What's new

'Cautiously hopeful' Mideast peace talks begin

DesiGuy

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
-3
Country
United States
Location
United States
WASHINGTON: Under the shadow of fresh violence, President Barack Obama convened the first direct Israeli-Palestinian talks in two years Wednesday, challenging Middle East leaders to seize a fleeting opportunity to deliver peace to a region haunted by decades of hostility.

''I am hopeful, cautiously hopeful, but hopeful,'' Obama said with the leaders of Jordan, Egypt, Israel and the Palestinians beside him in the crowded East Room of the White House. Earlier Obama had met with each individually, and they gathered afterward for dinner.

The mood appeared cordial as the leaders solemnly commenced the talks aimed at creating a sovereign Palestinian state beside a secure Israel. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minsster Benjamin Netanyahu shook hands warmly and thanked Obama for bringing them together despite such intractable differences as Abbas' demand that Israel end settlement expansion in the West Bank.

''Do we have the wisdom and the courage to walk the path of peace?'' Obama asked.

In turn, each of the leaders answered positively but with qualifications. And they spoke of hopes for a breakthrough within the one-year timeframe prescribed by Obama.

Netanyahu said his nation desires a lasting peace, not an interlude between wars. He called Abbas ''my partner in peace,'' and said, ''Everybody loses if there is no peace.''

Abbas urged Israel to freeze settlement construction in areas the Palestinians want as part of their new state, and to end its blockade of Gaza, which is controlled by the militant Hamas movement. The settlements issue is a central obstacle to achieving a permanent peace.

''We will spare no effort and we will work diligently and tirelessly to ensure these negotiations achieve their cause,'' Abbas said, as translated into English.

Said Jordan's King Abdullah II: ''Mr. President, we need your support as a mediator, honest broker and a partner. If hopes are disappointed again, the price of failure will be too high for all.''

With the Israelis and Palestinians far apart on key issues, expectations for the Washington talks are low, yet the stakes are high.

Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations broke off in December 2008, in the final weeks of the George W. Bush administration. The Obama administration spent its first 20 months in office coaxing the two sides back to the bargaining table.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a constant source of grievance and unrest among Muslims. The failure of past peace efforts has left both sides with rigid demands and public ambivalence about the value of a negotiated settlement.

American officials are hopeful they can get the two sides this week at least to agree to a second round of talks, likely to be held in the second week of September. That could be followed by another meeting among Obama, Netanyahu and Abbas on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly near the end of the month in New York.

Beyond the settlements, Israel and the Palestinians face numerous hurdles in resolving other contentious issues, notably the borders of a future Palestinian state, the political status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Also complicating the outlook are internal Palestinian divisions that have led to a split between Abbas' West Bank-based administration and Hamas, which controls Gaza. Hamas is not part of the negotiations and has asserted that talks will be futile.

It claimed responsibility for attacks against Israelis Tuesday and Wednesday that killed four and wounded two.

Each of the leaders pledged to work diligently toward peace, but they also made plain that their own national interests must be satisfied.

DAWN.COM | World | 'Cautiously hopeful' Mideast peace talks begin
 
If I were a betting man, I'd give pretty good odds against this amounting to anything at all.

Wait! I am a betting man, any takers on 3:1?
 
If I were a betting man, I'd give pretty good odds against this amounting to anything at all.

Wait! I am a betting man, any takers on 3:1?

I'm a fundamentally optimistic person.

However there is no way on Earth I would take that bet. :azn:

The chances of peace in the Middle East are just so low.
 
There is no harm in hoping for the best. Low expectation is the most frequent prelude to a pleasant surprise.

No one "bets" on peace. Every people/country/party works for peace.

Contrary to how I am viewed by you guys, I don't get "flippant" on a topic like this.

If anyone has nothing good to add to the Peace Process or its coverage, I implore him to keep to himself.

Just my half penny.
 
There is no harm in hoping for the best. Low expectation is the most frequent prelude to a pleasant surprise.

No one "bets" on peace. Every people/country/party works for peace.

Contrary to how I am viewed by you guys, I don't get "flippant" on a topic like this.

If anyone has nothing good to add to the Peace Process or its coverage, I implore him to keep to himself.

Just my half penny.

A helluva a time to get on a high horse. Do you think that my flippancy will seriously harm the peace process? You must think an awfully lot of me. Thanks ;)



Oh and if you think people don't bet on politics....

US Presidential Election Betting Odds | Bet Online at Ladbrokes.com

2012 Presidential elections
Barack Obama
10/11
Mitt Romney
8/1
Sarah Palin
12/1
Haley Barbour
16/1
Jon Thune
16/1
Mike Huckabee
20/1
Tim Pawlenty
20/1
Hillary Clinton
25/1
Bobby Jindal
25/1
Newt Gingrich
25/1
Mitch Daniels
25/1
Joe Biden
33/1
Michael Bloomberg
33/1
David Petraeus
33/1
Jon Huntsman
33/1
Mike Pence
33/1
Scott Brown
33/1
Charlie Crist
40/1
Jeb Bush
50/1
Rick Perry
50/1
Michael Steele
50/1
Ron Paul
66/1
 
Yeah, I read some reports about the UK election, where they used "betting odds" to make predictions about the outcome.

Like it or not, people will often bet on political events, and the odds can be a fairly good indicator as to the outcome. (Probably not as good as a properly conducted poll though, but still a fairly good indicator).
 
The truth is, US had secret support from Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Sunnis but In Palestinian the things are other way around Sunnis are with Abbas for talk and Iranian back are against the peace talk.

Without Iran's green signal there will be no Peace.
 
Yeah, I read some reports about the UK election, where they used "betting odds" to make predictions about the outcome.

Like it or not, people will often bet on political events, and the odds can be a fairly good indicator as to the outcome. (Probably not as good as a properly conducted poll though, but still a good indicator).

Don't under-estimate the amount of work that goes into the making of these odds. The bookies stand to lose a lot of money if the odds aren't spread correctly so they usually hire top analysts and actuaries to calculate everything.

anyways we are going off topic.


The truth is, US had secret support from Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Sunnis but In Palestinian the things are other way around Sunnis are with Abbas for talk and Iranian back are against the peace talk.

Without Iran's green signal there will be no Peace.

Iran may have Hezbollah but I doubt they have sway over the Palestinians.
 
Sadly there need to be both Palestinian leaderships at the talks for any sensible result to occour. Abas can sign all he wants but it counts for nothing if Hamas refuses to accept the resolution.

Cardsharp you would need to be offering Ron Paul odds for any one to take you up.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom