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 : Middle East Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Math Junkie who wrote (862)2/8/2002 3:27:07 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 6945
 
Sharon's policies certainly don't seem to have been very successful. Maybe he is not as two-faced as Arafat, though.

Richard, nobody could be as two-faced as Arafat. It's not humanly possible.

I think Sharon is playing a canny game. True, he didn't get peace, but his government is holding together, and he's got President Bush looking at Arafat and Iran almost from the Israeli viewpoint.

Sharon doesn't want to negotiate with Arafat because Arafat is a) waging a terrorist campaign b) incapable of running a state c) an avoider of all tough decisions d) completely untrustworthy. Negotiating a land-for-peace deal with someone like that is a mug's game. You give the land, you don't get the peace. Unfortunately, the one thing Arafat is good at is survival, which includes preventing any other leader from rising to prominence.

So Sharon's vision is not resuming negotiations (as your documentary probably assumed it ought to be), but replacing Arafat with a more pragmatic leadership. Having Bush stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him applying pressure is a big success from that point of view.



To: Math Junkie who wrote (862)2/8/2002 6:21:27 PM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6945
 
Richard, actually I think that Sharon's policies have been extremely successful. The purpose of these policies, from where I stand, is to bring about the emergence of a real peace partners, not one that openly advocate as a tactical means the initial establishment of a Palestinian state as a springboard for the future eradication of Israel. If that is indeed the case, why should the Israeli commit suicide? At the end, it may end up with the Israeli following the allies lead after WWII and actually recapturing the territories, but imposing a democratic system, and after some 40 years of such a system, when the new generations is no longer poisoned with hate every day through their schooling and their leadership incitement, grant them statehood. We outlawed neo fascism in the axis countries, and are still there after almost 60 years, and the German, Italians and Japanese are all better off for it. If it was up to me, I would even have a "forfeiture plan" delineating the future agreed boundaries, but violations of certain imposed rules in education, broadcasting, local government and fringe terrorists gang, would cause the automatic subtraction of parts of those future lands. Right now, the Palestinian have been led to believe that time is on their side and that they have nothing to lose, it must be made quite visible that indeed, they have what to lose, and these losses and future losses must be made clear to all, and tied up to absolute adherence to agreements (or forced imposition) so they finally chose to act in such a way that they end up with a state of their own to fulfill their own national aspirations.

Zeev