| We may take Hamaz and Iran to the table. As a matter of fact, all those representatives that are willing to participate.
It may sound insane, but by opting for that variant we have the following :
- a peace around that region, as long as talks continue (and that condition should be taken as a fundament to participate in talks)
- none of side would complain on lack of participation, ever
Why should we pay that much attention to what Hamaz and/or Iran says, since Hamaz is sitting into Iran's pocket (in almost all the crucial - to a state existence - fields) ?
Iran wants to postpone and/or derail the peace-talks at all costs, till Iran is in a possession of enriched uranium. Then, Iran would use that as an argument. Let them have it, as well.
If Iran (along with its supporters) use that (enriched uranium) for WMD purposes as a real threat, annihilate them all wihtout mercy.
The Iranian governing body needs to udnerstand, that WMD is not a toy but a tool capable of erasing some guys from History pages, for good, therfore the use of WMD as an argument is not an option but a deadly necessity instead.
In case with Jerusalem, that city needs to be open to all the people, without any reservation to either Arabs or Jews. It must be safe, as well, in order to prevent some extreme elements from any military activity.
Therefore, a governing body - that would manage Jerusalem - needs to be politically, administratively and socially strong.
However, making Jerusalem as an "open city" seems to be a mistake.
Whether the Annapolis talks bring something really constructive, the only time will witness that. |