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: Win Smith who wrote (47476)	9/28/2002 11:59:05 AM
From: jcky	Read Replies (3) of 281500

Some analysts think Mr Sharon did not want to see this more pragmatic Palestinian leadership emerge, because he would then be required—by President George Bush among others—to open negotiations with them. This could eventually involve Israel being asked to relinquish most of the West Bank and Gaza. Rather than entertain that possibility, Mr Sharon may have decided it is better to keep Mr Arafat in place as a convenient punch-bag. Right on the money. This isn't exactly rocket science to anyone who is familiar with Sharon's history. All the talk about Sharon wanting peace and negotiating with the Palestinians is mere lip service to placate the moderates in Israel and the US. I also find it quite interesting that the Economist, which has traditionally been on the right of political issues, to have taken note of Sharon's true intentions. The Bush Administration is well aware of Sharon's tactic to preserve the status quo in the Mideast for both his political advantage and to forestall any legitimate efforts at initiating a serious Palestinian delegation to begin talks about withdrawing from the West Bank.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next