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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (32547)6/18/2002 5:08:14 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
They are gunning for victory or bust.

The authors' views about negotiation being the only means of stopping terror bombings are probably correct, in theory. However, there has to be a reciprocal party to negotiate with, otherwise any Israeli steps toward negotiation will be viewed as surrender in the face of a simple tactic that has the capacity to nullify overwhelming conventional force. The Israelis do not have anyone to negotiate with at the present time.

The challenge for Israel is to bring the Palestinians to the table without being perceived as surrendering to the Palestinian H-bomb. A very difficult thing to do.

At the end of the day, it seems that a secure fence is going to be the only way to stop the terror bombing. The question is whether to abandon the settlements as part of a fence. Unfortunately, I think letting them go is the only rational solution if the fence is the choice.

After the fence, what? I suspect a more conventional style of war will prevail, in which the Palestinians and their supporters sustain significant losses. Afterwards, peace.

That's how I see it getting played out in the next five years or so if no WMDs enter into the scene. If WMDs are used against Israel, all hell breaks loose.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext