Peace congresses often start by dealing with some of the less important questions in excessive detail, so at the end there is no time to discuss the most important problems.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There is one criticism which cannot be leveled at interparliamentary conferences but which is applicable to a great extent to peace congresses: the meetings waste time.
The aspect of congresses and such meetings generally to which I attach the greatest importance is the discussion. That is why people assemble: to hear different opinions, rather than to pass resolutions.
A peace talk is always difficult, always complicated.
It is highly probable that in most cases, war could be avoided or ended. For discussions allow passion to subside, and to persuade alienated neighbors, or at least one of them, to listen to the voice of a conciliator is a step in the direction of peace.
There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas, and I think everyone knows that.
There can be no settlement of a great cause without discussion, and people will not discuss a cause until their attention is drawn to it.
There is no peace because the making of peace is at least as costly as the making of war - at least as exigent, at least as disruptive, at least as liable to bring disgrace and prison and death in its wake.
As you get larger, it is harder to have focused discussions. Because one of the things I've learned about Congress over the past four years that I've been in is there's no shortage of opinions about how things should be done on any particular subject.
There are no military solutions - dialogue and diplomacy are the only guarantee of lasting peace.
You can only end a negotiation for peace if you begin it.