From: tclock@orion.oac.uci.edu (Tim Clock)
Subject: Peace Talks Resume
Nntp-Posting-Host: orion.oac.uci.edu
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 59

In article <1993Apr27.194346.8707@dazixco.ingr.com> nstramer@dazixco.ingr.com writes:
>
>Peace Talks Resume Today; Israel to Offer Palestinians New
>			   Proposals
> 
>Israel Radio, KOL YISRAEL, reports on today's resumption in
>Washington of the bilateral peace talks, following a recess which
>lasted over four months. According to the report, Israel is
>expected to offer the Palestinians new proposals regarding the
>authority of the Palestinian Executive Council, general elections,
>control over land and human rights issues in the Territories.
>Israel will express its readiness to give the Palestinians control
>of more land than previously offered. 

>According to the radio
>report, one estimate is that Israel will give the Palestinians
>control over as much as two thirds of the administered lands, as
>well as broad authority on water issues. Israel will seek to
>promote its offer to hold elections in the Territories in hopes of
>strengthening the position of the Palestinian delegation to the
>peace negotiations. According to Israel Radio, the Israeli
>delegation to the bilateral talks with the Palestinians will offer
>greater responsibilities to the Palestinian Executive Council
>allowing it certain legislative capabilities, without making it a
>symbol for Palestinian sovereignty. U.S. Secretary of State Warren
>Christopher invited all the heads of delegations to a gathering
>tonight. It will be the first such event since the Madrid
>conference. Head of the American team at the bilateral peace talks,
>Edward Djerejian, said that tonight's gathering is meant to
>demonstrate the U.S.' active role in the peace process.
> 
I hope, I hope, that we can begin to involve ourselves in the issues
and concerns related to this peace process. We have differing opinions,
certainly, on these aspects but it is clear that we all share the hope
that "resolution" of the tensions and conflict **will** happen.

As we "run to the defense" of our side, there is no need to constantly 
involve ourselves in name-calling. All of us are regularly confused by
the "other's" reactive posting because "they" spend most of the post
applying "labels" and presenting slogans than in just presenting their
honest views. Then...when we "react", we do the same thing.
-------------=--------------------+-----------------------=-----------

Do you, as I do, agree that this (sort) of "peace process" is needed?
What about the particular points mentioned in the article? Is what
Israel is (supposedly) going to propose "good"? Does it go too far?
Not far enough?

If you don't agree that a "peace process" is needed, what is?



 

--
Tim Clock                                   Ph.D./Graduate student
UCI  tel#: 714,8565361                      Department of Politics and Society
     fax#: 714,8568441                      University of California - Irvine
Home tel#: 714,8563446                      Irvine, CA 92717