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 (14846)	12/27/2001 1:38:08 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Most of the US liberal outlets have been moving closer to pro-Palestinian sympathies, at least before September 11th. Well, I guess we are both watching much the same media and coming to very different conclusions. But let's see what comes to mind. CNN daily news regularly reports events in that area as if Israel was the only effected turf. Here I'm not talking about time given to spokesfolk but simple news reporting. There are, of course, as always a few events which run counter to that but the general run of things is what I have in mind. I've grown disaffected from the Lehrer report with some rare exceptions so I can't say there. Usually they are more balanced but the general run of their commentators are afraid to say anything controversial. Too many ex-govt or govt types. And the genuine American left simply never appears. The farthest left they go is the Minnesota senator whose name escapes me right now, and he gets on only very rarely, or at least I see him quite rarely. Say, as compared to the right. I read the NYT regularly and it's definitely the case with them. Though they, at least recently, tend to put news from that area on the second or third page whatever the spin put on it. 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. Ah, my guess is that the category "Arab" might be one at which we might reach some disagreement. It's an interesting term since it ignores national histories and material circumstances. I don't see anything in the history of the Palestinians, to be a bit more concrete, that suggests they are "incapable of democratic government." I assume you really didn't mean that phrase because it's mine. Just my interpretation of the sentiment that floats around some time. I admit that Arafat is not a shining example of a democrat (you really should read Said on Arafat) but if I were to spend a bit of time digging around I don't doubt I could come with examples of countries that went to democratic forms with little history of them. Seriously, the whole point of Zionism was that the promise of European enlightenment . . . Very interesting paragraph. I have no serious knowledge of Zionism so I can do little more than listen when you hit these notes. But I do have convictions about the relative advantages of a secular state as opposed to a religious one. The first wins hands down. And I would guess there are moments in the Israeli/Palestine past when such might have been possible. But, I genuinely don't know. As to the Palestinians always "ruled by thugs and terrorists," I'll just skip over that. John

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (14846)	12/27/2001 8:02:22 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Though I differ on some points, a place of strong agreement is the role of Arafat. I believe Israel acted kindly by saying he merely is insignificant. All soldiers do not make good statesmen and Arafat is living proof. In reality, he is a buffoon, playing arrogant games that are perfectly transparent. For some years, I felt there was a chance for peace and Arafat was capable of delivering it. Though I was not anti-Israeli, I felt the Palestinian concerns were not getting a fair airing. I was supportive of the efforts by several Presidents, beginning with Carter, to mediate the disputes and to indicate displeasure with Israel's leaders when their actions pushed peace further away. But as I've read and watched and learned over the past quarter century, I have come to some hard conclusions: 1) It's not that Arafat won't deliver, he simply can't. It does not matter if it's because others hold the real power or whether he's simply incompetent. He can't do it. 2) Look around the globe. See any leaders that have been in power as long as Arafat? More important, do you see any that have so consistently failed to deliver peace and/or prosperity, that did not get dumped by their citizens? I sure know of none. So why do Palestinians tolerate and support a leader with such a poor record? Do they have no self-pride? 3) it would be intellectually lazy to seriously believe that Arafat's failure is the fault of the Jews, the US, or everyone-except-Arafat. I have had Palestinian-American neighbors and co-workers and see nothing to suggest any lapse in intelligence or pride in those fine folks. So what gives? 4) I understand Arafat's history and have a reasonable idea of Palestinian history, so my conclusions do not arise from lack of knowledge. They arise from the obvious evidence that Arafat is a failure. When I hear of his speeches to his people - the ones he tries to shield from the press - he reminds me of a losing soccer coach exhorting his team to hate the opponents rather than provide a workable strategy that might grant them a win. He speaks only of hating because he knows it draws applause from the team. He never speaks of love or mercy or compassion, the very qualities that set men apart from animals. It is very sad to see this. 5) All I can figure is the Palestinians put up with him because they can't find a single other Palestinian who is competent, either. It is the only answer that makes sense. This too makes me sad. Because it means there will never be peace for those poor people or for the poor Israelis. Because there is no Palestinian who knows how to. And after puzzling over this for years, I keep coming to the same conclusion. If it is not because the Palestinian folks are incapable of how to have peace, it can only be that they really don't want to have it. If that last possibility is the case, there is no reason for sympathy at all, because they have chosen the gun, to kill and be killed, and all my learning was a waste of time. Whichever is the real reason, it is clear that the failure of the Palestine nation is something they have chosen. And saying that does not make me a Zionist. I have grave doubts about Sharon, as well. But at least Sharon can make good on a promise and can speak of something more than hate. I think both Arafat and Sharon will have to be gone before peace can be possible. I am certain if Sharon fails, Israelis will vote him out. But I'm not sure the Palestinian folks will ever dump Arafat. Maybe they just enjoy war and death too much or enjoy having a buffoon as a leader. No one else can solve it for them; the choice is theirs.