resistance. unless this is the basis of the negotiations nothing will be solved. For the palestinians to believe that the israeli's want peace this recognition has to be clear. once this is out of the way, both sides can go forward and work together in order to achieve peace. but as long as the israeli's continue to insist that the palestinians have not been hard done by, that they have stolen no land and have been upstanding citizens then you can forget peace.
FREE PALESTINE
27 January 2009 6:33PM
Free palestine,
I'm glad that you at least see some kind of future solution.
2 disclaimers though,
1. Either you or any other country have the right to claim that israel isn't the home land of the Jews. The history doesn't begin in the 20th century, and in the 20th century this land was divided almost half in half with the local arabs, not few of them are 100 years old immigrants
2. What you say isn;t what we hear. We hear that we have no rights what so ever on any portion of that land. And we hear it not just from Palestinians but from ass*^ls like Ahmadinijad and most sadly from many westerners.
Free palestine and let live.
If you won't accept us there will be no peace.
27 January 2009 6:34PM
Id say that flinging unguided rockets towards cities was terrorism.
In much the same way that carbombs in the heart of cities are terrorism.
Yes, Israel does some awful things to Palestine, but the British government did awful things to Catholics and Republicans during the troubles.
That doesnt make the deliberate targeting of civilians right and it never will.
27 January 2009 6:36PM
sharkoo - in case you hadnt noticed there was no ceasefire agreement. the israeli's decided to withdraw because of obama, hamas countered this with their own ceasefire. hence both sides never actually agreed to a ceasefire!! hamas did say that they would give israel 1 week to withdraw and remove the blockade israel didnt so they targeted a group of soldiers on the border. israel response is to kill a farmer, bulldoze some houses and send in the tanks. i take it thats fair game to you??? you say someone should take the responsibilty, you are right the occupier takes the responsibilty. had they not broken the ceasefire (during american election night), opened the crossings at least on the egyptian side, and opened dialogue with hamas then this war may never have happened.
27 January 2009 6:41PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
27 January 2009 6:48PM
sharkooo - you get different types of jews (judiasm is not a race its a belief), if they are jews from historic palestine then yes they have a right to live there. if they are a white caucasian jew what rights do they have in palestine? anyways whats done is done the palestinians realise that this will not change. But as i stated from a non-religious perspective what rights does a european have to remove someone forcibly from their land in the middle east??? none in my opinion. so for their to be peace what happened in 1948 needs to be recognised. palestinains were killed, evicted and had their whole life turned upside down (similar to the jews of europe before, during and after ww2) this needs to be recognised otherwise the peace process will never get off the ground. in fairness to the iranian president he wasnt the only one to state that, jewish rabbis have also stated the same thing.
on your 2nd point, i dont think during 1948 the jews of europe deserved a homeland in palestine. but we are now living in 2009 things have changed, as much as i would like to see the world without a zionist state it will not happen as a new generation of israeli's born and raised in israel has emerged they cannot be blamed for their parents failures. but the reason why you will have hamas and iran saying things like this is mainly due to israeli actions which have not changed since 1948 i.e. the building of settlements, persecution of the palestinians etc.. had israel toned down its illegal activities and created better conditions for palestinians then no one would support these ideas. as it is they can see these things and back it up with the realities on the ground!
i would be interested to hear what you think in reply...
27 January 2009 6:48PM
1. I don't know where you get your info, but there is no israeli soldiers in Gaza (other than today) for more than 5 days by now.
2. If they haven't declared cease fire, i guess they are asking for more??
3. FArmer??? common man this isn;t Pallywood here.
4. Whos the occupier in Gaza? we aren't there. The crossings with Israel won't open. We have a kidnapped soldier in there with not even one visit by the red cross, a basic humanitarian act that Hamas don't even blink twards it.
Another thing, the Rafiah crossing isn't our responsibility, its the Egyptian side - talk to them my friend. Just ask your self why they don't hurry to open it.
5. Dialog with Hamas? Are you kidding me?
If the IRA would declare that heir goal is to evacuate British what so ever and its a blessing to demolish them all, you'd think Mitchell would be there?
I guess you'd claim now that the Hamas isn't asking for any thing like that..
So lets give the "FACTS" a stage:
http://www.memritv.org/video.html
27 January 2009 6:50PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
27 January 2009 6:51PM
The parallel with the Northern Ireland situation is not straight forward.
In that situation the U.S. government was not supplying the IRA with F16's, Blackhawk helicopters and vetoes in the UN.
Obama is totally committed to getting the Jewish vote in 1012, just as Clinton wanted the Irish-American vote.
27 January 2009 6:52PM
pete999 - would firing GUIDED rockets at civilains be counted as terrorism??
look there is no way anyone can say that both sides havent committed terrorist acts. FULL STOP
you are trying to paint a false picture, israel started this war and had planned for it 6 months in advance. israel has clearly stated they will not negotiate with hamas. so how did they come to an agreement for a 1 year truce??
27 January 2009 7:00PM
GERRY
Why don't YOU go out to Palestine and help the negotiations. I am serious. You might be able to really do something.
27 January 2009 7:02PM
Quest2008
This is offensive in the extreme - both to Mandela and the victims of IRA murders.
Adams forgets that he and his military wing, were living in Europe, had the vote and were not backed by the government of Ireland even though he was fighting for a united Ireland. Under these circumstances it is was outrageous that they resorted to indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
27 January 2009 7:05PM
Hi Freepalestine..
This is starting to sound like a dialog :)
1. To make it clear, we have a lot to be ashamed of and to fix.
Many of us want that, but you can't eliminate the paranioa that is emerging from calls to "no rights for zionist / Jews". A president of a huge nation (Iran) isn't a rabai my friend.
2. Judaism isn't merely religion, its a social construction, a culture, a narrative and a belief system. Since we were exiled around 2000 years ago
( yes to Caucasian regions as well, as for other such as spain, Italy and so on...)
Judaism was a replacement for nationality in times where natinality wasn;t invented. Jews wished for thousands of years to get back to Israel.
You might find it as a nice legend, but many jewish truly believe that, including a secular person like me. I think there is more than just a pinch of true history in the bible.
3. Before 1948 arabs didn't accept jewis imigration even in small numbers.
with all due respect, that's wasn't their private real estate, what they got they got from the ottomans, and that in turn was a concurred territory.
But that is all bully, if Arabs won't accept the basic historic right of Jews (even from Russia) on part of this land there won't be any trust that will allow us to act decently and/or generously.
To accuse Isralies in colonialism is sad.
We never asked to manipulate the nature resources or the human resources of that land in order to make more money or to get more imported quality tea.
That is saved for the Brits.
Acknowledge us, condemn radical religious aspirations to rule the world and we will have a good start
27 January 2009 7:05PM
Good one Gerry,
I agree that George is the right man for the job, though as you have stated the very fact that he represents the US could be a huge stumbling block to achieving peace with hamas who see the US as being hand in glove with Israel, just how he and Obama will counter this hot on the heels of the
Bush administration will be well worth watching.
But YES the Israeli government MUST talk with hamas, and NO this wil not be easy. It will be impossible at times, protracted, and painful. There will be brutal, bloody setbacks, that will make the cynics throw up their hands and roll their eyes. But there is NO ALTERNATIVE.
And if either side, as you say, measure progress with the words 'victory', or 'defeat', or view dialogue as a sign of weakness rather than strength, then the peace process is scuppered.
However, I must add, and this is extremely important to any future stability in the middle-east, including Iran, if the US are simply seen to be continuing in their support of Israel, paying 62 billion in aid every year, which is more than they pay all third world countries combined, as well as supplying state of the art weaponry and then turning a convenient blind eye to Israel's military quest to brutally bully and browbeat the Palestinians into leaving their own country, then George will never succeed.
The US must begin to treat Israel as they treat any other state that has behaved similarly, and stop calling hamas terrorists.
27 January 2009 7:11PM
Sharkooo - you are right no soliders, but everyone knows israel uses soldiers as a last resort they prefer f16's & apache helicopters (http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=83657§ionid=351020202)
there were 2 seperate ceasefires announced, the ceasefire was not agreed to by both parties. hence both sides left the opportunity to return to conflict.
look if i was to say a child died you would prob say hamas was hiding behind her!
gaza is still occupied terroritory because israel still controls what comes in and out, controls the airspace, the sea, can go into gaza at will as the war showed. show a bit more intelligence please. yes you have 1 kidnapped soldier, palestinains have at least 15,000 political prisoners in israeli jails under administrative detention. there are children, women & old people in israeli jails for no reason other then being palestinian. i hate equating one wrong with another as its still wrong. you should try doing the same.
the egyptian lie: israel tells eygpt through america to keep the barrier closed or else......
there was dialogue with the PLO and they had a similar charter, arafat received a noble peace prize!!
how will you change someones opinion without talking to them. i dont like traffic wardens but there is no point in saying i will not talk to them because if they are putting a ticket on my car i have no choice but to reason with them!!
Rick36: with the same mentality israeli's will always kill palestinians so the palestinians have the right to defend themselves. and peace shall be created in this way..............NOT. get a grip and come up with something tangible rather then your nonesense
27 January 2009 7:18PM
Gerry and the Peacemakers? Tell that to Robert McCartney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Robert_McCartney
27 January 2009 7:21PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
27 January 2009 7:22PM
Rick36
.
## Hamas will always kill Israelis ##
.
Seems a little extreme..why would this be the case?
B
27 January 2009 7:23PM
Freepalestine..
We don't agree on anything i guess.
Calling all the prisoners in Israel political prisoners is twisted.
They aren't there because of their opinion but because of their deeds.
And they get family visits you know.
Hamas has brutal ways to fight its freedom.
I claim my right for brutal conter actions.
Arafat got nobel prize but never changed the Palestinian treaty, most israelies feels abused by Arafat lies.
Here you go some quotes:
Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestin
Article 18: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.
Article 19: Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist in its configurations, and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and as the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East, in particular, and to the international community in general. Because of this, the people of Palestine are worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations.
http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html
That is after the noble my friend.
I wonder what Hamas has in its treaty.
I guess you know...
27 January 2009 7:24PM
sharkooo - you say "condemn radical religious aspirations" but what was the creation of israel? it was a religious aspiration or was it not?
i personally believe religion should be kept to one's self, and that no group of people have divine right to any land regardless of what their religious book tells them. i think its wrong that jews from all over the world are allowed to settle in israel yet the palestinians next door are not. that is discrimination, and i dont believe in a state just for one particular people. i think the world should be like london, diverse accepting, each to their own etc...
obviously pre 1948 the palestinains are going to say no to a large group of immigrants. palestine is not a big country why should they have taken 4 or 5 times the amount of immigrants from europe when the americans and british refused to? palestine has existed for a very long time, the people on that land had existed for a very long time in fact they are probably closer to the jews of moses then the jews that live in israel today. remember moses lived in what is the middle east today. in fact the jews of iran, morocco, alegeria etc... may be able to aly claim through their ancestors but the european and african converts certainly do not. judiasm is a belief not a race, so just because you are a jew does not mean you are direct decent to moses. and a bit more religion. moses had 2 sons one went on to lead the jews and the other the arabs. so if you believe in this nonesense both people have rights to the same land. but and its a big but..the jews that they lay claim to this land are the middle eastern jews.
anyways i hope i havent come across as rude or confronational as this wasnt my intention, and i actually enjoyed this debate.
peace
27 January 2009 7:25PM
If our leaders and our institutions refuse to act then we must. Boycott Israel. The first three digits of 729 on any barcode denotes an Israeli product. Don't buy it. From little acorns great oaks grow.
27 January 2009 7:25PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
27 January 2009 7:26PM
@Sharkoo
You wrote:
'5. Dialog with Hamas? Are you kidding me?
If the IRA would declare that heir goal is to evacuate British what so ever and its a blessing to demolish them all, you'd think Mitchell would be there?'
Actually I think you are misreading the basic analogy between the IRA and Hamas. The IRA, as you correctly point out, did not want to destroy the British people or Britain itself, but they did want to end what they saw as the British 'occupation' of the North of Ireland. Hamas do not want to wipe out Jews as a race either - like the IRA their essential aim is to end an ccupation. The key difference is that Hamas' comprehension of ending the occupation of Palestine necessarily involves destroying Israel as a state. Sadly. But you cannot simply claim, therefore, that Hamas are fundamentally driven by genocidal ideals. It is more complicated than that. Which is why Mitchell should get involved - there IS, ultimately, a strong analogy between the Northern Irish and the Middle-Eastern 'troubles'.
You also wrote:
'1. Either you or any other country have the right to claim that israel isn't the home land of the Jews. The history doesn't begin in the 20th century, and in the 20th century this land was divided almost half in half with the local arabs, not few of them are 100 years old immigrants'
I assume you meant that no-one has the right to claim that 'Israel isn't the homeland of the Jews'? Why does no-one have that right? What is the indisputable evidence that allows you say with certainty that Israel is the homeland of the Jews? The last sixty years aside, Jews have been a minority (sometimes even less than a minority) in that part of the world for the best part of two thousand years. And even before that the claim of the Jews to that land was tenuous at best: let's not forget that Abraham and his people were from Mesopotamia - not Canaan. Really - apart from 'the promise' what criteria allows you to say that no one has the 'right' to debate with you?
27 January 2009 7:27PM
Sometimes as a long term player, its better to look at the bigger picture. At the moment Israel suits the USA – a foot in the door of Middle East politics and an excellent bargaining chip.
Lets look long term. USA need oil from the Middle East so it is in USA best interest to court Saudi Arabia and start smiling a little at Iran, although of course nuclear weapons in Iran would be a problem. Currently USA gets about 60% of its oil from the Middle East.
Consider the growing Chinese economy. They have just moved up another rank and now lie at 3rd place in the world economic rankings and despite the world recession continue to grow although at a slower rate. Now Saudi Arabia and friends seem to have an alternative market to sell to (if they so wish to do so). The Chinese are oil and mineral hungry. Therefore, it is in the best interest of USA to keep the Arab nations ‘on side.
While we all deal with ‘today – many forward thinking business people and politicians deal with ‘tomorrow.
The USA budget for NASA is $17.6 Billion for 2009. The Israel budget is $3 Billion.
You do the Math.
In the meantime, lets not keep looking back (although lessons can be learned from history), lets use those lessons to look forward – and that also means learning from the Holocaust to be more humanitarian on this Holocaust Memorial Day.
And on Holocaust Memorial day, lets also think about people who are imprisoned without food, shelter or medicine TODAY
27 January 2009 7:28PM
What Mr Adams is missing out in his article, is lost opportunities. Every movement, like EOKA, The IRA and the PLO exhausted their ability and to some extent their support, and the logical conclusion was to sit round the table and give it a try. In the case of Cyprus a ramshacle deal was struck, witrh long term misery enhanced. The IRA found itself in a cul de sac, with the UK's accession to the EU.
The PLO had two major wars faught on its behalf by most of the Arab nations. That led Arafat close to a deal, that was not taken advantage of. The future looks bleak for the Palestinians, facing a ruthless state. I hope I am proven wrong.
27 January 2009 7:29PM
"Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestin
Article 18: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.
Article 19: Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist in its configurations, and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and as the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East, in particular, and to the international community in general. Because of this, the people of Palestine are worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations."
@Sharkoo - Which part of the above are you contending is not actually true?
27 January 2009 7:32PM
@Duballiland
Britain during the troubles looked positively benign compared with Israel today. Be careful when comparing apples with pears.
27 January 2009 7:33PM
Well you do have the right.
The right to avoid all historical evidences for the existence of a culture/nation
in Israel not Cnaana (it was called israel way after that)
About hamas
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Please.....
27 January 2009 7:39PM
Sharkoo,
I cannot subscribe to your belief that Jews have a divine right to live in Israel.
God is not an estate agent.
And if you follow this idea through you must also accept that God preferred Jews over any other people living in the region.
This is a very discriminatory and dangerous way of viewing things and confirms my belief that if there is a God, and he/she is the God you worship, I am happy to state that I am an atheist.
27 January 2009 7:41PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
27 January 2009 7:51PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
27 January 2009 7:52PM
Sharkooo 27 Jan 09, 5:42pm
You are absolutely correct that Israel, at the time, preferred to deal with a group (Hamas) that appeared to care more about improving the conditions of its people than Fatah, the PLO etc., which were busy under Arafat's "guidance" in undertaking "resistance" by blowing up Israelis using suicide bombers.
To the extent that Israel did this, and used Hamas to undermine Arafat, this seems like a perfectly rational policy, even if ultimately Hamas turned out to be as bad or worse.
Today the shoe is on the other foot, and equally sensibly Israel and the various parties that concern themselves with peace in the ME prefer dealing with the PA. If Hamas are suddenly transmuted into lambs, and the PA into the equivalent of today's Hamas, no doubt we'll see comments about how Israel supported the PA.
But in my opinion there's another question here that needs to be answered - even if Israel supported Hamas at one point, mistakenly assuming it could work with them -- so what?
After all, the keystone of the armchair philosophers who comment here is very often that Israel must talk to Hamas. Its just strange to see them condemning Israel for having done so in the past.
Well - not strange, really, this is CIF.
27 January 2009 7:54PM
@Sharkoo
'Well you do have the right.'
Thanks very much.
'The right to avoid all historical evidences for the existence of a culture/nation
in Israel'
If the rights of that land were to be decided upon which culture's imprint is most evident upon it - I doubt 'Ancient Israel' would come out on top.
'not Cnaana (it was called israel way after that)'
Correct. After Joshua invaded and the people of Abraham progressively dispossessed the Canaanites (c.1200BC).
27 January 2009 8:03PM
'It means accepting that dialogue is crucial and that means recognising the right of the Palestinian people to choose their own leaders, their own representatives. '
I notice Mr Adams doesn't make the same comment regarding Hamas to recognize 'the right of the Israeli people to choose their own leaders, their own representatives. ' etc He never once mentions the word EXIST in any context.
27 January 2009 8:08PM
The Israel-Palestinians problem will continue as long as the Palestinians are led by crazy, death-worshipping, radical terrorists who care more about destroying Israel than being neighbors next to a Jewish state.
27 January 2009 8:15PM
Here's an interesting video of Mitchell talking about his plans for peace in Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and between Hindus and Muslims in India.
27 January 2009 8:20PM
The solution is quite simple really...
Repeal United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 and Zionists go to Birobidzhan. There, done.