Well, it is always pleasant to share a meal with someone special. In a good company the meal will taste even better, moreover, it can turn into a fascinating talk, full of reminiscences, light humor or witty jokes.
If I could invite anyone to dinner, I would not bother people from the past. I consider there is no use to dive into past. What is gone is gone, and if we depart with some people on our life way, it is better to remember them the way we used to know them before departure. Besides, it is reasonable to value the people who do not leave you whatever happens. If you have passed much time side by side and you are still together, it is the best option for a good dinner.
First of all, I would invite my mother. On the one hand, she would be pleased to spend time together, as we see each other so seldom, and I would be happy to satisfy her, as I am her lifetime debtor for everything she has given to me, for her life and care. Now it is my time to take care of her.
Secondly, I would invite my two best friends. One will create the light, free and easy atmosphere, as he is communicative and knows a lot of jokes and tricks, and he can always cheer up anyone. We have a lot of hilarious stories to remember and it is always enjoyable to repeat them. Another one is always understanding and attentive. She is a good psychologist and can always take the hint. Besides, we have many common interests, music and literature in particular, so we would enjoy discussing some new book or album.
July 13, 2015 |Free Essay Sample Papers|Tags: Invite To Dinner
(Next day I called Shamir, who said, "I always opposed U.S. forces to defend Israel, and I don't remember any such proposal to me, because I always opposed withdrawal from the Golan." Three memories conflict; go figure.)
At the dinner table, with Secretary Christopher between us, Rabin charged I had been "brainwashed by the Gang of Three" (a trio of Likud spokesmen). He suggested that my Times colleague Abe Rosenthal and I should read Evans and Novak. (Gee, what a turnover in the Amen Corner.)
I was deeply perturbed -- not at my old friend Rabin, with whom I can disagree without rancor -- but at my lack of notepaper at a newsworthy moment. Chris came to the rescue, slipping me one of the index cards he had used for his toast.
Did Israel really need the Americans on the border to make a deal with Syria?
"The gap in our negotiations," the Prime Minister said, lighting a cigarette that nearly asphyxiated Donna Shalala, seated to his right, "is not related to the presence of American troops. It is not a major issue."
Great, said I; if it's no big deal to the Syrians, and it's so disruptive to Israelis and Americans, then why not drop it?
"It could become one," he replied.
C'mon, Yitzhak, don't you want those U.S. troops on the Golan to sell your withdrawal from the Golan to Israelis?
"If I listened to public opinion, I wouldn't do anything," he countered gutsily. "As long as I have a majority of one, I'll continue."
Secretary Christopher, taking Rabin's side in this dinner-debate, asked what my reasons were for opposing U.S. "monitors." I said I'd answer that in a column, and he smiled, "I withdraw the question."
Some reasons are: (1) the U.S. would then become "neutral" in the struggles between Syria and Israel, in lieu of continuing as Israel's ally -- a State Department Arabist's evenhanded dream; (2) the U.S. troops would become targets of terrorist attempts to upset the peace process; (3) Israel's freedom of action would be compromised, with no pre-emptive action possible without U.S. permission; (4) America's admiration for Israelis as militarily self-reliant would be replaced by resentment about risking U.S. lives patrolling their borders.
Rabin brushed all that off. "Menachem Begin set the precedent by arranging for American monitors in the Sinai," he argued. But wouldn't Golan units be at much greater risk? Chris slipped me another index card. "Just the opposite," Rabin held. He waved aside what happened to U.S. marines in nearby Lebanon.
I tried to tell him that if he bottomed his negotiation with Syria on being able to deliver American troops to the Golan, the negotiation would fail. Bill Clinton, who has foolishly promised both Rabin and Hafez al-Assad to "make the case" for a permanent American border patrol, would lose that case.
Why are senators holding credentials as unwavering supporters of Israel -- Moynihan, D'Amato, Packwood -- against an American tripwire on the Golan? Why are they joined by most of Israel's strongest defenders in U.S. media?
We're not against risks for peace; we're against imperiling the alliance between Israel and the U.S.Continue reading the main story