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 (3337)	9/10/2001 2:02:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 23908

Thomas... the "zealots" have control in Israel because the "criminals" have always had control over the Palestinian groups. Radicalization by one group will almost always lead to a similar reactionism on the part of the other side. If Egypt and Jordan give up some land, than Israel should give up all conquests since the UN partition in 1948 plus some of its original territory, just to be fair Well, I would say that returning the Sinai Peninsula was quite a sacrifice since it increase the amount of border it was required to defend by several times, as compared to what they possessed by having the Suez canal act as a tremendous anti-tank ditch (as well as significant oil reserves that were meeting Israel's daily needs). And since Syria has never made peace with Israel, I can hardly see why they should give up the Golan, if even in that event, given its strategic position overlooking the Israeli valley below. If anything, it should be considered a "demilitarized zone" where no Syrian forces can be emplaced within 50 kilometers, as well as having international observers in place monitoring any peace. And Syrian troops should completely exit Lebanon. And I hardly can see how you claim that the analogy between Mexico and the US is "fraudulent" when compared to the historical issues surrounding the mid-east. After all, the only difference is the fact that the two scenarios are separated by a mere 100 years of time. Both are based upon a larger power either annexing through subversion (Texas), or coercive sales of the territory based upon Mexico's inability to defend its territory. But that does not negate the fact that there are significant Mexican populations that continue to live there, and some might claim in conditions less than equal. The only difference is that the predominant coercive powers in the Mid-East were the Ottomans and the British (although the British went far to economically developing the region). The British conquered the entire region (with the exception the French Levant states), and then carved it up into arbitrary kingdoms based upon the amount of support received against the Turks, regardless of the make-up of the local populations. The reality is that what happened 50, or 100 years ago, let alone yesterday, doesn't matter to where the future lies. Neither side is going to obtain results that are 100% satisfactory, and that's the heart of compromise. But first you have to have a Palestinian leadership that CAN compromise. A leadership that doesn't have to cater to the extremists merely in order to survive the environment that its own political decisions have created for itself (releasing the Hamas prisoners several years ago, in direct contradiction to the Oslo accords). Hawkmoon