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 (14808)	12/27/2001 9:07:21 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is too easy, and expedient, to stick with the side of the story that foots Israel with the bill for all the Palestinian suffering. Glad to see you back, Nadine. As for this point, I'm not yet certain precisely what Said does. But it seems to me it's possible to see and stick with multiple sides to the story. My post was a rejoinder to the view that only the Israeli side counts. Which is what I see in our media treatments. At a kind of micro level there must be any number of ways in which the Palestinians have contributed to their fate. But on the Israeli side, somewhere along the way they could have concluded that a secular state in which Palestinians and Jews lived side by side in some form of equality would constitute an interesting experiment. As you know, I'm not well read in these issues and I assume that getting to a secular state in which both were full citizens would not have been easy--obviously, because it did not happen. But it is a direction the Israelis elected not to go. What do you mean, 1967 is a critical memory? Here I was talking about Said's comments. He talks, repeatedly, about 1967 as being a critical point for him and he often talks about returning to the 1967 boundaries as something that could be negotiated. As I read him, he argues against returning to some sort of 1948 conception. That's not possible, he says. In his more recent writings, he argues, as I think I've typed here, for the one state solution as better than the two state solution. Though I've not read anything written by him on this particular topic since 9-11. John