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: bentway who wrote (160703)	4/20/2005 6:23:34 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) of 281500

I am not wedded to 67 borders but i am against anything that makes palestine less than a contiguous state with the obvious exception of gaza and West Bank. I agreed with essence of the clinton plan to compensate pals for any lost lands. Right now i think Pal exists on 92% of disputed territories. Every time rejectionists reject and Infatadas start, the pals have and will lose more land. Thats the long answer. Short answer is that i think sharon is on the right track. He has been checked by israeli courts on the wall and that was good. Real borders can be created but settlements which house 75% of settlers on that 8% of land will stay. We didnt give texas back to the Mexicans either so dont expect israel to be more magnanimous that we were. At some point de facto become de jure. Mike

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next