Israeli Appeasement of Syria

[Soccersupporter]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

No it doesn't make sense. If you call direct peace talks appeasement, then what do you call indirect peace talks? Doesn't that amount to the same thing? Will people actually be fooled by the appearance of having intermediaries doing the talking instead of the principals?

Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet Union as the "evil empire" yet he managed to have direct talks with the leader of that empire, Gorbachev. Was that appeasement too?

I never called direct talks appeasement. I did say what Obama was saying versus what Israel was doing was different. You must have me mixed up with somebody else. I was trying to explain why some nations prefer to have an intermediary to save face. I guess I won't try to help you understand.

[Jaded]

Originally Posted by Soccersupporter

You obviously don't read too many of his post. This is fun and games for a lot of us. When you take the side of your rival it is always fun to see the reactions.

And it makes the days go by much faster!

[TuborgP]

So we see we are not exactly clear what constitutes direct and in direct negotiations. If it is government to government at any level is it direct? If Israel sends a letter to Turkey and they relay the thoughts to Syria is that indirect? Are talks the same regardless of how done if the goal is reproachment with the other side. If you have your best friend ask a girl to go to the prom with you, didn't you still ask her for a date? Or is it still let's paint the picture the way we want so we can be right.