SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (32290)6/14/2002 5:49:25 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
We're playing for time, just like the rest of the participants... It takes time to build up a proper offensive strategy and the resources to carry it out. And we're certainly better served speaking about "peaceful" solutions as we prepare to carry out a more aggressive form..

I dare say. But I don't see how a US declaration of support for an 'interim' Palestinian state (whatever that means) can be taken as anything but a ratification of Palestinian strategic choices. So (it won't surprise you to learn) I think it rewards terror and harms US interests. The corollary to this belief is that it will not pacify the situation but lead to a flare-up of fighting.

It also works on the assumption that a Palestinian state is a common goal that the US, the Arab states, the Palestinians, and even Israel can sign on to. I really doubt this. The Palestinians (at least the Arafat government) have shown that they want other things far more than a state, which they could easily have achieved peacefully -- they want blood and fire and victory, they want 'right of return', they want a unilateral Israeli withdrawal without the necessity of Palestinian compromise.

As for the other Arabs, when have they cared for the Palestinians other than as grist for the mill? They want, first and foremost, the world's superpower sucked into mediating an intractable conflict -- can you spell T-A-R B-A-B-Y? -- so there's no danger of destablilizing US military campaigns in the region. It might suit them to have the conflict get a little quieter. But how would they distract their populations if it ended?

Here's the NY Times article. It seems to be a pattern that a Saudi official goes to Washington, then an article appears in the NY Times. The WaPo must be feeling slighted.

nytimes.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News