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: Sun Tzu who wrote (139684)7/10/2004 12:40:05 PM
From: Sig  Read Replies (2) of 281500
 
Fence dispute

story.news.yahoo.com

<<< There is nothing impossible about it. You have identified PLO and the corrupt Arab regimes as the source of the problem for peace. So you could have created better alternatives to them. This is how the plan would go:

Israel would maintain control over the entire land it holds now. But Israel instead of building Jewish settlements it would build Palestinian settlements. The land would be divided more or less according to UN resolutions. The Palestinians in those settlements would have to hold elections and manage their affairs and their civil relations with Israel (things like work permits, water rights etc) otherwise Israel would not provide those things. In time a better set of leaders than PLO's would have emerged. >>>

I think Nadine would agree the border argument has gone on long enough -30 years? 50 years?

Who is directly involved? Those that live in Israel or that live in Palestine today- not those that want to return, promise to return or that have relatives there because they may or may not do those things.

Resolve the main border first and leave the ownership or visiting rights to religieous sites for later negotiations.

There will be endless disputes over those areas and the opinions of many outsiders ( foreigners and visitors) should be considered and in doing that it seems they should be "free" zones. This produces a secondary problem which can be resolved later as to who controls the zones.

There are far too many UN nations involved in the dispute, Nations with minimal interest in the area but wishing to have a say in the matter.

If a separate UN committee was formed to deal with the border, it would leave the Israelis on one side, and all the Arab nations who want to eliminate the Israelis entirely on the other side of the debate.

I would use blunt force and shut those Arab Nations off at the pass, leaving the argument only between the Israelis and present Palestinian residents. And listen the screams about the 'right to return' of non-residents.

But because of Arafats impossible demands and his type of government, we dont know the desires of the average Palestinian on a suitable border line.

Therefore I thought the Israelis took a major step forward by building the fence which forces the Pals to
realize there will be a border of some kind and they had best spend time debating where it should go rather than hoping and praying the Israelis will somehow vanish.

Now the Arabs have appealed to the UN to have the fence removed. And that implies that Israeli is entitled to no land at all.
So perhaps Arafat says he will negotiate. Negotiate what?. Certainly not a border or he could negotiate over the position of that fence.

Who in the UN is going to force Israel to remove that fence.? France, Germany, Russia, China, Korea, the UK?

Israel has nukes ( what a difference those make when considering war !).
Destroyed the military power of a 5 nation coalition in a 6 day period. Wiped out their airpower on the first day of hostilities.
So which Arab Nation wants to step in and force Israeli to remove the fence? Any volunteers out there?

Tell Sharon to leave the damn fence where it is until Arafat decides it may be well to let Israelis live and to consider instead the proper location of a border.

Sig
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext