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: Elroy who wrote (225516)3/29/2007 11:36:11 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
My own opinion is that Israel should be more proactive in looking at a more accommodative stance on East Jerusalem, the West Bank settlements, and some joint control of the holy sites

But as carranza says, the Arabs negotiate with a mirror. To the Arabs, concessions are a sign of weakness and invite attack. Oslo was a concession. Camp David and Taba were big concessions. What did it get the Israelis? Casualties and more demands. Now the Arabs demand not only the 1967 borders, but "right of return" and an end to Jewish immigration. Their demands have not lessened in compromise, but grown greater. Now they demand the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.

Meanwhile Hamas openly demands the destruction of Israel, and the rest of the world is telling it that there is little price to be paid for this.

Israel would have been better off making no concessions whatsoever. It gambled for peace, and lost.
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