Se pot urmari pe video declaratiile oficiale care au avut loc inante de dineul de la White House.
Dineul a fost invaluit in mister, ferit de ochii lumii...,
insa eu, pestisorul..., tot am reusit sa ma strecor,
neputind lipsi de la un atare eveniment. Cu mari eforturi am obtinut chiar si o imagine pentru prezentul blog.
In ciuda prezenţei obisnuitului cinism sau
scepticism, ambele legate de tema
"mideast peace talks"...,
iata ca incep sa fie exprimate si crimpeie de incredere ca...,
de data asta, exista sanse sa se realizeze un pas inainte.
Citeva articole in acest sens fie in presa israeliena, fie in cea americana, explorind factorii care par sa justifice optimismul actual:
- For Once, Hope in the Middle East: the 4 factors that... (NYT: Martin Indyk)
- I believe in Obama, and this is why I’m optimistic. (Y net: Sever Plocker)
- Peace? Yes, they can ! (Y net)
Foarte interesanta mi s-a parut si conferinta de presa a lui Mitchell
in urma negocierilor care au avut loc in prima zi.
Read More...
QUESTION:
Senator, Laurie Ure, CNN.
Peace negotiations between the parties have taken place, obviously, several times in the past. What is Secretary Clinton doing differently than her predecessors, including President Clinton?
MR. MITCHELL:
Although my comment on that is not constrained by the agreement which I earlier described – (laughter) – there are other constraining factors – (laughter) – which come into play that somehow come right into my head as you completed the question. (Laughter.) Since I was not a part of the immediately preceding administration, although I did serve at the request of President Clinton and the then prime minister of Israel and the president of the Palestinian Authority as chairman of an international commission in 2000 and 2001 following the eruption of the second intifada, I’ll tell you my own belief.
First, we can’t be deterred by the fact that previous efforts didn’t succeed. The cause of peace is so important, so just, indeed – I’m not trying to use hyperbole – so noble, that it must continue notwithstanding prior efforts at failure. Indeed, an argument can be made to the reverse that the prior failures create an even more compelling imperative to proceed now.
Secondly, with respect to past efforts, as I said previously, not today but at an earlier briefing, we think that the best approach is to carefully review them, as we have done, and to try to draw the best lessons out of each one, not be bound by any particular practice or process or procedure, and always trying to keep in mind the dynamic changes in the region that have occurred in what is, in historical terms, a very short period of time.
So we don’t – I’ve been asked often, “Is this a continuation of Annapolis? Is it a continuation of some other process?” Our view is this is an effort that will try to learn from the lessons of the past, take the best and bring them forward, but not be bound by any label or category or previous process. Everything should be judged on the basis of what it will do to advance – help us advance to achieve the ultimate goal of peace in the region.
Now, one obvious difference is that President Obama is the only president in recent times, to my knowledge, to have established this as a high priority immediately upon taking office and to have acted immediately at that time. There have been many very well-written books on the history of the past 20 years. I think I’ve read most of them. And it’s very clear that at least in a couple of instances, time ran out. Indeed, the authors of several of these books used exactly those words to describe the problem: They ran out of time at the end.
Well, this President, I believe, will succeed. But as he said yesterday, neither success nor failure is predetermined or guaranteed, but it isn’t going to be because time ran out at the end. So that’s a vast difference.
I have a high opinion of the men and women who served in these tasks in the past. I know most of them personally, and I don’t think you can attribute inability to achieve a result to their individual or collective failures. They are the product of the difficulty and what many regard as the intractability of the problems and issues. But we believe that there are dynamic changes that occur. There are the more obvious difficulties that lie ahead for both sides if they don’t reach agreement that may be even more obvious than they were five or eight or 12 years ago.
You have to remember that these leaders must weigh two things. They must weigh the difficulties they face in getting agreement and they must weigh the difficulties they will face if they don’t get an agreement. And we believe it’s a very powerful argument that if you subject these to careful, reasoned, and rational analysis, to conclude that the latter difficulties, if they don’t get an agreement, will be much greater and have a much more profound impact on their societies than those they face in trying to get an agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment