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: carranza2 who wrote (12988)	12/6/2001 3:00:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well answered, carranza2. Whatever the reason, Arafat has shown himself unable to compromise or to turn away from terrorism. He has led his people into one disaster after another but survives because he's made himself into a kind of human Palestinian flag. Any other nationalist leader with his track record would have been replaced long ago.

To: carranza2 who wrote (12988)	12/6/2001 5:52:22 PM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

carranza2, Arafat got from Clinton and Israel 90% of what he wanted. The rest was open to negotiation. There was an opportunity for peace which Arafat pissed on. He did so for reasons of self-preservation and thereby implicitly blessed the second Intifada. Or, if you are a complete cynic like me, he refused a fair deal because his agenda calls for the complete elimination of Israel as a state. Their might also be a certain straight forward misunderstanding or miscalculation. The following article is interesting: "But perhaps most importantly, we should ask what the last year tells us about the chasm that separates Israelis and Palestinians. In the understandable push to conclude peace, have important basic differences in conceptions of the peace process been overlooked or understated? Since Palestinian attitudes are the key issue, we focus on Palestinian perspectives before and during the intifada, as conveyed in the Palestinian press, public opinion polls, and other available sources. Insofar as it deals with Palestinian media and other Palestinian sources, the views expressed include officially sanctioned views within the PA, different views within the leadership, and finally, grassroots perceptions and attitudes. Since the Palestinian press is essentially controlled by the PA, it expresses the message that the PA wishes to convey to its own public. It also includes, however, some messages to the PA from that public. Given this focus on Palestinian leadership attitudes, inevitably less attention is paid to Israeli perceptions (about which, in any event, there is less debate). " The sections beginning 'Two parallel universres and after' are relevant. THE INTIFADA: REVEALING THE CHASM By Alan Dowty and Michelle Gawerc Editor's Summary: The outbreak of a new Palestinian uprising (intifada) in September 2000 is analyzed by examining Palestinian perceptions and activities. This article discusses the causes of this development, analyzes Palestinian strategy, and talks of differing Palestinian and Israeli views on the course of the peace process. It also discusses the standpoints of leaders and of public opinion toward these events. Message 16753715