Skip to main content

It is inevitable there will be talk

Say what you will, eventually even those opposed to one another have to sit down and talk.   Just look at the USA.    After countless years of refusing to speak with the Taliban that is exactly what is now to happen.    And Hamas?    That looks increasingly likely, as Paul McGeough suggests in this piece in The Sydney Morning Herald "Peace talks call for a truly even hand".

"The US is now ready to talk to the Taliban, after months of diplomatic spadework by Qatar. And the Emir would be entitled to ask Obama: what would it take for Washington to talk to Hamas? Did someone say bring in the diplomatic jack-hammers?

Unlike the Taliban, which stole government in Afghanistan, Hamas was fairly elected as the governing party of the Palestinian occupied territories in 2006.

The Taliban is responsible for the deaths of more than 3300 US and allied troops, about 10,000 Afghan security personnel and thousands of Afghan civilians. By contrast, the US Congressional Research Service attributes the death of ''more than 400'' Israelis and ''more than 25 US citizens'' to attacks by Hamas in Israel.

Given that the impact of Taliban violence dwarfs that of Hamas, how does Obama go to peace talks on Afghanistan without preconditions? In the past, US officials have insisted the Taliban must reject Al-Qaeda, renounce violence and recognise the new Afghan constitution.

By this week all that had been watered down to maybe the Taliban could disown Al-Qaeda in the future; and it would be nice if the insurgents would embrace the rights of women and minorities in the constitution.

By contrast, Washington has been rigid in its demands that Hamas renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept all deals done by other Palestinian leaders with Israel and the rest of the world before it will engage with the Islamist movement.

Hamas spurned Al-Qaeda years ago, and while the Taliban is cosying up with Tehran, Hamas's relationship with Iran has cooled because the Palestinian movement refuses to back Iran's key regional ally, Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad.

Insisting on preconditions the other side cannot accept is a great ruse by which to be seen to be posturing about peace, while doing little or nothing to achieve it. Unless, that is, the Qatari Emir knows something Obama is not letting on about yet.

Hamas officials were quoted claiming US representatives had been present at a meeting between Hamas and European officials two weeks ago.

The State Department issued a denial of sorts, saying the claims ''are not true''. Indeed."



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Donald T: First seduced..... then betrayed!

All those supporters of Trump - who, heaven's only knows, got him headed for the White House - are in a for more than a rude awakening and shock.   Whatever Trump "promised" is just not going to happen....as Paul Krugman so clearly spells out in his latest op-ed piece "Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump" in The New York Times.

"Donald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left behind by a changing economy and society. And they’re about to get their reward — the same reward that, throughout Mr. Trump’s career, has come to everyone who trusted his good intentions. Think Trump University.

Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed.

The evidence of that coming betrayal is obvious in the choice of an array of pro-corporate, anti-labor figures for key positions. In particular, the most important story of the week — seriously, people, stop focusing on Trum…

Snooping..... at its worst

The Brits have just brought in legislation which allows for unprecedented "snooping" in a Western democracy - says Edward Snowden.   Let truthdig explain....

"On Tuesday, the United Kingdom instated the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, a piece of legislation described by whistleblower Edward Snowden as “the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy.”

The law, informally known as the “Snooper’s Charter,” spent over a year in Parliament before it was passed. The Guardian reported:

"The new surveillance law requires web and phone companies to store everyone’s web browsing histories for 12 months and give the police, security services and official agencies unprecedented access to the data.

It also provides the security services and police with new powers to hack into computers and phones and to collect communications data in bulk. The law requires judges to sign off police requests to view journalists’ call and web records, but the measure has been descri…

A "Muslim Register"

Outrageous is the word which immediately comes to mind - the idea of a  Muslim Register which Trump has floated.     And how and by or through whom would this Registry comes into being?    Let The Intercept explain.....

"Every American corporation, from the largest conglomerate to the smallest firm, should ask itself right now: Will we do business with the Trump administration to further its most extreme, draconian goals? Or will we resist?

This question is perhaps most important for the country’s tech companies, which are particularly valuable partners for a budding authoritarian. The Intercept contacted nine of the most prominent such firms, from Facebook to Booz Allen Hamilton, to ask if they would sell their services to help create a national Muslim registry, an idea recently resurfaced by Donald Trump’s transition team. Only Twitter said no.

Shortly after the election, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty wrote a personal letter to President-elect Trump in which she offered her congratulation…