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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22351)	3/27/2002 3:37:54 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Followup on the Kissinger piece. I thought it was useful that Kissinger points out what should be obvious, but is not, that the Israelis are expected (unlike any other party in any other conflict) to give major territorial concessions in exchange for mere recognition of their existence: Welcome as this engagement in the peace process is—the first by an Arab state not having a direct national conflict with Israel—its specific terms represent a restatement of a position that has produced the existing deadlock. The pre-1967 “border” in Palestine—unlike the Egyptian, Syrian or Jordanian frontiers with Israel—was never an international frontier but a ceasefire line established at the end of the 1948 war. It was never recognized by any Arab state until after the 1967 war and has been grudgingly accepted recently by states that do not yet recognize the legitimacy of Israel. I have never encountered an Israeli prime minister or chief of staff who considered the ’67 borders defensible, and especially if coupled with an abandonment of a security position along the Jordan River. This is because the ’67 borders leave a corridor as narrow as eight miles between Haifa and Tel Aviv and put the border of Israel at the edge of its international airport. Moreover, Israel would have to give up settlements containing approximately 200,000 inhabitants (about 4 percent of its Jewish population). In return, Israel would achieve diplomatic relations with its neighbors. But in almost all other negotiations, mutual recognition of the parties is taken for granted, not treated as a concession. In fact, nonrecognition implies the legal nonexistence of the other state, which, in the context of the Middle East, is tantamount to an option to destroy it. Once granted, recognition can always be withdrawn; breaking diplomatic relations is a recognized diplomatic tool. Nor does formal normalization involve much else: Israel’s peace agreement with Egypt of 23 years ago has brought little in the way of enhanced economic or cultural relations other than an exchange of ambassadors who are rarely brought into play.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22351)	3/27/2002 3:45:13 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

More on Lebanese-PA flap from Reuters: Palestinian-Lebanese Flap Revives Old Hostility March 27, 2002 01:43 PM ET Email this article Printer friendly version By Samia Nakhoul BEIRUT (Reuters) - A dispute at an Arab summit in Beirut Wednesday revived long-standing Lebanese-Palestinian tensions and overshadowed a Saudi Middle East peace plan. The Palestinians quit the morning session in fury over what they said was Lebanese President Emile Lahoud's refusal to let their leader Yasser Arafat address the summit by satellite from his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Israel has kept Arafat bottled up in Ramallah for more than three months, demanding that he arrest militants and enforce a cease-fire to halt 18 months of Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed. Lahoud later said he had feared Israel might interfere with a live broadcast, but Arab officials and analysts saw it as a deliberate snub, which they attributed to the bitter enmity Syrian and some Lebanese leaders feel toward Arafat. The atmosphere was sour even before the summit began. The Palestinian delegation arrived in Beirut to find that their hosts had given them just six hotel rooms. Some Gulf delegations occupied up to 300 rooms. Most others got more than 30. More significantly, Lebanon insisted that the Arab leaders ensure that any terms they agree for a peace deal with Israel should explicitly reject any move to let the 360,000 Palestinian refugees it now hosts settle permanently on its territory. Lebanon fears the impact on its delicate sectarian balance of any such solution. Many Lebanese blame Palestinians for triggering the 1975-90 civil war that devastated their country. Syria intervened in the civil war to prevent Palestinian guerrillas getting the upper hand and has long sought to curb Arafat's political independence. It has not forgiven him for cutting a separate peace deal with Israel at Oslo in 1993. Damascus, which still has about 20,000 troops stationed in Lebanon, dominates politics in its weaker neighbor. VIDEO LINK Palestinian Planning Minister Nabil Shaath told Reuters Lahoud had shown contempt for the whole summit by preventing Arafat from addressing the assembled leaders from afar. "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, with all his mean and impertinent ways, prevented President Arafat from attending the summit physically," Shaath said. "The head of the summit prevented his image and voice from being present." Palestinian and Arab delegates said foreign ministers had agreed the order of summit speeches in advance. Jordan, which hosted the last Arab summit, was to go first, then Lahoud, followed by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah and Arafat. But the Palestinian leader never got his turn. Live television coverage showed Arafat preparing to speak over the video link as he waited for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to finish a protracted address to the summit. Instead Lahoud gave the floor to the president of tiny Djibouti. "Every Arab delegation, including the Saudis, tried their best to persuade President Lahoud to allow Arafat to speak," Shaath said. "I don't want to judge the intentions of the Lebanese president but what he did was a grave political mistake...The whole summit has failed," the Palestinian minister said. When the summit reconvened after a lengthy break, Lahoud said there had been a "misunderstanding" over Arafat's speech. "I say we are all determined that his speech reach the summit and through it the world," he told dismayed Arab leaders. "We agreed with the Palestinians that it should be recorded and then broadcast to the summit because direct transmission would have given Israel the chance to interfere with the speech," the Lebanese leader explained. But by the end of the summit's first day, the Arab leaders had yet to hear Arafat's message to them. reuters.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22351)	3/27/2002 4:23:17 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Not sure what Kissinger is saying, but it sounds too passive, as I see nothing to suggest Arafat will accept any middle ground. I still maintain that the US is committed to calling a spade a spade: the PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah/et al actions amount to terrorism. If we don't call it what it is and respond accordingly, that spade may be used to dig too many graves. It is time to crush the terrorist groups. The attack on the coastal hotel is more evidence of what tarrying & hand-wringing & coddling Arafat's delusions that he's human, will bring.