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 (20595)	3/4/2002 5:59:41 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

It's classic victim mentality to claim that only the other side has any options, and that one's own side was forced by circumstances to do exactly what they've done Saying "it's classic victim mentality" sheds no light on the case, unless you can bring evidence that the claim has little basis in fact. It is the sober judgement of many diplomats and observers (including Palestinians like Prof. Sayigh) that the Palestinians did have other options under Oslo that could have got them good results -- if they had been willing to take a compromise. But they weren't, for any number of reasons, so therefore land-for-peace won't go and the conflict is intractable for the forseeable future. That wasn't known until it was tried. Palestine is so powerful diplomatically, then how many billions of dollars to they collect in aid from the US? Where's their capital? The PA gets about $100 million/year from the US, more from Europe, and much more still from the Arab states. They were getting tax sharing from Israel as well until the start of the intifada. Where is their capital? In Swiss bank accounts, for one; Arafat and his cronies are remarkably sticky-fingered even as third-world dictatorships go. Second, war is expensive and Arafat has been preparing for a while. He began paying the wages of the Tanzim militia three months before the intifada started; and the Karine A was not the only shipment of arms from Iran. Like others in the Mideast, Arafat has other priorities than economic development. if Israel kills him now, someone else will rise to his position, and that person will be just as hard on Israel. This is obvious to Israel, which is at least one reason why they don't simply assassinate him. I would say rather, the diplomatic costs of owning Arafat's death make it not worthwhile. If Arafat were to die of natural causes, and be succeeded by, say, Jibril Rajoub, the Israelis do think it would be a big improvement, not because Rajoub would be any softer on Israel, but because he would be a better administrator, would try to get control over the Palestinians (Arafat has always been a trimmer & temporizer par exellence), and would generally be in better touch with reality. Arafat really thinks he's a second Saladin. That isn't just my opinion, but the expressed opinion of Shlomo Ben-Ami (the former Foreign Minister under Barak), the current head of the Shin Bet, and Colin Powell (Powell didn't mean to say it publicly but it leaked)