Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: paul_philp who wrote (31591)	6/5/2002 4:48:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) of 281500

That is like saying an arsonist is only responsible for the gas cannister he set on fire It's more like saying that if I knocked over a grill, I'm responsible for the forest fire, even though the firefighters threw gasoline on the fire instead of trying to put it out. You are discounting several factors in the situation. First, Sharon did not storm the Temple Mount without permission; he had permission from the Israeli government. While Barak did have an interest in Sharon's grandstanding, since he preferred to run against Sharon rather than Netanyahu, he had absolutely no interest in an explosion of violence, which was completely against his interests. So why did he give Sharon permission to go? Because all his PA contacts assured him that it would be okay, there would be no trouble. In short, he was snookered. Also, the violence that did occur was very far from spontaneous, except maybe on the first day of protests. The PA immediately declared "days of rage" and showed days of film from the first intifada to get the message out. The PA also sent out the Tanzim and all its other irregular troops, and the conflict became militarized immediately.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next