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 (20198)	2/28/2002 12:05:21 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Me, too. But I think that there is a very hard core in Israel, and without, that does not see withdrawal to pre-1967 lines as a viable alternative, no matter what. There is such a hard core. But it's a minority -- if it hadn't been, the Oslo Accords could never have become government policy, nor could Barak have been elected. If Arafat had taken the deal at Camp David, even Taba I think, it would have been implemented. Israel dragged settlers off of settlements when they gave the Sinai back in 1979. You know who was in charge of the operation? Arik Sharon. If a deal is ever signed, someone like Arik Sharon is likely to be at the table. After all, Nixon went to China and Begin gave the Sinai back to Egypt. Oslo went off the table when the Israeli center lined up with the hard core; it became convinced that Arafat had used Oslo merely as a ruse. If the two Abdullahs, SA and Jordan, really get a vote at the Arab League for this new proposal, something may move. But five'll get you ten then that it will all be conditional on Sharon's stopping his "aggression", without a word about Arafat's stopping his mortars, suicide bombers and mass shooters, excuse me, his "legitimate resistance". This is likely to confirm the Israeli center in their view that the Arab world regards land for peace accords as deals that only the Israeli side must uphold. As I mentioned, this "peace proposal" is a standard play in the Saudi charm offensive handbook. Goes over real well in the US and costs them nothing, particularly if they have no intention of doing the hard work of bringing Syria in on the deal. The US is trying to embarrass them into action. I'm still not holding my breath.

To: Ilaine who wrote (20198)	2/28/2002 12:16:53 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Saudi Lashes Out at Israel in UN Speech reuters.com Nevertheless, diplomats listening to the address said the Saudi speech indicated again that the path toward flushing out the proposal would be a difficult one.

To: Ilaine who wrote (20198)	2/28/2002 3:21:43 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re the "hard core" in Israel that doesn't want to give up land. The thing to remember is that the Arabs, like the Irish in their rebellion against the English, are in this for the long haul. Israel has only been there for 54 years, which is not a terribly long time. By contrast, the crusades lasted around 200 years. Most of that time was more or less "peaceful". There was constant negotiation, but in the end the Arabs got it all back. The Arabs know this history well, and so do the Israelis. If the Israelis want to retain control over any part of Palestine/Israel at all, they will give away no land that they can reasonably defend (the Sinai was not economically defensible and made an excellent DMZ), and they certainly won't give land that is necessary for their defense. Unfortunately, as weapon systems continue to become more far reaching, Israel simply becomes less militarily defensible, so she needs to be adding land, not giving it up. Giving up permanent security (or at least as "permanent" as a tiny nation can expect in a sea of larger enemies) in return for peace which can only be temporary isn't such a good idea. The idea behind victory is to take land and keep it, not to give it up. The way to Israel's survival is through victory, not negotiation, but the trend is definitely not in their favor. Even if Israel demands, and gets, their neighbors to become democratic, well the fact is that democracies launch wars about as often as any other type of nation, but are generally far more successful at it when they do. And as long as the Palestinians can keep themselves bloodily suppressed, emotions will run high in neighboring countries. In fact, as has been recently noted on this thread, fascism is a feature of democracies, not of authoritarian states. So one would expect that with the next economic downturn, even democratic neighbors of Israel are likely to use aggression towards her as a means to divert the people's attention away from the failing economy. For these reasons, giving land for "peace" is a rather dangerous proposition for Israel. I don't see it happening. In addition, there are limits to what is reasonable. For example, the Golan Heights are situated in such a way that whoever possesses them threatens sensitive parts of the other's country. I doubt that Syria is going to make peace without their return, and I doubt that Israel can find real peace after they return it as they will again have to put up with cross border sniping. This is true even in the unlikely event that a Syrian government, that truly desired peace with Israel, remained in power. As long as Arabs see the land that Israel occupies as formerly Arab territory, now lorded over by a small (and therefore potentially weak and outnumbered) foreign enemy, individual Arabs will organize and fight. If Israel retreats (but only part way), they will simply make their problem worse because that action will give heart to their enemy. Israel's only option is to give up or fight a heck of a lot harder than they're fighting now. Giving up land for peace doesn't contribute towards either viable option. Israel was able to come to agreement with Egypt because the Synai makes an excellent, natural demilitarized zone. Her other borders aren't so conveniently large, underpopulated and easily watched. -- Carl

To: Ilaine who wrote (20198)	2/28/2002 6:45:54 AM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>you disagreed with my assessment that the most deeply religious Jews would not compromise. I don't disagree anymore. It seems that both sides harbor suicide bombers.