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 (16706)	1/18/2002 12:32:24 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My argument is, this isn't the same as buying a used car or a rug, we're talking about the lives of millions of people. I would put it more in the category of a plea bargain that has been refused and then when the DA gets a little more evidence, the defendant decides that they want the old deal that they already turned down. (Probably a bad idea to use a legal analogy, especially since my knowledge of the criminal legal process is all from watching TV:-))

To: Ilaine who wrote (16706)	1/18/2002 1:01:36 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

My argument is, this isn't the same as buying a used car or a rug, we're talking about the lives of millions of people. I am for continuing to try to work things out because the stakes are so high. It's true, we're dealing with millions of lives. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that you can "work things out" with the current regime. Millions of Germans had rights and grievances (including legitimate ones) under the Third Reich. Didn't mean that we could just "work things out". Ditto for the Iraqis and the Afghans. And if, having tried to work things out, you come to the conclusion (as Chamberlin did after Munich) that you simply cannot do business with the regime, it is entirely counter-productive to keep trying. But my perception is that the US government is losing patience with both sides. My perception is quite different. About two months ago, quietly and without fanfare, the US government finally "got to uneven" regarding Israel's war against terror -- they stopped condemning Palestinian terrorism and Israeli reprisals evenhandedly. It would be useful to the US to have quiet over there now, and they'll see if they can arrange it. But they expect this will end in a defeat for the Palestinians, and I don't think they will twist Sharon's arm to prevent it. Israel cannot afford to cross up Washington's plans in the area (I believe we will go to war in Iraq this year), but sooner or later there will be a terrible incident and Bush will give Sharon the green light. Israel/Palestine isn't a sideshow to the war on terrorism, it's the linchpin. Solving Israel/Palestine is the sine qua non. Solve that, and you've solved everything. Fail to solve it, and you've solved nothing. I couldn't disagree more. The "linchpin" is not Israel, but the failure of the Muslim world to modernise. Globalization has put our success into their faces, and large segments are crying "What enemy did this to us?" The linchpin is the armed doctrine of totalitarian militant Islam. Israel is the outpost of the hated West, the sure-fire button every dictator and demagogue can push, it's an identity thing. It aggravates everything but is not the original cause. Bin Laden didn't even care about Palestine until his post 9/11 tapes, he just added it to the list of grievances for public consumption. His real grievance was always the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. If Israel was his main message, 9/11 would have been attempted in Tel Aviv, not New York and Washington. No, Al Quaeda isn't at war for Israel. Algeria hasn't lost 130,000 people in a civil war with the Islamists because of Israel. Saddam Hussein didn't invade Kuwait or gas the Kurds because of Israel. The Ayatollahs didn't take over Iran because of Israel. The Taliban didn't take over Afghanistan because of Israel. The Saudis aren't exporting fanatical Wahabbism to every corner of the Muslim world because of Israel. Israel is far, far from the main problem over there. Israel is the original cause only of its own conflict with the Arabs, not all the other problems of the region. Israel just provides a wonderful scapegoat and diverter of attention.

To: Ilaine who wrote (16706)	1/18/2002 6:20:03 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Osama bin Laden told us that until we solve Israel/Palestine, no one in the USA will be safe. That's a pretty heavy burden to bear. Which only demonstrates that he would usurp any angle that he cares nothing about and exploit it to justify murder. He is an authority on nothing and his viewpoints bear no credibility at all. The reason to seek peace is as it's always been: it is the only reasonable choice any civilized person could want. It is precisely because Arafat knows how badly the civilized world wants it that he can hold it hostage so effectively. I think the correct Israeli response is to say that Arafat's actions display that he has one interest only, to kill every Jew in Israel. And since it's clear the Palestinian people have not raised a voice to suggest otherwise then there is only one solution to the conflict. We therefore challenge all of Palestine to a duel with all of Israel. No other parties will be involved. We will then both agree to fight to the death till one side or the other is completely eliminated. Then moderate it by saying it grieves us deeply to be forced into a corner like this, but if Arafat was offered 100% of his demands, he would wage war in pursuit of 101% without regard for life, faith, or reason. And since the only way to satisfy the bloodlust of a psychopathic beast is to surrender or to eliminate the beast completely, then it must be a duel to the death. And ask that Russia, Great Britain, Germany, the US, China, India and Turkey agree to be the referees to the match, to prevent the intervention of any outsider. Since it's unlikely those powers would agree, Israel can then say it's time then, to be sensible and request that a diplomatic group representing the various powers in Palestine, including Hamas, et al be assembled. With Israel assembling one that represents its various major parties. These diplomatic teams would meet in a refugee camp, sleep in tents and eat what the refugees eat, until they forged a compromise. They would be guarded by an international UN team to maintain safety. But they would not quit till a complete document of terms emerges. I do not buy that this is the linchpin to ending terror. There will always be terrorists when grievances exist and grievances will always exist. Most of the Islamist terror is not about Israel. It is about a wounded sense of self-esteem rooted in poverty and illiteracy that is nurtured into open hatred of all things non-Islamic by preachers of hate. It is about an attempt to impose their values on the world by force. That cannot be legislatively resolved. It can only be met with superior force until the losing side so consistently lose that the will to continue is completely eroded. As for Israel, nothing can be gained by any concession right now. Nothing much can be changed in world opinion; that battle is over. So offerring radical and unthinkable solutions is necessary to overcome a stalemate. Some will say: but this gives world sympathy back to Arafat. And I say: so what? What can the world do? Send in troops to keep the peace? Fine. Israel has lived with its own troops visible in its midst and runs a very effective civilization. It only changes the nationality of the soldiers there to defend. Does it gain any advantage to Arafat? Not a one that I can see. But it might actually keep the peace, unless the Islamist opposition starts attacking UN troops. Which would only hurt Arafat. I think my approach may be too extreme but the point I'm trying to get across is it will take some radical innovation to undo the stalemate. All the normal paths to peace have been mined.