This is a good read!

[DougTravels]

Obama's approach may start the peace process, we can only hope it works. Please read this with an open mind.

Some militants respond positively to Obama speech
By KARIN LAUB –

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — From Lebanese guerrillas to Saudi preachers, Islamic extremists have warned followers not to be taken in by President Barack Obama's conciliatory words — a sign that some may be nervous about losing support if animosity toward the U.S. fades.

But even moderates warn Obama will have to quickly follow his call for a new relationship with the Islamic world with bold actions to prevent a disappointed backlash.

In his speech in Cairo Thursday, Obama listed confronting "violent extremism" as the top priority in addressing tensions between the U.S. and Muslims. He urged the Islamic world to reject radical ideologies and promised to work aggressively to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He also said the U.S. does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement in the West Bank and endorsed a Palestinian state.

There are already some indications his words are having the desired effect of undercutting extremists. A militant leader in Egypt called on the Taliban to respond positively to Obama's gestures, and Hamas militants in Gaza say they are ready "to build on this speech."

Obama may have managed to "plant the seed of doubt in some minds" of extremists, said Robert Malley, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank. "There was enough ... that represented openings for those who wanted openings."

Yet Obama's eloquent promises were seen as only a small step toward halting the region's drift toward militancy, accelerated in recent years by the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and Washington's perceived pro-Israel bias.

He will be most closely watched on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly his push to get Israel to comply with a settlement freeze. That is something no U.S. administration before him has accomplished.

"Extremists will only be disarmed when the U.S. takes a more neutral stand on Israel," said Abdel Wahab al-Qasab, a Qatar-based analyst.

Obama has so far followed the Bush administration's policy of not talking directly to Hamas, which the U.S. regards as a terrorist organization. But in his remarks in Cairo, he seemed to suggest some basis for believing that Palestinian militants who rule Gaza might be drawn into the peace process.

Obama's Mideast envoy George Mitchell is coming to the region this week to push the president's agenda with Israelis and Palestinians. He is tentatively scheduled to stop in Syria, where Hamas is headquartered. But a State Department spokesman said Mitchell has no plans to talk to Hamas.

Obama's message also contained an assurance that U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban won't stay longer than absolutely necessary. That too may have resonated with militants in that region, said Ahmed Rashid, a Lahore-based analyst and author of a book on the Taliban.

"The extremists used to lie that the U.S. wants military bases in this region," he said.

Essam Derbala, a leader of one of Egypt's largest militant groups, al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya Al-Qaida, told an Egyptian newspaper over the weekend that the Taliban should reciprocate by announcing they will no longer target Americans. That would ensure U.S. troops will eventually leave the region, he said.

Still, many extremists remain wary of the U.S outreach.

Two influential fundamentalist groups, Lebanon's Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Egypt's opposition Muslim Brotherhood, as well as a Saudi preacher, accused Obama of being deceptive. They said he offered soft words to hide unchanged anti-Muslim positions. But that could indicate their nervousness that Obama's strategy could undercut support for militancy.

This week's elections in Lebanon and Iran could give an early indication of sentiments in the region.

In Lebanon, Shiite militant group Hezbollah and its allies tried to unseat a pro-Western coalition in a vote on Sunday. In Iran's June 12 vote, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is facing a pro-reform challenger likely to take a less confrontational approach with the U.S. if elected.

But what many in the Muslim world will be waiting to see is whether Obama delivers on expectations of a tougher U.S. stance toward Israel.

"If the Israelis continue with settlement activity and defiance and President Obama does nothing, the repercussions will be major," said Saeb Erekat, an aide to Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "We're at a crossroads."

While seemingly tougher on Israel than his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has not said what, if any, action would take if Israel defies him on settlements. He also has made clear that he is not dramatically revising the fundamentals of past U.S. policy.

Like Bush, he remains committed to Israel's security, is banking on the unpopular Abbas and refuses to talk to Abbas' rival, Hamas, unless the Islamic militant group recognizes Israel and renounces violence.

Despite disappointment that the U.S. position had not shifted more dramatically, Hamas leaders praised Obama's shift in tone. Hamas is eager to win international acceptance of its rule in Gaza, and has gone out of its way to sound pragmatic.

"We think we can build on this speech," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said Saturday. "We can take positive things from the speech to open communications with Obama and the U.S. administration."

In the end, many Muslims were heartened by Obama's speech because they saw it as a significant change in the tone of discourse with Muslims. They noted he did not use the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" once in the 55-minute address — words that many thought had been devalued under the Bush administration and too often equated with Muslims.

They also heard a more respectful U.S. leader who quoted from the Quran, or Islamic holy book, greeted them in Arabic, and removed his shoes when he toured a Cairo mosque.

One militant Web site that often carries statements from al-Qaida had unusual praise for Obama after the speech, noting his quotations from the Quran demonstrated respect for Islam and branding him the "wise enemy."

AP reporters from across the Middle East contributed to this report.

[greg334]

Ah yea right, this was Carters position too... you may not remember that.

The problem is that Israel is more of a stable country than any terrorist organization and if Obama goes down the path of sacrificing our friend for our enemy, we will pay in the end. It is clear from his rhetoric that he thinks he is control of Israel and he can tell them what to do but Netanyahu won't be pushed around that easily and it seems he has no respect for Obama.

The Arab population don't respect weakness, slighting a freind is just that. THe terrorist are oppertunist and will say anything to get press time but it doesn't matter....

BUT I understand Doug, you don't get politics or diplomacy at all. You may think saying "hello" to Saleh bin Tariq bin Khalid Al-Fulan at the gas station gets you an insight on how the people of the middle east see us and what the culture is like, well you are somewhat in the dark and can beleive what you want.

Carter did well, bringing two parties together but it failed in the end.

[DougTravels]

Well if Greg says, it aint worth trying for world peace it must be so.

[greg334]

NO Doug it is not easily done. I want to see a legal and free Palestine and I do have some hope it will happen but I am thinking that it won't with Obama.

It is complicated and I know that public school doesn't even come close to teaching what's going on there outside of spelling Israel.

[layoutshooter]

Maybe Carter should give BACK his peace prize. There is NO peace, so a REAL man would give it back. Yeah right.

[DougTravels]

NO Doug it is not easily done. I want to see a legal and free Palestine and I do have some hope it will happen but I am thinking that it won't with Obama.

Well for everones sake I hope your string of being so profoundly wrong continues. It would seem you would have to be right about something eventually though.

[layoutshooter]

Doug, IF you had ANY clue about what goes on for REAL in the world you would NOT make statements like that. The tact that Obama is taking has failed every time it has been tried and most likely will fail again. The most that is likely to happen is our enemy with gain strength during this DO NOTHING time. We will pay for this "nice talk" time with many many lives. Bet you won't risk yours to protect this country. You don't have the courage.

[DougTravels]

Doug, IF you had ANY clue about what goes on for REAL in the world you would NOT make statements like that. The tact that Obama is taking has failed every time it has been tried and most likely will fail again. The most that is likely to happen is our enemy with gain strength during this DO NOTHING time. We will pay for this "nice talk" time with many many lives. Bet you won't risk yours to protect this country. You don't have the courage.

Yada Yada Yada same ole song and dance from you, Go ahead insult me, you know nothing of me. I like it that way.

Most American lives lost since Viet Nam by the Bush administration.

[layoutshooter]

I don't wish to make fun of you. You choose NOT to talk as a normal man and only talk in slogans etc. Doug, the world has NEVER been in peace. It is a pipe dream. The idea is to limit the deaths. We did that through out my career and we are still doing it today. I have NO idea where you got your warpped ideas about history but it is a sure thing that you were NOT taught what has happened in the past. That is why you at least seem to have problems with the present. I have asked you repeatedlly to give us an insight into your backround to make understanding your position easier. It is you that refuse. That is a shame.

[cheri1122]

Bet you won't risk yours to protect this country. You don't have the courage.[/QUOTE]

That was untrue, uncalled for, and not even kosher!
Doug has enough courage to speak up here, knowing that several regular posters will vehemently disagree with his opinions - that takes guts.
Mods are supposed to uphold the rule against personal attacks, but that comment IS a personal attack, IMO.

[layoutshooter]

Cherri, I am attempting, maybe in a poor way, to draw Doug out. One cannot just spout slogans and party lines. ANYONE can live have oppinions and protest etc. It is a shame that the ones who protest the most often are the ones that have contributed the least. I have asked Doug nicely in many posts to give us an insight into his credentials. He refuses. I am sorry if I stepped over the line. I will try NOT to do that again, it is NOT my intent. One thing, when Doug makes fun of myself and others to the point of ridicule, which he often does, are you going to cry foul about that? I don't recall you ever doing that. If you have, I missed it. Just an observation.

[DougTravels]

1st of all Mr Shooter I have really enjoyed your last few posts so much that my side hurts from laughing.

I am not the one spouting party lines thats for you guys.

Now you say that I am one who protests, no sir that would be you.

You have been protesting since before the election and the days after.

The 1st couple of days after the election I was banned for reposting a mods statment about killing Obama, but just reading your teary eyed posts/drivel had me in stitches.

Your misguided beliefs have no basis in this glorius new world. Whether or not Obama suceeds, the point is he is trying to fix the problems that your type of thinking has caused (I am referring to people who put W. in charge of the greatest fighting force the world has ever known).
He is trying to fix these problems with words instead of blood and that is a concept that you need to get a grip on.

You and your cohorts here like to point blame at Clinton and Carter when the fact is 911 occured under W's watch and he is the one it falls on. We went to Afghanistan which was the right thing to do. We should have concentrated our efforts there. W. decided that iraq was a threat and using fear/patriot speak tactics got the votes needed and public support to invade a nation which was no threat to us. It costs us thousands of soldiers lives and spread our troops too thin.

This thread is about an attempt to solve what I feel is the worlds greatest problem, Israel/Palestine.
Not just solve it but solve it with words not blood, Say it won't work, fine that is your opinion.

Whether it works or not it is a noble effort-DougTravelsakaTheCoward

[layoutshooter]

What is your backround? How can I even begin to have a honest talk with you if I have NO idea from where you come from? (other than Yipsi) As to party line. I have NO use for EITHER of the two main parties, I think I have made that clear. As to me and my cohorts. You have no idea of which you speak. Most don't. History takes place of Many years and is NOT limited to nice neat 4 or 8 year chunks Just as the root causes of WWII can be traced back to the mid 1500's the problems that lead to 9/11 can be traced back to Carter or further back than that. Why is it that you can NEVER answer my questions about your credentials or backround? That is strange.

[cheri1122]

I don't understand the need to know anybody's 'background' here, when it comes to political/philosophical opinions - the Soapbox was meant as a place to discuss and debate issues, not personalities.
Credentials matter if you're offering advice to newbies on expediting, but what does it matter as far as expressing an opinion?

[DougTravels]

Because he has credentials don't ya know he was a top notch double naut spy like Jethro Bodine, taking calls from Cheney in the middle of the night, which makes him know all.

He wants to teach me some really cool spy stuff, then show me the light, so I think like him.