Article

2006-04-16 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Arabs advise Hamas to adopt Arab peace initiative

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-04-16 00:21|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Which peace initiative are they refering to? The one where the Jews all throw themselves into the Mediterranean or the one where the Jews throw themselves into the Red Sea?

Posted by SteveS 2006-04-16 11:01|| 2006-04-16 11:01|| Front Page Top

#2 I read the suggestion offered here some weeks ago during the Dubai Ports tempest that we should reciprocate as precisely as possible the same rules and restrictions on others that are applied to us, no more, no less. It has been resonating with me ever since.

I call it Level Field / Fair Play diplomacy - a better, catchier, name is welcome.

All Western nations should immediately adopt this approach. Where two nations differ in how they treat each others citizens, item by item the more restrictive takes precedence.

The US should do it immediately. No exceptions. It will shake out many inequities and end some of our own bullshit, such as goofy subsidy systems which made sense some time long ago, but are now simply giveaways which have become hardcore habit, not good economic policy.

In the Middle East, we have Israel calling for the total destruction of the "palestinians" - march them into the Dead Sea, LOL, for example. I could easily get behind that. We have America restricting Saudis and other GCC Arabs from owning US-based companies or property - limited to no more than 49% of controlling interest. All GCC citizens in the US must have a licensed sponsor who has pre-paid bonds which may be seized in the event of misbehavior, and repeated offenses by their people result in license revocation and bond forfeiture. Mexicans? They can't vote, use public services, own land, publicly demonstrate or engage in any other political activity, and may be deported on a whim. Regards Europe, the government subsidies will blow the bullshit sky high. No government-subsidized company may compete head-to-head with a private company - eliminated from bidding. Sue the hell out of any corporation that engages in true monopolistic acts. But do NOT allow punishing corporations for simply being successful, such as the EU shakedown of Microsoft. No security-related business may be foreign-owned under any circumstances. Where there are no domestic taker, then create a public agency which charges fees to pay for its services. Double taxation? Nope. Dual citizenship? Nope. Oath of Allegiance? You godamned bet. You get the idea. Extend as needed.

It's time has definitely come. Reciprocal rules, no exceptions. Get pissed off. Make it so.

Posted by Uliting Uleating7048 2006-04-16 11:33|| 2006-04-16 11:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Throw in some domestic corrections, such as the Flat Tax, an elected Judiciary, Line Item Veto, solid rules to end unrelated riders (e.g. on defense and highways bills) in the first place, eliminate all "earmarks" (the McCain/Bayh joke is lip-service) and other Tough Love (TM) solutions that have been drowned out by the special interests, pseudo-hawks, true-blue LLL liars who "support the troops" but not their mission, and pork-barrel addicts and you're really talking. I say let West Virginia be West Virginia, LOL.

And add ending foreign aid to any country that doesn't prove by action, not words, to be a true ally in all security matters where the interests SHOULD be common.

If we do reach the point where the decks are actually cleared for action domestically, and I think you know what I mean, then instead of the same old games we might as well excise as many of those tumors, bad habits, and legacy mistakes as we can stand, too. No more bridges to nowhere. We're already there in many respects.

A wishful thinking personal pet peeve post script: Reduce or remove the congressional oversight on placement, opening, closing, etc of any and all military bases, foreign and domestic. I think there's a fair-to-middling chance that it's unconstitutional. A solid case can be made that it's within the purview of the President regards national security. I'd love to hear the case made that the congress should have overriding authority on how the military is structured and deployed. Funding is theirs (House) and treaties are theirs (Senate), but where else does their constitutional authority in this arena take precedence over the security of the nation, which belongs to the President? That would save untold billions of wasted $'s, too. On the side, it would be very telling if the congress had to vote on defense issues without any pork in the mix. So much ass coverage would vaporize instantly revealing who is actually who on defense and security issues. Everyone is guilty in some degree, I believe. Ah well, it'll never happen.
/wishfulthinkingpetpeevepostscript

Posted by Clese Craviling6370 2006-04-16 14:09|| 2006-04-16 14:09|| Front Page Top

#4 "Peace initiative", what a grotesque and perverted word for these ppl in that part of the world. Like "duty" from the SS guards in Auschwitz, Belsen or Buchewald.

Posted by Duh! 2006-04-16 19:17|| 2006-04-16 19:17|| Front Page Top

23:49 CrazyFool
23:42 CrazyFool
23:27 zazz
23:26 Barbara Skolaut
23:22 twobyfour
23:17 john
23:17 RD
23:15 john
23:00 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:58 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:56 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:54 Lancasters Over Dresden
22:49 Dave D.
22:40 Bama Marine
22:40 borgboy
22:39 RWV
22:38 Mike Kozlowski
22:35 Redneck Jim
22:28 Bobby
22:26 Redneck Jim
22:26 Bobby
22:20 Redneck Jim
22:19 Alaska Paul
22:18 JosephMendiola