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: Ilaine who wrote (16684)	1/17/2002 7:49:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I understood Israel's reluctance to consummate this to be based on a legitimate fear for the physical safety of its citizens. But now you're telling me that Israel has no intention of handing the territory over to the Palestinians, and sees itself as a "rival claimant." That's not quite what I meant. Maskoud is stating the view from the other side, where any border dispute = "rival claimant". As I said before, there's a BIG difference between handing over land for peace and acknowledging that it 'belongs' to someone else and you never had any right to be there in the first place. Israel's position is: we'll negotiate borders, hand over the land for limited Palestinian sovereignty (they never contemplated allowing a Palestinian state to enter a military alliance with Iraq, for example) and afterwards, it will belong to you. The new borders will settle the dispute between us. Do you see the distinction I'm making?