SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (18015)2/4/2002 2:24:07 AM
From: tekboy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Free him to speak his mind, maybe?

perhaps. although there was nobody holding a gun to his head to stay in that job, eh? I mean, if he really disagreed with the administration, there's a point at which, if you're honorable, you fall on your sword and walk away...

As for Rabin, again, you might be right, and the difference would only have been one of finding out the same things more quickly, and in a different way. But I'm not sure that's the case, for two reasons.

First, there was no one else on the Israeli side with Rabin's combination of support for Oslo and political credibility within Israel--and so no one willing and able to make credible, significant concessions. (Admittedly Barak went further than anyone expected, but when he did so he was way out on a limb and would have had a very hard time selling his plan at home, and by then it was probably too late anyway.)

Second, at that point there was still significant support for Oslo on the Palestinian side, and thus the possibility for significant concessions by Arafat as well.

It strikes me as just barely possible that with the momentum and personnel of the mid-90s continuing, the basic premise of Oslo--mutual concessions building on each other to some sort of comprehensive deal--might have worked as designed. Not a sure thing by any means, but a possibility.

tb@wistfulidealist.com