The Boston Globe and New York Times. Who else?
"After Annapolis" Boston Globe November 28, 2007
NO DOCUMENT with principles for a peace accord was signed yesterday in Annapolis, Md., where envoys from 46 countries joined Israeli and Palestinian leaders and President Bush at a gathering meant to launch negotiations on a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So the Annapolis event can only be judged by what follows it. If yesterday's meeting is to become something more than another missed opportunity for Mideast peace, Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans will have to persevere until they forge a just and durable peace agreement.
Then why all the hype in the press today?
They must be guided by the wisdom of Yitzhak Rabin, the assassinated Israeli prime minister who once pledged to negotiate as if there were no terrorism and to fight terrorism as if there were no negotiations. If a suicide bombing, a rocket attack, a kidnapping, or an assassination can sabotage the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that begin next month, the extremists will be certain to cast that veto.
Or Israel can concoct a FALSE-FLAG operation to damage the process (or get their Fatah agents to do it)!
After all, CUI BONO?
Of course, Israel never does any of those nasty things -- at least, as far as the fantasy pages of the AmeriKan MSM go!
Once the talks are underway, a great deal of time can be saved if the parties revive some of the provisions negotiated in earlier undertakings - not only from the Camp David talks in the summer of 2000, but also the Clinton proposals broached in December of that year, and the Taba discussions in January 2001, when Israeli and Palestinian negotiators even worked out tentative arrangements to solve the vexing Palestinian refugee issue. One side or the other may want to discard some elements of those earlier proposals. Still, some of the basic terms of a negotiated accord have already been identified. There is no need to reinvent them.
Serious negotiations call for teams of knowledgeable Israelis and Palestinians working to identify areas of agreement, as well as those issues that must be left to the political leaders to thrash out. If the Bush administration is to play a constructive role in the negotiations - as the president and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have said it will - there should also be a team of Americans well-versed in the issues to monitor the Israeli-Palestinian talks, at times shepherding the two sides toward compromise.
If a time comes when the two sides are unable to reconcile their positions on key issues such as the borders of a Palestinian state, the sharing of Jerusalem, and where returning Palestinian refugees may be resettled, Bush and Rice must be prepared to present American proposals for a final-status agreement. They should do so in the knowledge that both peoples want and need a future of two states living side by side in peace.
Yup, selling the cultural myth of a lie about the NaZionist apartheid state!
What else would you expect from a Zionist-controlled War Daily?
Once there is a signed peace accord, both peoples will have a chance to vote for it. When that happens, rejectionists in both camps will be shown for what they are: marginal forces opposing the popular will."
Oh, like the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and George W. Bush?!
Or the NaZionist who are controlling Israel?
The arrogance of AmeriKa's MSM is appalling!
"Starting From Annapolis" New York Times November 28, 2007
The American-led Annapolis peace conference achieved the minimum — a pledge by Israel and the Palestinians to begin immediate negotiations with a goal of reaching a peace treaty by the end of 2008.
We are encouraged that President Bush, best known for waging war in Iraq, has finally accepted the challenge of peacemaker.
Pffft! The NYT sure is something!
After all that help they gave him -- and are giving him on Iran!
No wonder I hate the NYT!
An agreement would give Palestinians their long-promised homeland and help make Israel more secure. It could also diminish the appeal of Islamic extremists and begin to repair America’s battered reputation in the Muslim world.
Still, the difficulty of reaching an accord before Mr. Bush leaves office cannot be overstated. Yesterday’s joint statement, which was vaguer than we had hoped, is a reminder of just how difficult. While the two sides said their talks would be aimed at concluding a treaty that deals with all “core issues,” they couldn’t agree on naming them and how they might be addressed. For the record, they are: the future of Jerusalem, the fate of refugees, the borders of a Palestinian state and guaranteeing Israel’s security.
They couldn't even agree to name the problems, and yet this was historic? Sigh!
The parties also pledged to fulfill their obligations under the 2003 “roadmap,” including ending Israeli settlements and Palestinian violence. That is a restatement of past, mostly broken, promises.
Yeah, scoot right over that settlement question!
The announcement that an American-led group would be formed to monitor and judge progress could help make the process more credible. The joint statement speaks of “continuous” negotiations, but that doesn’t necessarily mean nonstop — which is what a deal almost certainly would take.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are both weak leaders who need maximum backing from the United States, Arab leaders and other major countries to make serious compromises.
It is encouraging that 49 countries and international organizations, including Saudi Arabia and Syria, came to Annapolis, Md., yesterday to bless the effort. The refusal of Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, to shake hands with Mr. Olmert was a worrying reminder of how far many Arab countries still have to go. The prince did clap politely after Mr. Olmert’s speech. The Syrian representative did not.
Do I ever get sick of the Zionist bias of the NYT! What a damnable shit rag!
The guest list was notable for those left off: Iran and its allies, the militant factions Hamas and Hezbollah. A credible negotiation may help persuade those violent spoilers to rethink their obstructionism or persuade their backers to rethink their allegiances.
And yet they dumb more Zio-shit out their corroded, crusted Zionist ass!
Their obstruction? THEIR OBSTRUCTION?
In his opening speech, President Bush, assured Israel and the Palestinians that “America will do everything in our power to support their quest for peace.”
Man, can that guy shovel the old bullshit!
We hope that he means it — and that he makes that clear to all those White House aides who keep extolling the virtues of not getting too involved.
If there is any hope of pulling this off, Mr. Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, will have to invest their time, their reputation and their best arm-twisting, including offering bridging proposals to nudge both sides beyond their long-fixed positions. There’s no chance at all if Mr. Bush goes back to the sidelines."
Well, you guys didn't read your underlings front-page report today, did you, Times?
Bush Tells His Own Peace Conference "Fuck You!"
"despite Bush's pledge to spend political capital on the issue, he caused some consternation among delegates when he mispronounced Abbas's first name and Olmert's last name and left the gathering minutes after the two leaders spoke, without attending the working lunch with the heads of state and foreign ministers who traveled to Annapolis. "
Looks like Georgie just took a seat on the bench, Times.
The CHEERLEADER BENCH!
Sort of like his "service" during Vietnam, wouldn't you say, readers?
