Huh? Joschka Fischer? The leftist Joschka Fischer? The revolutionary Joschka Fischer? My gob is smacked.

Joschka Fischer long ago completed his evolution from from street-fighting leftist to one of the most intelligent, articulate, engaging and right-minded politicians Germany, and indeed Europe, has seen in post-war times. A leftist still perhaps, nominally, but certainly a man concerned with the world the way it really is. As Germany's FM he was a true friend of Israel -- not a "friend" in the superficial George W. Bush sense of giving indiscriminate, carte-blance support to anything and everything Israel wants to do, but someone who really cared, much in the way that many moderate Jews do, about the best interests of Israel (a point of view that holds peace and security to be achievable and to be more important than land). The man is a star; I have always thought so.

Hello. My english is far from good. I am portuguese . I have been following events in the midle East. I read the fischer article but look at his conclusions:
" How then, will Israel define its security in the future? Currently, Israel emphasizes massive deterrence, but it would be well advised to utilize the political and diplomatic possibilities presented by this war and take the initiative from a position of strength to offer a comprehensive peace to all those who are ready to recognize its existence /.../ This war offers a chance for lasting peace. We must not let it slip away. ".

He got it wrong again. Israel is not emerging in a position of strenght .On the contrary.

" The fact that Israel has been fighting for two weeks against a relatively small militia in Lebanon - comprising several thousand fighters - is itself seen by the Arab masses as a kind of victory.".
How the Arab world views the conflict
Khaled Abu Toameh, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 26

http://www.chatarea.com/MdioOriente.m3715002

Israel is not winning the war . It is losing the war therefore it wont be in a position of strenght as fishcher claims. Besides as he did wrote in the beginning of article this is a war by proxy. The real foe , is undefeated. So how can this war offer chance of lasting peace ?

Visit my board, please.
In it you will find tonnes of texts.

Besides i wonder if israelis will be in the mood for further withdrawals. The problem with high ranking officials is that they earn a lot of money so they seem to enjoy more going out and eat good food in expensive restaurants than to study the issues.I doubt israelis are in the mood for further peace processes with good reason. Back in May 2000 barak did withdraw to UN recognized lines. Since then it has been attacked by hezzbolah.(Soldiers kidnaped in 2000 . 2006 , shelling of israeli towns between 2001 and 2006 ). Did the international comunity or the UN condemn the hezzbolah kidnapings of 2000 ? No. They just ignored it. But there is more, According to the UN sheba farms , a strip of land in the golan heights , does belong to Syria . It does happen that since 2000 hezzbola has been waging a war of atrition to have sheba farms back , and the UN seems to agree to include these strip of land in the negociations between the lebanese and Israel. In other words : The UN does make a mockery ot itself since in 2000 it had agreed that israel had withdraw to the UN border

David Fromkin's excellent study of the World War I peace settlement's effect on the Middle East was titled A peace to end all peace. That title would be equally apt for a proposal put forth by Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and France for ending the current round of fighting in Lebanon.
quote

According to Haaretz, the proposal calls for an immediate, unconditional cease-fire, followed later by implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which mandates Hizbullah's disarmament and the deployment of the Lebanese army along the Israel-Lebanon border.

/..../

EVEN MORE serious, however, is the proposal that Hizbullah's disarmament be conditioned on an Israeli withdrawal from Shaba Farms, thereby rendering meaningless the UN's own certification, just six years ago, that Israel had withdrawn from every last inch of Lebanese territory.

This certification, unanimously issued by the UN Security Council following Israel's pullout from Lebanon in May 2000, was based on the recommendation of UN experts who carefully studied old maps of the border and compared them to Israel's withdrawal line.

However, Hizbullah rejected the UN's determination, claiming that an additional bit of land, Shaba Farms, was also Lebanese (the UN experts deemed this land Syrian). Therefore, it announced, it had every right to continue attacking Israel in order to "liberate" Shaba Farms.

SUCCESSIVE Lebanese governments - both the former Syrian-controlled government and the new government elected following Syria's ouster from Lebanon - promptly backed this claim, and the international media followed suit: Within months, the UN determination that Shaba Farms was not Lebanese had virtually disappeared from coverage of the region; instead, the area was referred to as "disputed territory."

Now the Saudi-Lebanese-French proposal seeks to reverse the UN's finding entirely: By declaring that Israel must withdraw from additional territory before Beirut is obliged to take the steps needed to stop attacks against Israel from Lebanon, it essentially implies that Israel is still occupying part of Lebanon, and therefore continued attacks against it are justified.

Moreover, the UN itself appears to be backing this proposal: While UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has not (as of this writing) formally thrown his weight behind it, the UN delegation that he sent to the region last week to draft recommendations on ending the fighting reportedly told him that the Shaba Farms issue must be resolved as part of any deal, since otherwise Hizbullah would continue using it as a pretext to attack Israel.

IF THE international community gives into this Hizbullah blackmail it will decisively preclude peace in the Middle East for decades to come - because it will ensure that no deal is actually final. Instead, each agreement will merely be the starting point for a new round of territorial claims.

Clearly, Israel would have no incentive to withdraw from additional territory under these circumstances.

The point of withdrawing fully to a recognized international border is to (a) eliminate the other country's reasons for hostilities and (b) ensure the international community's backing should the other country nevertheless continue hostilities. If instead, the international community decides that continued attacks against Israel are grounds for redrawing the recognized international border in the aggressor's favor, such withdrawals are not only pointless from Israel's standpoint, they are actually counterproductive, simply inviting further territorial losses, salami-style.

(end of quote)
Recent events in wich israel was attacked in the 67 borders and the international comunity did nothing to support israel will give a further blow to those who claim that if only israel did withdraw for the 67 borders in case of being attacked the world comunity would support Israel.
The atitude of the world community when Israel was attacked in the may 67 borders speaks volumes. The world community did not suport israel. May 2000 Barak a peacenik insisted israel should withdraw to international recognized borders exactly because he believed that in case Israel got attacked by Hezzbolah in the future the world would stand by israel.
That did proove to be another ilusion.
Back to joshua and his meals .

It looks seasoned leaders are not aware of these small details . The dream land for peace it agonizing.