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: Zeev Hed who wrote (22660)	3/30/2002 12:20:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

The fact of the matter is that most Palestinians and most Jordanians are really part and parcel of the same "nation", maybe the solution lay there? This is where I tend to lean as well... After all, the West Bank was occupied and annexed by the Hashemites, propped up by the British, and thus denying those non-Jewish residents in Palestine (the Palestinian partition) a potential homeland of far greater geographical size than what is being discussed now. But I seriously believe that last thing the Saudis would accept is the fall of King Abdullah and his government replaced with a secular Palestinian state. However, on the other hand, is it not implicit in the argument that if the Palestinians constitute an actual nation, it is utterly unfair to limit them geographically to the West Bank and Gaza? Would not the next aspiration for the Palestinian leadership be to subvert and overthrow the Hashemite government and unify the two populations as we attempted on Black September?? Personally, I like King Abdullah and perceive him as a powerful moderating force in the region. But I can't see how the population of Jordan can be conveniently segregated from any solution to the problem. And it's clear that even if a Palestinian state were established on the West Bank and Gaza, there is simply NO WAY that it can be economically (thus politically) independent from Israel. They rely upon Israeli electricity, and other infrastructure, as well as Israeli jobs and markets. And the West Bank is isolated from any ports from which to export products or establish a line of economic communications independent of other nations. Thus, it would seem the precedent being set here is that any group of people who so desire to do so, can just declare that they are a nation and deserve a state. The potential consequences of permitting such a precedent to be established could seriously undermine any number of nation-states throughout the world. Hawk

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (22660)	3/30/2002 3:30:32 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 281500

I found it interesting that although the US agreed with the UN resolution that Israel should pull out. President Bush made no reference to it whatsoever in his Q and A with reporters earlier this afternoon. I will take a guess at what has happened: The Europeans insisted on the resolution. My guess is that the UK was going to vote in favor of it even if the US would have rejected it. That would have been a nightmare for the Bush administration to have the number one ally in the fight against terror to take a stand opposite. So to avoid this, they went along with the resolution. That explains why they are not bringing it up again. Also reading that although Bush is clearly siding with the Israeli position. However, the comments out of the EU seem to indicate that they are at odds with the US. It is clear to me that they do not see eye to eye. Just from listening to Powell yesterday and Bush today, one can see it. Also noticed how Tony Blair (UK priminister) is cooling on an attack against Iraq. This is coming weeks after the Europeans seemed to have angrily responded to the steel import tariffs. I realize that economonic versus security should not mix but I think it is inevitable. I think something is wrong here...possible rift against Europe. Something to watch in the coming weeks. I hope the administration realizes this. just my observations (and concerns).