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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14156)	12/19/2001 3:30:16 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Lebanon Revisited nytimes.com An article from the Sunday paper you may or may not enjoy, Nadine. The thing about this particular war is, what does Sharon and Israel want? Militarily, they can do what they choose, Israel against the Palestinians is considerably more asymmetrical than the US vs. the Taliban. No problem negotiating base rights in distant lands, either. But there's no Northern Alliance and friends to sort of take charge on the ground when it's over. What's the end game strategy? Full reoccupation? "Transfer" aka ethnic cleansing? Ken noted this article long ago advocating "disengagement" : foreignaffairs.org . The alteratives seem less appealing.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14156)	12/19/2001 8:03:21 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Respond to of 281500

Sharon was hired to fight the war that Arafat imposed on the Israelis In my discussions with friends around the start of the latest intifada, we wondered what was happening that we just weren't hearing about in the news - new influx of arms, etc - since obvious image of Sharon provoking an intifada (by strolling on the esplanade) just for political gains seemed too crazy to believe in. Yes, it's a nasty business. The Israelis are fighting by strangling the Palestinian economy and blowing up PA offices If one has to be rid of Arafat pour une bonne fois... I have to wonder what other option is open. They can't assassinate him since they'd put the world on their back, but how many more years of the situation can one tolerate? The article cited earlier in the thread pointed out the strangulation of the economy, but it's a better way of getting the desired result of ousting Arafat than just massacring 5000 Palestinians à la Jordan. As the article mentions, they aren't even using the airport outside Arafat's jaunts by helicopter. The sewage systems and 100 year old olive trees, that's another story, but again what is the real story behind those actions? I really do think something has to be done about the colonies, but it's something to be arranged from a position of strength, with clear cut agreements about the borders and so forth, along with simple end to the terrorist actions. By the way, I heard today that Hamas has offered to halt the attacks for now. What's up with that? Showing who's really in charge??

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14156)	12/19/2001 9:07:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Israelis are fighting by strangling the Palestinian economy and blowing up PA offices; the Palestinians are fighting by shooting at any IDF troops they see and sending a campaign of suicide bombers and shooters to kill as many civilians as they can manage. War is a nasty business. What makes those tactics even more nasty is the fact that they can continue forever. As you present them neither sides tactics is likely to cause the other side to become defeated. Hurt yes, angry yes, maybe even scared but not defeated. Tim