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 (16693)	1/17/2002 8:38:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Look, that's not the way you make deals. Yes, but you've completely changed the subject, at least, the subject as I understood it. I thought we we discussing what Israel had agreed to when it signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. You said that it was your understanding that Israel at that time had agreed that the West Bank and Gaza 'belonged' to the Palestinians and that it was prepared to withdraw to the June 4, 1967 borders. I answered a) that Israel did not agree to the 1967 borders, and b) Israel never agreed that the territories 'belonged' to the Palestinians; rather, their position was that they were prepared to hand over some or all of the territories in order to settle the border dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. Final borders were to be settled by negotiations. They might coincide with the 1967 borders, or they might be less; Israel had not agreed that ALL the territories must be given up. Now, what bearing does that have on what Barak actually offered Arafat at Camp David? Israel offered a yet unspecified amount of the territories in 1993; in 2000, Barak offered 95%. It's very easy to be confused because the Palestinians have done everything in their power to confuse the issue -- to say that the Israelis had already agreed to give them 100% in 1993. It just doesn't happen to be true.

To: Ilaine who wrote (16693)	1/17/2002 8:50:04 PM
From: BirdDog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Now, Israel can't come back and offer less. It's an insult. Well...yes....it is an insult. So is bombing Bar Mitzvahs'. Right now, Israel would be kind to offer Palestine; survival. BirdDog@ list-us.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (16693)	1/18/2002 5:26:10 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Israel offered all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank. Arafat refused. OK. Now, Arafat knows that Israel intends to give AT LEAST all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank. We all know that. Everyone knows that. Now, Israel can't come back and offer less. It's an insult. I completely disagree. After years of debate and armed struggle, Israel gradually moved from a minimal position to a maximum. To be honest, I was stunned that they made such a generous offer. The PLO responded with a frame-up involving Sharon's visit to sacred ground, then used it as an excuse to launch an intifada, starring numerous suicide bombers. That's the insult. A bloody and stupid insult. Israel's stupidity was in not erasing Arafat then. That they still do not baffles me. I think Israel would be perfectly justified to forgo world opinion and go back to the Horowitz position: tell Jordan to accomodate the Palestinians. Over the next 20 years, gradually concede more in the offers. By then, Arafat will surely be dead and when they reach the 90% level, refuse to budge. Insist the other 5% is a penalty tax for making a war last 20 more years unnecessarily. If the world is outraged, bring in SNL's Church Lady to do a 'superiority dance.' I'm using overkill here to make this point: the PLO had been given the most generous compromise I can think of in modern history and their response was repugnant. Israel is thereby perfectly justified in offerring less with the understanding that they can wait till hell freezes over before Israel will ever again offer as much, and they'll never offer more.... the 95% should forever be the maximum now