Talking with Hostile, Terror-Supporting, Implacable Enemies

Israel and Syria Say They Are Holding Peace Talks in Turkey

Israel and Syria have begun indirect peace talks, mediated by Turkey, aimed at reaching a comprehensive peace accord, the three governments announced in a coordinated statement Wednesday. The disclosure was the first public confirmation of the negotiations by all three sides. The public disclosure that Israel, albeit indirectly, is talking with Syria, one of its most implacable enemies and a sponsor of groups that both Israel and the United States consider terrorists, came less than a week after President Bush, speaking to the Israeli Parliament, created a stir by criticizing those who would negotiate with “terrorists and radicals.”

Meanwhile, in the most powerful country in the world:

McCain Assails Obama Over Readiness To Talk With Hostile Foreign Leader

Sen. John McCain stepped up his assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials at a rally in Miami yesterday, criticizing Obama’s willingness to talk to Cuban President Raul Castro and other hostile foreign leaders without preconditions.

Comments

  1. Grim wrote:

    Former President Carter was in Syria like a week ago. “Indirect” talks aren’t the same thing as the President himself coming to spend time negotiating with you.

    Furthermore, Israel is well-positioned to “indirectly” talk with Syria, because they have demonstrated that they are also in the position to blow up its nuclear weapons plants. If President Obama is willing to bomb some Iranian reactors first, he can follow it up by talking all he wants. That’s the time to talk.

    Posted 21 May 2008 at 1:06 pm

  2. Stephen wrote:

    I guess we must have also had at least three shooting wars with them, and share a disputed mountainous border region.

    Posted 21 May 2008 at 3:04 pm

  3. Grim wrote:

    No, no: just bombing the reactors is fine. Call it “an acceptable precondition.” :)

    Posted 21 May 2008 at 3:45 pm

  4. David C. wrote:

    What does Israel negotiating with its neighbors have to do with U.S. policy on who we should hold talks with?

    Posted 21 May 2008 at 4:59 pm

  5. John the Marine wrote:

    What does Israel negotiating with its neighbors have to do with U.S. policy on who we should hold talks with?

    Absolutely nothing

    Furthermore since when does:
    Talking to hostile enemies with out preconditions = Negotiations?

    Posted 21 May 2008 at 8:38 pm

  6. EnlightenedLayperson wrote:

    What does Israel negotiating with its neighbors have to do with U.S. policy on who we should hold talks with?

    At the very least, it calls into question to assumption that talk = surrender that Bush, McCain and so forth are making.

    Posted 22 May 2008 at 12:03 am

  7. John the Marine wrote:

    I just read a headline ( Fox News)that said, “Isreal: Syria Must Cut Militant Ties If It Wants Peace.”

    It didn’t say,”Isreal enters Into Unconditional Talks With Syria.”

    So, are we still using the Obama is advocating the same policy as Iareal? Or is it possible that he is alone in his enthusiasm for unconditional talks with pariahs?

    Posted 22 May 2008 at 7:04 am

  8. Davebo wrote:

    What were the preconditions of the US to the Paris peace talks?

    If America never talked to it’s enemies without pre conditions John McCain would still be in a cell in Hanoi.

    Posted 22 May 2008 at 11:26 am

  9. John the Marine wrote:

    What were the preconditions of the US to the Paris peace talks?

    Good question, here is an answer:

    The major breakthrough came on 8 October 1972. North Vietnam had been disappointed by the results of the its Nguyen Hue Offensive (known in the West as the Easter Offensive), and feared increased isolation if Nixon’s efforts at détente significantly improved U.S relations with the chief communist powers, the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, who were backing North Vietnamese military effort. In a meeting with Kissinger, Tho significantly modified his bargaining line, allowing that the Saigon regime could remain in power and that negotiations between the two South Vietnamese parties could develop a final settlement during a ceasefire. Within ten days the secret talks drew up a final draft. Kissinger held a press conference in Washington during which he announced that “peace is at hand.”

    You can look into it further at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords

    Basically the Nixon Administration strengthened its hand against N. Vietnam and then demanded and obtained preconditions for talks to proceed via secret negotiations. Sounds like a reasoned approach regarding dealing with ones enemies doesn’t it? We needed out of Nam, Nixon had inherited a treaty process from Johnson that he wanted changed. Also, Tricky Dick let Hanoi know he ment business by giving them a “wiff of grapeshot” by implimenting Operation Line Backer II. The process might have played out better for S. Vietnam had not ole Richard got himself caught up in Watergate. Too bad for the boatpeople I guess.

    This idea that talks with out conditions is the norm in dealing with enemies and always has been does not reconcile with history. Furthermore only the very naive would assert that we should talk to anyone, no matter how odious, with out any pre-set conditions and/or demands. So, keeping on trying to make the case for Moonbeam Obama’s approach of hugs for thugs.

    Posted 22 May 2008 at 2:10 pm

  10. Davebo wrote:

    Err…

    In a meeting with Kissinger, Tho significantly modified his bargaining line, allowing that the Saigon regime could remain in power and that negotiations between the two South Vietnamese parties could develop a final settlement during a ceasefire.

    You may want to re-read that.

    Posted 23 May 2008 at 1:04 pm

« Reason enough to vote out the GOP
Anyone miss John Edwards? »