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 (20589)	3/4/2002 2:12:28 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The problem is not in the Palestinian leadership, nor is it about the details of who is in power in Israel. It's a basic disagreement over land and power. No matter who was leading the Palestinians the issue would be the same. This is not some unique historical event, this is the kind of fight that has already been fought many times over every square foot of arable land on this planet. Carl, while the fight is over land and power, reducing it to these terms exclusively omits all power of choice from either side. It also omits the consequences of those choices from the debate. I do believe that if King Abdullah had been in Arafat's shoes and Barak offered him 90% of what he wanted, he would have tried to bargain hard and do a deal. I also believe that King Abdullah would have been smart enough to make moral arguments to the Israelis, who are swayed by them. Arafat has only figured out how to make moral arguments to the West (self-determination as a cause goes over much better than attempted destruction of Israel) while favoring indiscriminate killing of Israelis as a tactic. Remember, the whole settlements issue is of recent date; the PLO was founded before Israel was even in the territories for the purpose of destroying Israel. Arafat passed on real chances to get the territories (he could have joined Sadat in 1979) because he was intent on destroying Israel. He only said yes in 1993 because he was broke and friendless in Tunis. For that matter, if things were reversed, the Israelis would be executing terror tactics against the Palestinians (just like they did against the British). If things were reversed, you might have a minority movement favoring terrorism among the Israelis, as the Irgun was a minority during the Mandate. The Israelis majority, who would be better organized and more in control than their Paleistinian equivalents (based on history), would try to use diplomatic options if they were open -- and unlike the case of the Zionists in the Mandate, the Palestinians had real diplomatic options open to them. Arafat just reverts easily to terrorism because he's a terrorist from his youth, he's comfortable with it. Again, we're dealing with the consequences of his choice.

To: Bilow who wrote (20589)	3/4/2002 3:33:01 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Haaretz reports that the PA believes that full-scale war is coming, and is positioning itself to lead it, with the Al Aqsa Brigades in the vanguard. One must really question their sanity. ________________________________________________________ The PA believes full-scale war is coming By Danny Rubinstein Opinion in the West Bank and Gaza Strip now has the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Yasser Arafat, at the peak of their popularity. Palestinian journalists report that the fact that almost all the attacks on Israeli targets are being carried out by the Fatah's Tanzim militias, through the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, has greatly improved the prestige of the PA in Palestinian eyes. This new-found prestige stands out against a backdrop on which most of the attacks till recently were perpetrated by opposition groups, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, while the PA's security forces were arresting and jailing those who planned and executed them. Up until a few weeks ago, when the Israel Defense Forces was busy assassinating activists from the Islamic groups, there were demonstrations and rallies against Arafat and his people. The demonstrators tried to prevent the arrests of the Islamic activists, storming jails in an effort to free prisoners. On several occasions, shooting battles broke out between the Palestinian security forces and Hamas and Islamic Jihad supporters. As was the case in the 1950s and 1960s, when Palestinian demonstrators took to the streets of Gaza and Nablus and demanded that Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser and Jordan's King Hussein go to war to stop the IDF's retaliatory raids, so too at the beginning of the intifada there was a lot of bitterness with regard to the fact that the PA, which has 40,000 men in arms, didn't send its forces out to defend the citizenry. This has all changed now, with Fatah, the ruling party in the Palestine Liberation Organization and in the Palestinian Authority, now serving as the leading Palestinian resistance force. Palestinian commentators said yesterday that the Sharon government had practically forced Fatah and the PA to take active roles in the violence. Every terrorist attack was followed by Israel pointing a finger at Arafat and his people, and the IDF bombed and destroyed police stations and installations used by the PA security forces. The Israeli attacks on Arafat and the PA legitimized them in the eyes of the Palestinian public, immunizing them from the anger and bitterness of the street, which is suffering distress and looking for the guilty parties. Conversations last night in East Jerusalem revealed that many Palestinians had felt uneasy when it turned out that the suicide attack Saturday night in the Beit Yisrael neighborhood of the capital was aimed at women and children. But that discomfort disappeared yesterday morning when news broke about the lone Palestinian sharpshooter with an old carbine rifle who managed to debilitate the IDF checkpoint at Ofra. Damascus Gate's cages were filled with people talking about what a lone, but brave and determined Palestinian sniper can do to the IDF. Unlike the Beit Yisrael attack, which was formally condemned by the Palestinian Authority, the attack at the checkpoint was welcomed by all. The Palestinian media is broadcasting with a dramatic atmosphere of total war. Palestinian radio broadcasts yesterday were anchored by veteran broadcaster Abu Firas, who only goes on the air nowadays under special circumstances. He participated in broadcasts that were full of campaign songs and nationalist sloganeering. The Palestinian papers at the weekend ran dozens of photos fron the fighting in Balata and Jenin. A caricature mocked an Israeli tank that couldn't climb over a boulder labeled Balata. "Balata of Men," is how the press called the refugee camp, not failing to mention that 15 years ago, the first intifada began in the West Bank in the same refugee camp. haaretzdaily.com