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 (17514)	1/29/2002 8:47:58 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Because the Zionists claim the right to the fullest extent of land that ever was under Jewish rule - and we are their allies in achieving this goal. Aren't we? I don't think we are their allies as described above. As near as I can see our policy (our actual policy, not what people say our policy is) on Israel and the region around is two-pronged - one, that Israel should survive, two, that it's problems with it's neighbors - including the Palestinians - should be settled by negotiation of peace agreements. Negotiation of peace practically means compromises on land. I think Bush made comments supportive of a two-state solution a month or so ago, and that was not a change from past policy. Note that although we support Israel with aid and weapons and on UN vetoes, we also saved the PLO from destruction by Israel in 1982 and arranged for its evacuation to Tunisia. We are Israel's ally, though limited to the extent of favoring its survival. Of course, I don't think that all Zionists seek the "fullest extent of land". I think even today a majority of Israelis would give up the occupied territories or most of them in exchange for a reliable peace. JMO, of course. Hmm, I see I didn't speak to your "Who's right?" Both - some left voluntarily, but not all. FWIW.