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: Bilow who wrote (16773)	1/18/2002 5:52:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The fact is that the Egyptian people believe that it is perfectly natural that the Palestinians would want to arm themselves. They think that the Palestinians need to defend themselves from Israel. Why would they be in denial about what the Karine-A was doing? Of course they're not in denial Natural, maybe, but in complete abrogation of a) the Israeli/Egyption peace treaty and b) the Oslo accords. Both of which Egypt still officially supports. So they have a strong motive to deny evidence that makes them complicit in Palestinian arms smuggling. Which they clearly were, if Arafat thought he could get this boat through the Suez Canal. Like Mubarak said, Al Arish is not Micronesia, ships going through the canal are inspected -- quite carefully since the Libyans mined it in 1985. The evidence you present to deny the denial actually does the opposite. The piece that describes the PA's position as a 'line' is actually an op-ed by Graham Usher written from Jerusalem, not a report. The other piece, also an op-ed, recounts the behavior of the actual President of Egypt: On Monday, President Hosni Mubarak criticised Israel for obstructing peace efforts to end its aggressions against the Palestinians, most notably US special envoy Anthony Zinni's recent mission. Mubarak poked holes in Israel's claims that a shipment of weapons, seized on 3 January, was destined for the Palestinian Authority, characterising their story as "inconsistent and fabricated." Sounds like denial to me. Doesn't mean they have to buy all the PA's statements (especially not if Mubarak is livid at Arafat for his Iranian alliance, as is reported), but they have every reason to deny Israel's story and their own implied complicity. As long as the only people who cared about the Middle East were a few policy wonks it was possible for a relatively small group of Israeli supporters to tilt US policy towards Israel. But with the increased attention brought by the WTC, everyone is paying attention now, and the inevitable result will be a decision to disengage Power abhors a vacuum. If we leave, who comes in? Don't you like living in the world's only superpower? Or is it that you want to live in a superpower but don't want to pay the freight? We get a lot of bene's from our superpower status. The dollar is the world's reserve currency, and as you pointed out, with our current accounts deficit we have no choice but to maintain a strong dollar policy. Think that will survive our "disengagement"? I don't. Deserting all our allies and going home to sit between our two oceans -- oceans which have been shown to be unable to protect us -- will quickly lead to a loss of superpower status. I believe that the US government will weigh the alternatives and conclude that remaining the world's only superpower is a better alternative.

To: Bilow who wrote (16773)	1/20/2002 5:12:41 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As long as the only people who cared about the Middle East were a few policy wonks it was possible for a relatively small group of Israeli supporters to tilt US policy towards Israel. But with the increased attention brought by the WTC, everyone is paying attention now, and the inevitable result will be a decision to disengage. That sounds entirely subjective, Carl. I've heard far more calls to engage than disengage. It may not be motivated by a love of Israel, but the outcome is the same. To many Americans, the impact of Oklahoma City was to wonder about ourselves. The impact of WTC/Pentagon was an end to that wonder and a growing determination to nuke anyone who proposes violence against the US. And I'm quite aware that some of the intensity of the latter can wane over time. But I don't think much sympathy for the Palestinian intifida can be found here. I'd like to see a poll of American support for increasing military aid to Israel. I think it would open a few eyes in the Middle East. Because I think support for Israel is stronger than its ever been. That will not make the intractable problem end, but I doubt Israel will emerge weakened at all. Arafat has gone from being a puppet to a shadow puppet, in the eyes of most Arabs & Americans alike. I can only presume more Palestinians consider him a joke than did before, too. Time will tell, and much sooner than many suspect, imo. The vacuum of leadership there begs for an opportunist to come forward to break the stalemate. A hawk in pursuit of peace would stand the best chance, in that climate. No point in arguing what might be, though. I just think you've misjudged which way the American public has moved. Nearterm, it's hardly isolationist.