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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (2069)10/1/2001 4:09:40 PM
From: Snowshoe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The bloody Jordan river now flows through America
salon.com

This is the link you were referring to.



To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (2069)10/1/2001 11:17:39 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Note this paragraph from the Salon piece:

"Would America be putting Israel at risk by, in effect, forcing it to blink first? Not if America stood behind its words. If the Palestinian Authority in the interim period towards full statehood proved unable or unwilling to control radical rejectionists, America would stand behind Israel in its retaking of the occupied territory previously ceded to the Palestinians. In effect, everything would return to the previous, bloody status quo."

Please. This is the same snakeoil that was used to sell Oslo in the first place -- if it doesn't work, we can take the concessions back. The moral of this story should be clear to everyone by now. Was Arafat willing to negotiate? no. Did Arafat control his radical rejectionists? no. Can Israel therefore take back the territories? no.



To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (2069)10/2/2001 1:29:50 AM
From: tekboy  Respond to of 281500
 
actually, Malcolm, I don't disagree entirely with that piece, only partially. I myself have advocated something similar, but with the emphasis reversed. The chief problem is the Palestinians and the secondary problem is the Israelis, not (as your author has it) the opposite. And behind the Palestinian problem lies a broader Arab problem, because Arafat can't/won't do what is necessary to end the conflict without pressure, and diplomatic cover, from the so-called moderate Arab regimes. So--I'd put our weight on those regimes, and on the Pals, to prove the Israeli skeptics wrong, and commit to bringing Israel along in return. Probably wouldn't work, but worth a try, because (as your author says) the simmering of that conflict hampers efforts to respond to the threat from bin Laden...

tb@yawnyawnyawn.com



To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (2069)10/2/2001 12:49:40 PM
From: Thomas M.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
To create a hyperlink, all you have to do is post the entire URL. You left out the "http : //" part.

That article is dead right on the Israeli-Palestine issue. However, I don't agree that this is Bin Laden's primary motivation. I would rank it as # 2 on his list. # 1 on his list is the schemings of Western powers such as England and the U.S. to control Middle Eastern oil.

Tom