Jordan's King Abdullah: Israelis must choose between 'fortress mentality' or peace

[Doondoo]

Jordan's King Abdullah II said Friday that Israel must choose between the mentality of Israel as a fortress, or living in peace and security with its neighbors.

Interviewed on state television before his departure for the United States, the king said the United States was the country most capable of influencing Israel.

"It is time that the employ this influence to prove its transparency to the people of the region, and that it is not biased, Abdullah said.

The king, who has long urged America to make a greater effort on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, is likely to make the same point when he addresses the U.S. Congress on Wednesday.

"The Middle East faces two choices - either the choice of peace or the choice of chaos, violence and destruction," the king told Jordanian television, to which he rarely gives interviews.



http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/832669.html

[DavidDvorkin]

1. True

Of course, it's far easier to state the nature of the problems in the Middle East and a desired solution than it is to get the countries of the region to agree to the steps necessary to get to the solution.

But it's good that he said this, anyway. Or so I hope.

[AnOhioan]

2. King Abdullah is right on target....

"Interviewed on state television before his departure for the United States, the king said the United States was the country most capable of influencing Israel."

Not much chance of that happening, even with a Democratic President given as how most of our candidates are all too happy to enable the Israeli government and take AIPAC money.

[cali]

3. I don't agree

Carter and Clinton both pushed for peace- and that included pushing Israel. I think a dem prez would make peace in I/P of the highest priority.

[AnOhioan]

4. Yes they did....

Unfortunately the current round of candidates have, for the most part, given no indication that they will push the Israeli government towards a peaceful resolution. I am still waiting for our leading contenders to acknowledge the fact the we are not seen as an honest broker in the area. When we begin to act as one, than maybe we can make some progress. As it stands right now, the Arab world has no reason to see us as other than a blind supporter of the Isreali goverment.

[BearSquirrel2]

10. I think it's time ...

I think it's time that King Abdullah held elections and retired to the trash tabloid status of the British Royals.

There is a reason that Israel has a "fortress" mentality. It's because all their neighbors want to kill them. Not just that ... they've TRIED!!!!

[AnOhioan]

12. An injection of reality is necessary.

Fact, Jordan and Isreal are at peace

Fact, Egypt and Israel are at peace

Fact, Israel is at war with no single country. So trotting out the old "their neighbors want to kill them" line is just false.

Israel has been attacked by terrorists, nominally supported by Iran and Syria. They should deal with terrorism in a manner so as not to create additional terrorists. The Israeli government has, in the past, followed a form of "defense" that ultimately has gotten them nowhere. In fact, there are most likely more people intent on harming Isreal now than there were before the two invasions of Lebanon and the construction the of so-called security fence ad the illegal settlements.

The chimp-in-chief of the US is now following the Israeli path to ongoing conflict. Do you support his moves in Iraq and here at home? If not, why support the Israeli government when they have benn doing the same thing for years?

[BearSquirrel2]

24. You forget ...

You forget that Egypt tried to destroy Israel and so did Jordan. It is Israel's strength that keeps what peace there is.

[AnOhioan]

25. I am fully aware that Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan,

and others. The point is, that of today, Israel is at peace with those former adversaries. King Abdullah in Jordan and the Egyptian government are no longer a serious threat to Israel's security.
Yet you will have certain posters act as if the armies of her neighbors are posed to invade tomorrow.
Those types of statements are intellectually flawed. The last time Israel was attacked by a foreign government was I believe, the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

The stance of the current Israeli government is not backed up by facts, much like Iraq was no threat to the US, her neighbors are no longer threats to Israel.

The mentality of the Israeli government, and the pandering to that mentality of our own elected officials does not serve the cause of peace.

[Hunky Dunky]

5. You can't have peace unless both sides desire it.

Only one side so far has said they desire it.

[breakaleg]

6. Which side is that?

[Hunky Dunky]

7. I'm surprised you have to ask.

It's the one that is willing to recognize the existence of the other.

[breakaleg]

8. I see. I think actions speak louder than words.

[Hunky Dunky]

9. Correct! I agree.

Which actions taken by the Palestinian Authority do you feel have been the most conducive towards peace with Israel?

[breakaleg]

11. It's the ongoing expansion of the settlements by Israel that disturbs me.

You know "facts on the ground" and all that.

[Hunky Dunky]

13. I guess I will assume that

Palestine has done nothing significant in fostering a climate of peace, because if they had, you would have eagerly addressed my question with replies so stating. Am I correct in my assumption?

[breakaleg]

14. Assumptions are a dangerous thing.

You assumed it was Israel wanting peace and not the Palestinians. Then you assumed I agreed with you. And then you asked your questions based on these false assumptions.

Do you wonder why I didn't answer it?

[Hunky Dunky]

15. I didn't wonder why you didn't answer it.

I assumed you wouldn't. And I was right. LOL! If I held your viewpoints, I would be afraid to answer it too!

[breakaleg]

16. I am well aware of the faults of the militant Palestinians. But they aren't ALL Palestinains.

There is a distinction. Palestinians want peace.

There is plenty of fault with Israel as well. Can you find any?

It's interesting that someone who's been a member for so short a time knows my opinion on things. I wonder who you really are...

[Hunky Dunky]

18. Who am I?

I'm Hunky Dunky. And although I've not been around long, you have, so, I've had the opportunity to view many of your comments. And that's how I'm able to know your opinion on things. See, mystery solved!

Back to your point: If Palestinians want peace, why do they let militant Palestianians hijack the peace process?

Also, do you believe Hamas wants peace with a nation recognized as Israel?

Also, do you feel peace can exist without mutual recognition of each nation's existence?

[breakaleg]

20. Well..

Do Palestinians allow militants hijack the peace process or does Israel?

I think Hamas, in forming a unity government has shown signs that it wants to negotiate peace with Israel. They are starting to become a part of the political process. They have a long way to go, but they wouldn't be the first nation that started off with criminals in charge.

I think that both sides should recognize the existence of the other. I think that recognition will come as a result of a peace process. Israel wants that recognition to be the pretext for talks.

[Hunky Dunky]

21. Common ground.

I agree with everything you say, except that I am skeptical of the motives and effectiveness of Hamas, regardless of their leadership. And frankly, regardless of their motive, Hamas will probably never be recognized as an instrument of peace by Israel. And rightfully so. Analogy: If the KKK were to become a benevolent, humanistic organization, do you think African-Americans would forgive and forget? Should they?

[breakaleg]

22. I say this from the perspective that Hamas is here and likely not going away.

I think their motives are certainly questionable (at best), but I do think they recognize they need to get away from the terrorism if they are to become credible and lasting in the region. That should be enough motivation to get them going. And like it or not, I think the international community should work with them to encourage them to go in the direction we all need them to go. This boycott has to end.

Israel has a history of violence and many of the people went on to become senior members of government. That's who I was thinking of when I wrote that.

[Hunky Dunky]

23. Common ground again

Except I don't agree with the comment that "Israel has a history of violence" in the context that you write. That claim is either intentionally or unintentionally misleading. Obviously Israel does not seek to be an aggressor for the sake of conquest. If that were the case, they would own the entire ME. I think it would be more accurate to say that the ME has a history of violence.

For Hamas to be effective, they need to disband and reorganize under a "different flag" Small things will make a difference. I would almost guarantee that something as small as changing the name from "Hamas" to another name, will give Israel an incentive to dialogue. In marketing, we call this brand repositioning.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I noticed you failed to answer the question you were asked...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=168490&mesg_id=168510

So, which is the only *side* that you think has stated that they want peace?

And speaking of not answering questions, I'll just use this opportunity to remind you that I asked you a question in another thread that you must have missed...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x168159#168198

btw, I'm curious to hear what you think Breakaleg's views are.

[Hunky Dunky]

19. My opinion

Is that the Israeli government is the side that wants peace. Whovever actually controls the Palestinian people(and who is that, BTW?) doesn't. There ya go!

As to not answering your other question, I apologize, but frankly, a) I didn't understand what you were asking, b)have never read another country's constitution, and c) didn't know how it applied to my comment, so I wasn't in a position to address it.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Wrong. Both sides want peace...

They differ markedly on how they see that peace they want. As for who controls the Palestinian people, it's Israel that controls them. You've heard of that little matter called the occupation, right? There ya go!

The question I asked you in the other thread was very simple and I don't really see how it couldn't be understood. And I'm kind of curious as to why someone who now claims to have never read another country's constitution would have replied to a post talking about the constitutions of other countries with this comment: 'Perhaps if any of them were to lead by example (assuming they are serious), this intiative would easily be accomplished. What do you suppose those odds are?'

[Hunky Dunky]

27. I'm sorry, but you've lost me again.

In reply to the first part of your statement: those actually in effective charge (if such a thing can be said to exist) of the Palestinian people have no desire for peace that I can see. Perhaps you can give me a handful of their peace initiatives.

To the second part of your reply, I still have absolutely no idea where your train of thought is going.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Let's try to clear things up for you...

Israel is effectively in charge of the Palestinian people. That's because Israel is the occupying power. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that..

I see. So you think actual peace initiatives are what shows that a people are interested in peace? Okay, so show me all these peace initiatives from Israel's government. Both Israel and the Palestinians haven't produced any, at least not their current leaderships...

As to the second part of my reply, I'm curious as to why someone who has never read another countries constitution would make a comment about constitutions that involves pretending that they know what is and isn't in them. Clear enough for you?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. No, I asked you to clarify yr question...

Yr question makes no sense seeing as how Israel's current leadership hasn't come out with any peace initiatives either, yet yr claiming that Israel is the only party that wants peace. So forgive me for thinking that there's a fair bit of avoidance tactics going on of what I assume is an uncomfortable question for you. Maybe you could actually try clarifying yr question...

Yr quite correct about the comments about the other thread belonging in the other thread. I'll go post them there right now where they can be more conveniently ignored :)