The truth does not win; the truth is just what is left when everything else is wasted
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Terrorists and Peace NegotiationsPosts: Joined: 2006-06-02
Question: Should Terrorists be invited to sit at a Peace Table?
There is no easy answer, particularly due to the fact that a terrorist for some may be a freedom fighter for others. A typical example is that of the Irgun who, among other terrorist acts, blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing many civilians and was considered a terrorist organisation by the English and an army of liberation by the Israeli.
For the sake of brevity lets consider only Hamas and the Talibans who are considered terrorists by everyone except by those who support and finance them (Iran, Syria, al Qaeda), and whose participation to peace negotiations have been proposed by Romano Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister of a communist-ruled and tottering government, to the dismay of Israel and Washington.
I fail to see how Talibans could be invited to negotiate at a Peace Table since their only and inalienable request is a return to power and the reestablishment of the Sharia Law.
On the other hand, should Hamas renounce to the destruction of Israel and to terrorist methods, and should it accept the running of new elections in all Palestinian Territories, I believe they could be invited to a Peace Table.
Submitted on Thu, 2007-08-16 14:51
Some starting points...
I don't see any point in inviting anyone to discuss peace unless (1) they want peace, (2) they speak for some constituency and are responsible to that constituency, and (3), they are willing to negotiate and compromise on key points. Fulfilling those conditions doesn't guarantee success, but failure to fulfill them pretty much guarantees failure. One of the more interesting cases around is that of Hezbollah, which has a constituency in Lebanon but is actually accountable to its paymasters in Iran and Syria, both of whom have a vested interest in continued conflict between Israel and its neighbors. That being the case, one has to ask why to bother negotiating with Hezbollah at all, why not just negotiate with Iran and Syria, who pull the Hezbollah strings. On the other hand, if they don't want to have peace, why ask them to a peace conference? No easy answers. Negotiation is a useful and valuable thing, but it's not a panacea, and if people aren't willing to compromise, there's sometimes nothing to talk about.
Submitted on Fri, 2007-08-17 03:29
reply Dayuhan wrote:Negotiation is
[quote=Dayuhan]Negotiation is a useful and valuable thing, but it's not a panacea, and if people aren't willing to compromise, there's sometimes nothing to talk about.[/quote]]
You are right. However there are situations (and this is the case for Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine) where peace efforts are under way, either directly or indirectly made by interested people or Organisations, and where the issue is raised that also terrorists should be invited for the negotiations to be fruitful, provided...etc.
And the opinion of some is that no negotiations whatsoever should be engaged with terrorists since it entails a de facto recognition of a terrorist organisation.
Submitted on Fri, 2007-08-17 14:03
reply Post new comment |
|
|
