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: c.hinton who wrote (246974)	10/30/2007 2:03:18 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) of 281500

But why could not 20,000 families be resettled and reintergrated in mixed communities through out israel each year?.....unilaterally as a begining For the simplest of reasons, which ought to be obvious by now but clearly is not: giving things away unilaterally to a side that is dominated by the likes of Hamas only exacerbates the conflict. If you are interested in solving the conflict, you ought to reject such moves out of hand as counter-productive. Look at Gaza. Israel gave that away unilaterally. Did it help solve the conflict? Did it moderate the Palestinians? Did they begin to run their own affairs in a responsible fashion? Well, they did begin to run their own affairs, inasmuch as Hamas took over in a coup d'etat and repudiated all former PA treaties. I do think that Arik Sharon had some logical reasons for withdrawing from Gaza, but they were all about getting diplomatic gains for an acceptable tactical loss that would benefit Israeli defense measures. I am quite certain that Sharon had no illusions that the Palestinians were going to moderate or behave responsibly; indeed, I'm sure he depended on them to behave according to their usual terrorist standards. They unwittingly provided a benefit to Israel because they can no longer claim that some other uncontrollable "extremists" are shooting up the streets of Gaza and firing Katyushas. No such cost/benefit ratio would attend accepting the "right of return". There would only be howls of demands, seconded by Europe, to take everybody at once. I mean, if the "right" is accepted without a mutual treaty, why not all at once? A right is a right, yes? Meantime Hizbullah and Hamas would seed the refugees with their operatives. And in return for what supposed benefit? Nothing. Less than nothing.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next