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: slacker711 who wrote (23417)	4/4/2002 11:58:51 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

slacker how do interpret this article ? Bombers Gloating in Gaza as They See Goal Within Reach: No More Israel nytimes.com

To: slacker711 who wrote (23417)	4/4/2002 12:04:10 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

It seems to me that the central difference between Nadine and others on this thread is that she believes that the ultimate goal of the Palestinian leadership is to destroy Israel (please correct me if I am wrong about that). No correction needed, slacker711.

To: slacker711 who wrote (23417)	4/4/2002 12:27:59 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't think there's any doubt but that the goal of the current Palestinian leadership is to destroy Israel as a State. The evidence is overwhelming. After Oslo, there was no real progress towards a political solution. At Camp David II, the Palestinians got the most generous Israeli concession yet. Some have characterized them as the Palestinians getting 90% of what they allegedly wanted. Yet, they were rejected without further negotiation. I engage in subtle and complex negotiations every day as part of my job. Whenever one side offers 90% of the expressed demands made by another party, I consider that real and substantial progress has been made. A compromise follows 99% of the time. The little I can read from the tea leaves left after Camp David II are two-fold: First, the Palestinians did not accurately express their goals, which might very well be the elimination of Israel--that kind of negotiating stance cannot be expressed. Secondly, they were not negotiating in good faith. The failure of the Palestinians to seek a political solution, their scuttling of Camp David II, and their subsequent use of homicidal bombers belies any suggestion on their part that they are interested in a settlement. Other than the destruction of Israel as a State, what else can reasonably be deduced? And, yes, the position one takes on the issue inevitably leads to how one judges Israeli actions. The question which tests the hypothesis is the following: What would the Palestinians do now while under assault by the Israelis if they were in fact interested in negotiation? Isn't it reasonable to think that they would go directly to a negotiated political solution instead of sending more homicidal bombers into Israel during a religious holiday? Wouldn't they unilaterally declare a ceasefire and call for immediate negotiations? It's what I would do if I were serious about negotiating.

To: slacker711 who wrote (23417)	4/4/2002 1:56:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 281500

that the ultimate goal of the Palestinian leadership is to destroy Israel I am sorry to have to say that I agree with this statement.

To: slacker711 who wrote (23417)	4/4/2002 2:38:51 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It seems to me that the central difference between Nadine and others on this thread is that she believes that the ultimate goal of the Palestinian leadership is to destroy Israel (please correct me if I am wrong about that). Interesting post, slacker. I'm certain Nadine has a response further down the thread. But let me put one bit of two cents in here. I think it's important to differentiate. It's fairly easy to separate Hamas, Hezbellah (sp??), Islamic Jihad, the PLO, etc. and some refined way to divide up the Palestinian population from one another and then ask the degree to which they share interests and goals. What bothers me about many of the posts on the thread is that they are all lumped together. Ditto for the Israeli side. The political faction now in power is from the far right (yeah, I know unity government). It needs, as a leadership label, to be separated from other groups. I think that helps think about divergences and reduces, to some small extent, the stereotyping.