Monday, November 24, 2008

Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks

There is still hope!

3 comments:

Katie said...

This is a great example of how fundamental diplomacy can lay the groundwork for a major international peace achievement.

It shows that the United States foreign policy has the potential to use its resources for peace, something I hope we will do more of in the future.

Max Bevilacqua said...

This is also a great testament to the intrinsic desire for peace. Even after years of new maps, new resolutions, inconclusive summits, and great bloodshed there still exists sincere efforts for reconciliation. Even after it seemed that the minimum demands of Israelis and Palestinians simply clashed, the world is stepping in to help.
It will be interesting to see how the international powers affect the talks and I personally hope that their involvement is mostly motivated by the hope to end what many have called "the perfect conflict".
As the clip mentioned, dealing with Hamas is a challenging aspect of peace talks and if only they could read Maria Stephan and Erica Chenoweth's study that nonviolent campaigns are successful 56% of the time verses the 26% of the times that violent ones work. Also as proposed by a letter to the New York Times by Peter Ackerman, it would be interesting to see Palestinians employ nonviolent tactics and to see what happens...

Alisha said...

Hmm, I wonder a bit about the fact that the "quartet" talking about peace in the Middle East is made up of the US, UN, EU, and Russia. One would think that Israel or Palestine might have a place in that group. And after taking a course here at Georgetown in Interreligious Dialog(which ended with Rabbi White and Imam Hendi discussing the options for Israel and Palestine), I'm a little hesitant when I hear that George Bush is pushing the two-state solution. For me, this whole issue brings up a few questions. What exactly should the role of "outsiders" be in trying to end conflict? Is it worth interfering with a people's sovereignty and independence if you can stop a violent struggle? And how much authority do countries have to interfere with the conduct of other nations if their own state routinely violates international standards for human rights and freedoms? Just some food for thought...