Israel confirms talks with Syria

[RunInRed 16,492]

Wait wait wait...I thought Obama was naive for wanting to talk to people we disagree with

Looks like Israel agrees with his position of strong diplomacy. Can't wait to see how the Repubs try to spin this one...

JERUSALEM — Israel and Syria said they were holding indirect peace talks Wednesday through Turkish mediators — the first official confirmation of contact between the feuding nations.

In statements issued minutes apart, the two governments said they "have declared their intent to conduct these talks in good faith and with an open mind," with a goal of reaching "a comprehensive peace."

Both nations thanked Turkey for its help, and Turkey issued its own confirmation. Muslim Turkey has good ties with both Israel and Syria.

The White House was not going to object to the talks, and hopes the forum addresses concerns with Syria, Reuters reported.

There have been reports in recent months of new Israeli-Syrian contacts through Turkey, and Turkey's foreign minister said earlier this month that his country was trying to bring the sides together. But this was the first official confirmation that contacts have resumed.

An Israeli government official said Olmert's chief of staff and diplomatic adviser have been in Turkey since Monday. "In parallel their Syrian counterparts are in Turkey as well," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks. He declined to discuss the substance of the talks.

Israel and Syria are bitter enemies whose attempts at reaching peace have repeatedly failed, most recently in 2000. The nations have fought three wars, and their forces have also clashed in Lebanon.

Peace with Syria would require Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war and later annexed. Today, the heights are home to 18,000 Israelis and roughly the same number of Druse Arabs who regard themselves as Syrian nationals. Syrian and Israeli forces are separated by U.N. peacekeepers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356852,00.html

[Tiger Al 0]

Israel talks with Hamas, too.

Appeasers.

[LegalEagle 22]

Seems George needs to add Israel to the Axis of Evil.

[jw 4 au 526]

Wait wait wait...I thought Obama was naive for wanting to talk to people we disagree with

Looks like Israel agrees with his position of strong diplomacy. Can't wait to see how the Repubs try to spin this one...

JERUSALEM — Israel and Syria said they were holding indirect peace talks Wednesday through Turkish mediators — the first official confirmation of contact between the feuding nations.

Wait, wait, wait...I am not sure you are accurately following along. This certainly more closely follows along with Bush's foriegn policy than Obama's. The U.S. currently does speak to these countries and thier leaders indirectly through Condi Rice, and Powell before her, and others (i.e. third parties). Obama, as the leader of the free world, wants to meet directly with Amadinejad (sp?) in Iran. There is a HUGE difference. The U.S. has indirectly been speaking with Syria for over a year now, and other countries more than that. Catch up, get your facts right, and stop trying to sell that everyone other than yourself is trying to spin everything!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

[tiger88 934]

Don't let the facts get in the way. Let them have their completely hollow victory on this thread. Even if it only exists in their minds.

[AUHonors 0]

Wait wait wait...I thought Obama was naive for wanting to talk to people we disagree with

Looks like Israel agrees with his position of strong diplomacy. Can't wait to see how the Repubs try to spin this one...

JERUSALEM — Israel and Syria said they were holding indirect peace talks Wednesday through Turkish mediators — the first official confirmation of contact between the feuding nations.

Wait, wait, wait...I am not sure you are accurately following along. This certainly more closely follows along with Bush's foriegn policy than Obama's. The U.S. currently does speak to these countries and thier leaders indirectly through Condi Rice, and Powell before her, and others (i.e. third parties). Obama, as the leader of the free world, wants to meet directly with Amadinejad (sp?) in Iran. There is a HUGE difference. The U.S. has indirectly been speaking with Syria for over a year now, and other countries more than that. Catch up, get your facts right, and stop trying to sell that everyone other than yourself is trying to spin everything!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/world/mi...amp;oref=slogin

Actually, I think you may have pointed out your own hypocrisy here. Or rather, perhaps not your own, but at the very least, our current president's. Mostly for the sake of my own curiosity, would you care to make an argument explaining the so-called "HUGE difference" between the president meeting with a foreign leader or dignitary versus his approval of his staff attending the same meeting?

[Tiger Al 0]

Obama, as the leader of the free world, wants to meet directly with Amadinejad (sp?) in Iran.

And direct diplomacy with Iran is bad how?

[jw 4 au 526]

Mostly for the sake of my own curiosity, would you care to make an argument explaining the so-called "HUGE difference" between the president meeting with a foreign leader or dignitary versus his approval of his staff attending the same meeting?

What are you even asking here? If you cannot see the difference between Bush visiting Demascus or even Tehran versus him sending Condi Rice (OR A THIRD PARTY LIKE THE ORIGINAL POST INDICATES), then you are either ignorant or 15 years old. I was comparing the current foreign policy versus the posted article that was being applauded. In that article, I noticed that neither of those two leaders were meeting face to face...hmmmm. Take the Obama (or anti-Bush) blinders off, please.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Wait wait wait...I thought Obama was naive for wanting to talk to people we disagree with

Looks like Israel agrees with his position of strong diplomacy. Can't wait to see how the Repubs try to spin this one...

JERUSALEM — Israel and Syria said they were holding indirect peace talks Wednesday through Turkish mediators — the first official confirmation of contact between the feuding nations.

There is a HUGE difference.

[Tiger Al 0]

Mostly for the sake of my own curiosity, would you care to make an argument explaining the so-called "HUGE difference" between the president meeting with a foreign leader or dignitary versus his approval of his staff attending the same meeting?

What are you even asking here? If you cannot see the difference between Bush visiting Demascus or even Tehran versus him sending Condi Rice (OR A THIRD PARTY LIKE THE ORIGINAL POST INDICATES), then you are either ignorant or 15 years old. I was comparing the current foreign policy versus the posted article that was being applauded. In that article, I noticed that neither of those two leaders were meeting face to face...hmmmm. Take the Obama (or anti-Bush) blinders off, please.

I suspect that the reason other people do the negotiating is simply because Bush is a buffoon. And I mean that in the most respectful way.

[AUHonors 0]

Mostly for the sake of my own curiosity, would you care to make an argument explaining the so-called "HUGE difference" between the president meeting with a foreign leader or dignitary versus his approval of his staff attending the same meeting?

What are you even asking here? If you cannot see the difference between Bush visiting Demascus or even Tehran versus him sending Condi Rice (OR A THIRD PARTY LIKE THE ORIGINAL POST INDICATES), then you are either ignorant or 15 years old. I was comparing the current foreign policy versus the posted article that was being applauded. In that article, I noticed that neither of those two leaders were meeting face to face...hmmmm. Take the Obama (or anti-Bush) blinders off, please.

The question was clear: I would like to hear your reasoning as to how the president meeting with a leader differs in effect from the secretary of state meeting with one on behalf of the president.

Perhaps instead of calling me ignorant or a fifteen year old, you could learn to read as well as one.

I would like to add, I wear no blinders. My "anti-Bush" (and yes, pro-Obama) positions arose a result of the removal of blinders.

[jw 4 au 526]

Obama, as the leader of the free world, wants to meet directly with Amadinejad (sp?) in Iran.

And direct diplomacy with Iran is bad how?

Hold on a sec...personally I think it is bad for the U.S. to legitimize this guy and what he says and stands for. I personally don't think the most powerful man (or woman) in America, i.e. the President (whoever it ends up being), should meet face to face with this guy. It gives him the feeling of being more important than he really is. I am not saying that we should not have direct of indirect talks with Iran.

Now, my original post simply pointing out the inaccuracies of RIR applauding the news that Israel and Syria were talking through a third party as if it had never been done before. The U.S. recommenced talks with Syria this time last year and were even speaking to Syria before that during the Bush presidency (from the article: "the first high-level diplomatic contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years"). I just saw the original post, and subsequent smart-aleck replies, as the same spin everyone is always accusing the others of, that's all.

[tiger88 934]

This entire thread is pretty stupid since we have communications with syria, including rice going there recently. Of course that won't keep a few resident buffoons from trying to severely twist the facts and grasp at some straws.

Anything to take away from obamas original statement that got him in trouble about how he would sit down immediately w/o conditions and talk with ahmennijad or however the freak you spell his name.

[Tiger Al 0]

Obama, as the leader of the free world, wants to meet directly with Amadinejad (sp?) in Iran.

And direct diplomacy with Iran is bad how?

Hold on a sec...personally I think it is bad for the U.S. to legitimize this guy and what he says and stands for. I personally don't think the most powerful man (or woman) in America, i.e. the President (whoever it ends up being), should meet face to face with this guy. It gives him the feeling of being more important than he really is. I am not saying that we should not have direct of indirect talks with Iran.

Now, my original post simply pointing out the inaccuracies of RIR applauding the news that Israel and Syria were talking through a third party as if it had never been done before. The U.S. recommenced talks with Syria this time last year and were even speaking to Syria before that during the Bush presidency (from the article: "the first high-level diplomatic contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years"). I just saw the original post, and subsequent smart-aleck replies, as the same spin everyone is always accusing the others of, that's all.

Legitimize? He'd be involved in diplomatic relations with a major country. That sounds better to me that launching insults at them through the media.

[Shire5k 19]

Obama, as the leader of the free world, wants to meet directly with Amadinejad (sp?) in Iran.

And direct diplomacy with Iran is bad how?

Hold on a sec...personally I think it is bad for the U.S. to legitimize this guy and what he says and stands for. I personally don't think the most powerful man (or woman) in America, i.e. the President (whoever it ends up being), should meet face to face with this guy. It gives him the feeling of being more important than he really is. I am not saying that we should not have direct of indirect talks with Iran.

Now, my original post simply pointing out the inaccuracies of RIR applauding the news that Israel and Syria were talking through a third party as if it had never been done before. The U.S. recommenced talks with Syria this time last year and were even speaking to Syria before that during the Bush presidency (from the article: "the first high-level diplomatic contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years"). I just saw the original post, and subsequent smart-aleck replies, as the same spin everyone is always accusing the others of, that's all.

Legitimize? He'd be involved in diplomatic relations with a major country. That sounds better to me that launching insults at them through the media.

Exactly. Not talking to the guy isn't going to make him go away, or just magically remove him from the presidency of Iran.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Is Ahmadinejad even going to be President after 2009?

[autigeremt 6,717]

Obama, as the leader of the free world, wants to meet directly with Amadinejad (sp?) in Iran.

And direct diplomacy with Iran is bad how?

BECAUSE IT'S A WASTE OF TIME!!!!

Where have you been since the late 70's????

[autigeremt 6,717]

Is Ahmadinejad even going to be President after 2009?

That's exactly why it's a waste of time. The President of Iran has NO REAL POWER, the clerics/Imams do! And they hate our non-islamic guts. PERIOD!

[Tiger Al 0]

Is Ahmadinejad even going to be President after 2009?

If he's re-elected. His current term will end in August 2009, but he will be eligible to run for one more term in the 2009 presidential elections.

[autigeremt 6,717]

Is Ahmadinejad even going to be President after 2009?

If he's re-elected. His current term will end in August 2009, but he will be eligible to run for one more term in the 2009 presidential elections.

If that's what you want to call elections.

[Tiger Al 0]

Is Ahmadinejad even going to be President after 2009?

If he's re-elected. His current term will end in August 2009, but he will be eligible to run for one more term in the 2009 presidential elections.

If that's what you want to call elections.

I didn't know there was a problem with their elections. What happened?

[autigeremt 6,717]

Iran elects on national level a head of government (the president), a legislature (the Majlis), and an "Assembly of Experts" (which elects the head of state, the Supreme Leader). Also City and Village Council elections are held every 4 years throughout the country. The president is elected for a four year term by the people. The Parliament or Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis-e Shura-ye Eslami) has 290 members, elected for a four year term in multi- and single-seat constituencies. Elections for the Assembly of Experts are held every 8 years. All candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council.

Victory of the Principalists (58,6 %) . Defeat of the Reformists (15,8%) whom 90 % were barred from running on the grounds that they were not sufficiently loyal to the regime.

Participation (first round of the elections) : 47 % of those eligible to vote (27 % in Tehran).

There's a lot wrong with their elections, Al......

Participation (second round of the elections) : 8 % in Tehran.

Looks fair to you??????

[Tiger Al 0]

Iran elects on national level a head of government (the president), a legislature (the Majlis), and an "Assembly of Experts" (which elects the head of state, the Supreme Leader). Also City and Village Council elections are held every 4 years throughout the country. The president is elected for a four year term by the people. The Parliament or Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis-e Shura-ye Eslami) has 290 members, elected for a four year term in multi- and single-seat constituencies. Elections for the Assembly of Experts are held every 8 years. All candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council.

Victory of the Principalists (58,6 %) . Defeat of the Reformists (15,8%) whom 90 % were barred from running on the grounds that they were not sufficiently loyal to the regime.

Participation (first round of the elections) : 47 % of those eligible to vote (27 % in Tehran).

There's a lot wrong with their elections, Al......

Participation (second round of the elections) : 8 % in Tehran.

Looks fair to you??????

Fair is relative. If you've ever taken a sociology class you know the first rule is that you don't apply your society's norms and mores to another society and vice-versa.

I'm not a fan of theocracies, though. Iran is one and if that's what they've chosen for themselves then as long as they operate within their own constitutional rules then who are we to say Ahmadinejad wasn't properly elected.

I thought you knew of some voting irregularities that had occurred, i.e. ballot stuffing, coersive suppression of votes, etc.

[AUHonors 0]

Obama, as the leader of the free world, wants to meet directly with Amadinejad (sp?) in Iran.

And direct diplomacy with Iran is bad how?

Hold on a sec...personally I think it is bad for the U.S. to legitimize this guy and what he says and stands for. I personally don't think the most powerful man (or woman) in America, i.e. the President (whoever it ends up being), should meet face to face with this guy. It gives him the feeling of being more important than he really is. I am not saying that we should not have direct of indirect talks with Iran.

Now, my original post simply pointing out the inaccuracies of RIR applauding the news that Israel and Syria were talking through a third party as if it had never been done before. The U.S. recommenced talks with Syria this time last year and were even speaking to Syria before that during the Bush presidency (from the article: "the first high-level diplomatic contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years"). I just saw the original post, and subsequent smart-aleck replies, as the same spin everyone is always accusing the others of, that's all.

I can understand that. I don't agree that someone on the level of a US president meeting with an Ahmadinejad (I am so tired of typing his name...) needs to legitimize him. Nor do I think it is particularly important if it were to do so. It's not as though we can pretend that by ignoring him he will have no international clout. I do think it is beneficial, in principle, that Bush has had his staff talking through official and unofficial channels. I do find it ironic (and incorrect, for that matter) that he would claim that some (read: Obama) would favor a strategy of so-called appeasement. Especially considering who George Bush has met with (personally) in the past, and that we have, as you pointed out, been talking to Iran for years now.

[jw 4 au 526]

The question was clear: I would like to hear your reasoning as to how the president meeting with a leader differs in effect from the secretary of state meeting with one on behalf of the president.

Look, you are side-stepping the intent of my original post, that this is not any different from the Bush foreign policy. Sorry if I lead us in the wrong direction with my additional personal beliefs.

But to answer your question with an example, there is a reason why your boss meets with certain clients, and sends others under him to meet with the rest. Plain and simple, it's perception. Not to mention a set foreign policy.