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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (143217)3/12/2002 4:27:53 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577011
 
Secondly, Sharon was elected on a right wing, strong military, pro aggressive treatment of the Palestinian issue. The Israelis had had enough of talking and wanted the Palestinians to be pushed back.

Ted Sharon was elected because the Palestinians decided on violence not negotiations. When someone is attacking you you have to fight back. The only reason that this is not a conventional war is that the PLO knows it would have its head handed to it in that type of conflict, but it is a campaign of terrorism and low level guerrilla warfare.

However, its not working........the Palestinians feel they have legitimate grievances and won't go away. Even members of Sharon's party are frustrated and are looking for alternative measures. Its beginning to look like his tactics are not the right ones

The Palestinians could have had an independent country now, or if they thought the offer wasn't big enough they could have made a reasonable counter offer. If there answer is war and terrorism until Israel just cave then unfortunately a lot of Palestinians are going to die. For peace negotiations to work you have to have two sides that really want peace.

The Israelis that don't support Sharon's methods mostly feel that either his strategy is right but his tactics are not executed well, or that a more hard line strategy is needed. The Israeli left has shrunk, the moderates now want to get tough. If a new election was held Netanyahu would probably become PM and he would push for a harder line then Sharon.

Tim



To: tejek who wrote (143217)3/12/2002 6:27:28 PM
From: hmaly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577011
 
Ted Re...Tim, first of all its not a war in the traditional sense of the word but rather a police action on the part of Israel. <<<<<<<<<<<

And it was that kind of thinking that got the twin towers destroyed. Clinton had several chances to do what GW did and root out terrorism at its source. But all of the semantics did him in. Leaders don't necessarily make opportunities as much as take advantage of them. Clinton waffled, Gw took decisive action in Afghanistan,. You aren't going to get rid of violence in the middle east just by eliminating Palestine; just as granting Israel statehood didn't stop violence against the Jews. Palestine is the knife, the other Arab states use to stab Israel. Take away the knife, and Iran or Iraq will just use another weapon. This has been going on throughout history, not just the last 50 yrs since Israel was founded.

How do we stop it. Wars have been fought all over this planet since humans first took over. What makes us think Sharon has the ability to stop this one. He hasn't the power. But the US and the UN do; by getting the middle east to rise up above religious wars and nationalism. To do that, we need to establish an Arab trading block which will improve the life of everyone in the region. Afghanistan would be a good start. Now that we have defeated Taliban, we need to follow up with the hard part, and install a democracy, with a strong national gov. and police force. And give them enough money, as we did with the Marshall plan in Europe; to rebuild a country with a vibrant economy. Now isn't the time to get cheap. Secondly, give both Iran and Iraq a deal they can't refuse, to make them accept the Saudi peace initiative or else. Take away the outside influences, Israel and Palestine might be able to live in peace. There is no oher way.