| |
[3. Apr 2008|00:12] |
Visādi citādi - es kļūstu par baigāko kuci.
Un patiesībā, ja spētu un būtu iespēja , tad gribētu dzīvot kā visi džezisti pirmajā kursā.
Jā, gribētu! :P
Mans topiks - lūk, ar ko es nodarbošos tuvākās 10 dienas!!!
Un, ja kāds k-ko notā saprot un grib palīdzēt - būšu ĻOTI pretīmnākoša! :DDDD
. Committee on Foreign Affairs II (AFET II)
"The European Union looks forward to being closely involved in all aspects of the post-Annapolis period… The EU prepared not only to continue its involvement, but to shape it and step it up in support of a new, substantive and credible process." (Javier Solana, EU Foreign Policy Chief)
A new horizon or a red herring? What prospects of peace does the Annapolis Conference and the aftermath bring for the Middle East and what measures should the EU take to support the process?
Introduction to the Topic of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs II
1. The Topic
A new horizon or a red herring? What prospects of peace does the Annapolis Conference
and the aftermath bring for the Middle East and what measures should the EU take to
support the process?
‘The European Union looks forward to being closely involved in all aspects of the post‐ Annapolis
period. … The EU is prepared not only to continue its involvement, but to shape it and step it up in
support of a new, substantive and credible process.’ (Javier Solana, EU Foreign Policy Chief
2. Overview
“Of the Palestinian respondents in the West Bank and Gaza strip, a 2007 poll reflects 26%
preference of the bi‐national solution over the two‐state solution, 46% preference of the two‐
state solution over the bi‐national and 28% that preferred neither.” (On Palestinian attitudes
towards the Formation of the National Unity Government, Jerusalem Media &
Communication Centre, March 2007, Poll no. 61, Part One,
<http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2007/no61.pdf>. Retrieved on 1 January 2008). The
conflicts between the state of Israel and the Islamic world are borne out of arguments over
the right to possess land. The displacement and occupation must be seen in the broader
historical context of conflict in the region. The area, including Jerusalem with its holy sites
for the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths has witnessed conflict from 5000 BC. Islamic
Wars, Crusades and Ottoman conquest have scarred the region and brought religion to the
fore as a political force. The British mandate upon Palestine following the dissolution of the
Ottoman Empire approved the Balfour Declaration on 1917 which “facilitated Jewish
immigration” while “ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population
are not prejudiced”. After World War II, the United Nations approved the partition of the
British Mandate of Palestine divided into two states. In 1948, Israel declared independence.
The violence in the wake of this independence resulted in the Palestinian Exodus. These
Palestinian refugees and the demand to return have become key issues within this conflict.
The status of Jerusalem is of vital importance to the resolution of the conflict. A holy city for
all three major monotheistic religions, it was to be administered as a corpus separatum by the
UN. The role of security forces, regional development, the future of Israeli settlements along
areas such as West Bank and Golan Heights and access to natural resources are amongst the
key negotiating points. Among the mediator entities of the Quartet on the Middle East, the
EU has identified the Middle East as “key external relations priority”. The Annapolis
Conference, hosted by the USA, is the most recent of the Middle East peace process
initiatives, focusing on a two‐state solution to the conflict.
Despite the negotiations of the peace process that has spread through decades, none of the
basic issues separating the Israelis and the Palestinians have been resolved. Both demand
control of the West Bank and both claim Jerusalem as their capital. While Israel demands
security guarantees against future terrorist attacks, and the right of pursuit should these
attacks occur, the Palestinians fear that such guarantees would violate their sovereignty.
Fears that the peace process cannot be sustained are evident. Hamas and other groups
responsible for terrorist attacks in Israel have become major players in Palestinian politics,
blurring the chances for peace. Yet within the majority of the populations, both sides seek
peace, and no secure future seems to be possible without it. |
|
|
| |
[3. Apr 2008|01:30] |
Sēžu, lasu par Palestīnas un Izraēlas tiesībām, karu, autoritārajiem režīmiem utt. un klausos, kā trīs metrus tālāk, pie izklātās līmes mocās pielipusī pele. Cenšas sevi atgrauzt no kartona. Un tad man paliek viņu tik ļoti žēl un es jūtos tik vainīga...
Bet Izraēla/Palestīna šķiet k-kas tik tāls, tā nežēlība un stulbās, cilvēku veidotās problēmas - tik lieka greznība.
Peles dzīvība pašlaik šķiet svarīgāka. Viņa taču arī grib tikai dzīvot... es arī. |
|
|
| |
[3. Apr 2008|02:33] |
Mēdzu iztēloties, ko es zīmētu vai spēlētu psihologam, ja tāds būtu uzdevums.
Un vienmēr zinu, ka gribētu uzzīmēt/nospēlēt k-ko tik skaistu, kas nemaz neeksistē
( nē, man šķiet, ka eksistē, tikai es to nevaru ).
Un tur jau arī ir tā problēma.
:) |
|
|
| |
[3. Apr 2008|20:45] |
nerālas sajūtas.
Vnk dirsā.
tiekamies pēc 10 dienām.
Čau. |
|
|
| |
[3. Apr 2008|21:13] |
|
Es esmu tāda lose. Un viss, ko es daru vai nedaru ir slikti un iet šķērsām. |
|
|