tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12959942.post114918346966565921..comments2023-07-08T09:08:14.478-04:00Comments on Divinity is in the Details: Coverage of Iran/Olmert/DisengagementZThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00389399563327644386noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12959942.post-1149517519376417482006-06-05T10:25:00.000-04:002006-06-05T10:25:00.000-04:00interesting, so there are two issues here: one is ...interesting, so there are two issues here: one is would the agreement be entirely bilateral? It may be, but it certainly shouldnt HAVE to be. I wouldnt want to preclude a large agreement that involves the US, EU, Quarter, and/or Arab League. <BR/><BR/>That said, I actually think the larger is the focus on negotiations rather than the agreement - as the details of such an agreement (bilateral or no) have mostly been worked out in such places as the Taba Accords and the Geneva Accords. The pressing question in my mind is how do we return to negotiations, whether bilateral or multilateral, rather than focusing on unilateral politices such as convergence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12959942.post-1149189335413696752006-06-01T15:15:00.000-04:002006-06-01T15:15:00.000-04:00rdl, an agreement would still be between israel an...rdl, <BR/>an agreement would still be between israel and the PA right. are you suggesting that the quartet, eu, us, jordan, or anyone else would actually be a party in the agreement? <BR/>your phrasing is certainly more clear but i don't necesaily think that a negotiated, bi-lateral agreement precludes US/UN/Quartet/Whomever invovlment. a bilateral agreement need not imply a bilateral negotiation. right?ZThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00389399563327644386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12959942.post-1149188719172373612006-06-01T15:05:00.000-04:002006-06-01T15:05:00.000-04:00You're a "District man". sounds fancy.You're a "District man". sounds fancy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12959942.post-1149186284794360392006-06-01T14:24:00.000-04:002006-06-01T14:24:00.000-04:00well said! though a "bilateral agreement" isnt ac...well said! though a "bilateral agreement" isnt actually what we want, since this is only going to happen with sustained involved of the US, the Quartet, and the Arab League, and any agreement will probably involve those parties as well. what we want is a "negotiated, two-state solution."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com