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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LTK007 who wrote (7729)	10/27/2001 6:34:20 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>continued entanglement of religion and state would ultimately lead to a corruption of religion . . . . ascription of inherent sanctity to the land is a form of idolatry . . . viewing the state as a value in and of itself (rather than a vehicle for social or national good) is a precursor to fascism . . . . occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after the 1967 war would ultimately corrupt the state in the way in which all colonial regimes become corrupted. All of these elements bear the common thread of his repugnance at the use of religion to justify what he saw as political corruption or oppression<< I think these are all valid points.

To: LTK007 who wrote (7729)	10/27/2001 10:39:29 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

i generally avoid emotional Israel,Palestine debates Who's being emotional here? I'm feel I'm being completely realistic.... Permitting a militarized Palestinian state would simply be a ludicrous act of state suicide. And it certainly would guarantee further open warfare between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Israelis have been offering autonomy, and now statehood, to the Palestinians, so long as the new entity has no army, is prevented from entering alliances with neighboring states, and Israel controls the airspace above it... Pretty simple to me, and pretty generous given the history of the area and the fact that Jordan is ALREADY the equivalent of a Palestinians state, but ruled by an Arab. And since the West Bank is so integrally tied into the Israeli economy already, they can't make the claim that any of these conditions are unacceptable because it makes them dependent on Israel.. Because they clearly ALREADY ARE DEPENDENT ON ISRAEL. What's so difficult for Arafat to agree to?? What's so unreasonable about the Israeli conditions for a Palestinian State given this endless aggression waged against them? I'm about solving this problem LTK... I'm not about arguing whether Israel should exist, or whether a Palestinian state should be created. Because BOTH are a moot point now... The only thing that matters is how the eventual solution of this problem is determined. And while history may play a part in guiding this negotiation process, people relying upon it to play the "blame game", or to argue that Israel shouldn't even exist, is irrelevant. Israel will exist until they are conquered. And the Palestinians won't have a state until they are willing to agree to Israel's security concerns. Hawk