Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2569)	8/5/2001 3:27:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Not irrelevant at all. The Israelis are trying to avoid their nightmare vision of the future, in which they become a Jewish minority in the 14th Arab dictatorship in the Mideast. This is why they never annexed the territories in the first place, which would have greatly improved the living conditions of the Palestinians. These fears have driven their policy since before the creation of the state. If the Palestinian leadership had had any brains, it would have tried to assuage these fears instead of doing its best to feed them. The Palestinians should have led a non-violent struggle because it was in their self-interest to do so -- Israel has a conscience, Israel does not want to remain an occupier of another people. If there was a Likud party, there was also Labor and Meretz, which historically used to be stronger. If the Palestinians had taken a deal in '67, or '70, or '74, or '79 they would easily have gotten the whole territories back. Even in Oslo, even after Arafat proved a hundred times that his word is worthless, they were offered over 95%, and could have bargained for even more. If the Palestinians had ever had a statesman they would have had a state. But they had no Mandela, only Arafat. Abba Ebban's observation has by now acquired the force of law: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."