Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Media Reports From The Middle East Are Saying That President Trump Wants To Host A Mideast Peace Summit

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and US President Donald Trump. Reuters

Israel Today: Trump Reportedly Looking to Host Mideast Peace Summit

Following his meeting with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi on Monday, Arab media is reporting that US President Donald Trump is looking to host a Mideast peace summit as early as this summer.

And that has more than a few people in Israel concerned.

While Israel and Egypt have enjoyed close cooperation under Al-Sisi, the Egyptian leader reportedly told Trump that peace between Israel and the Arabs should be based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The Israeli right is getting nervous .... Trump's surprisingly conventional Israel policy (Politico)

5 comments:

B.Poster said...

America's resources are very, very limited right now which makes them very, very precious. Anyone wishing to lead needs to be a wise steward of those resources and treat them with the utmost care and respect.

Is a "Mid East peace summit" a wise way to spend those precious and limited resources? I would say the answer to that question would be a resounding "NO!!"

fred lapides said...

I am not sure what you mean by "resources." Military? Financial?
How would a summit spend limited resources? Just trying for some clarification.

B.Poster said...

It will take financial resources to set up the summit and to provide for the security of the participants. Also, military and security will need to be used to provide security for the participants. Not only is their money involved but these resources need to be drawn from other places. The money spent here could probably be spent on other projects such as infrastructure development , health care, and actually I could think of a number ways that better represent the interests of the American people than a so called :Mid East peace summit."

Another problem here is the time spent involved. When we spend time in areas that aren't productive, we don't have this time to spend elsewhere. You could think of this in terms of opportunity costs. We spend resources in one area they are not available elsewhere. Frankly the time of POTUS could be better spent on things like regulatory reform, healthcare reform, doing what he can to promote advance projects to upgrade our dilapidated infrastructure.

Essentially with so many issues to address combined with extremely limited financial, military and other security resources this type of thing has little chance of success and if did very little rate of return for us combined with extremely high costs in terms of resources needed along with the time and energy that are going to be expended that really should be being spent in areas that advance the interests of America and the American people. I hope this clarifies.

Anonymous said...

Booster..your analysis is wrong as always. ..don't think you can convince the US to retreat from the global stage. ..because that's what you want

B.Poster said...

Anonymous,

If one posts on sites such as this offering theeir well researched theories as I do here, we our analysis will sometimes be in error, however, my analysis is not always wrong nor is it generally wrong. Examples where my analysis has been correct are as follows. 1.) When Mr. Trump first got the nomibation I predicted on this site and elsewhere that he would be the next president. 2.) I predicted that BREXIT would prevail. While my confidence in those positions did waver toward the end, the initial analysis was correct.

3.)When ISIS first arose, I explained here and elsewhere that this is a VERY tough enemy and not some "jay vee" team as certain US officials called it.

4.)When the US chose to to take the side of the Kiev government in Ukraine, I warned that this was a stupid move and imposing sanctions on Russia was even dumber. This accomplished the following. Russia had a nascent opposition to Putin. Sanctions cut the legs out from under it, drove the people into the arms of Putin, and reinforced the idea of America as a foreign devil who wishes to visit harm on the Russian people. This combined with such visible support for the opposition of a government friendly to Russia in favor of corrupt chumps presented some extremely bad optics and played a big role in excaberating tensions in Cold War II all for no good reason. This is precisely what I oredicted would happen.

Points 3 and 4 have come down exactly as I said they would. As such, my analysis is not always wrong. I'm pretty I've touched on these things in other posts on this site.

You use the term "global stage." This is NOT a play. The world is NOT a stage. This is

At no point have I suggested the US should "retreat." What I have suggested is to act in our interests and in ways that advance them. Things that are a net drain on our resources with no corresponding benefit are bad investments. Very respectfully please read the posts in there entirety before comnenting. Had you done so you would be aware of this.

You use the term "global stage." This is NOT a play. The world is NOT a stage. This is EXTREMELY serious business. Very respectfully by using such terminology a non serious mind may be at work. In which case, perhaps you should consider leaving serious analysis to serious people freeing you up to focus on the trivial. Perhaps you didn't mean to use suvh terminology.