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: Elmer Flugum who wrote (4459)	9/24/2001 6:06:48 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

The excuse of security is an excellent cover for more land grabbing and uncivil actions by the IDF. ....>>>> Sure it is..after 4 wars, constant Arab Rhetoric to drive Israel into the sea, can't even think of more excellent reason to grab as much as possible.......

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (4459)	9/24/2001 6:12:52 PM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Right you are, Israel does not feel at ease being ten miles right in its middle, so he grabbed land there and clings to it. By your standards, it shouldn't, we have understood that much ; but no mention on the why... Look at the polls provided earlier on this thread, look at the percentage of Palestinians that still want it all... and decide for yourself. Coming to think of it, you may very well be owning a farm that much bigger than all the land still in dispute there. Are you ready to give it back if someone with a merited claim shows up? Now don't jump on the merited claim to state the the Palestinians have one. That hasn't been documented yet. I'll keep reading though.

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (4459)	9/24/2001 6:21:50 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

“There has got to be a realistic expectation on the part of the Arab on the street: that they're not gonna destroy Israel. They're not gonna evict the United States from the Middle East,” Emerson said. But until that message takes hold, and is taught to the children, violence is likely to remain the watchword of the day. cbn.com

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (4459)	9/24/2001 6:27:22 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

len, do you know what 242 actually says? It speaks of the return of territories taken in war, the right of all countries in the area to secure borders, and settlement of border and refugee issues by negotiation. Because 242 implied the right of existence to Israel, the PLO flatly rejected 242 for over twenty years. Then they switched to a new interpretation, 242 says, give us all the land, no questions asked. The Israelis pointed out that issue of return of territories is somewhat problematic since the countries it was taken from (Egypt and Jordan) don't want it back. Israel tried to give Gaza back to Egypt in 1979 and they wouldn't take it. Jordan washed their hands of the West Bank in 1989. However, after the first Intifada convinced Israel that they could not continue occupying the territories, they were willing to negotiate with Arafat, if he recognized the right of Israel to exist. They considered that they were negotiating to satisfy 242. Arafat got land, money, an army, and legitimacy, in return for promises which he has broken repeatedly. These negotiations culminated with Camp David and Taba last year, when Israel offered 95% back (dismantling 80% of the settlements), and Arafat answered with a guerilla war instead of a counterproposal. The Palestinians have since admitted that Oslo was a "Trojan Horse", "a hudna" (cease-fire), not a peace process. Now they're fighting for all of Israel. So tell me, which side has actually paid more attention to 242?