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: JohnM who wrote (14833)	12/27/2001 12:51:54 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Glad to see you back too, John. My post was a rejoinder to the view that only the Israeli side counts. Which is what I see in our media treatments. Which media are you referring to? Most of the US liberal outlets have been moving closer to pro-Palestinian sympathies, at least before September 11th. NPR is a case in point there. CAMERA (a pro-Israel media watchdog) counted airtime given to Palestinian vs. Israeli spokesman, and noticed the Palestinian spokesmen had a 2-to-1 advantage. Most of the Israeli spokesmen came from the Israeli left; there were few government views represented. If you read the British papers, Israel is always wrong. Do you mostly read the NY Times? At a kind of micro level there must be any number of ways in which the Palestinians have contributed to their fate "micro"? do you call five wars "micro"? 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. Excuse me, I would feel a little more confidence in Arab participation in such an experient if they had ever shown an interest in running it in any of their own countries. It strikes me as more than a little suspicious that they only recommend it for Israel. Seriously, the whole point of Zionism was that the promise of European enlightenment -- to the Jews as a nation, nothing; to the individual as a citizen, everthing -- had failed for the Jews. They were not accepted as citizens. Zionism proposed that they reclaim their status as a nation and protect themselves. The Holocaust provided such an extreme example of the downside of Jewish powerlessness that it effective sealed the argument for fifty years. Now, it's all come unglued and we must argue over it again. . 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. Maybe, if the Palestinians weren't ruled by thugs and terrorists. It's a hallmark of Arab politics that they always want the deal they could have had easily thirty years ago; Israel offered to return all territories taken in 1967 but got the "three nos" of the Khartoum conference. Neither UN Resolution 242 nor the Oslo framework specified a return to the exact 1967 borders, but the Palestinians chose to make it their sine qua non.