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: carranza2 who wrote (23427)	4/4/2002 1:11:30 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

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. I always end up going back to Camp David and Taba as well. I have yet to see a good explanation for the Palestinians unwillingness to negotiate (and I have looked). This should have been ended then....at worst, the agreement would have been defeated by the Israeli parliament/public. If this had been the case, the rest of the world would have wholeheartedly supported the current Palestinian cause. This is all from the Israeli viewpoint....from the US viewpoint, perhaps giving Arafat a state (even if his ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel) may be worth it. Perhaps it can buy a couple of years of peace during which the US can deal with the other issues in the Middle East. It would probably end up being shortsighted....but the US might be willing to take the chance that the intervening years may lessen support in the rest of the Arab world for Arafat. To be honest, I hate coming to the conclusion that the destruction of Isarael is the ultimate goal of Arafat. It makes the current situation nearly hopeless. Can anyone point me to disputing viewpoints about Camp David that they think are on target? I read the one from Robert Malley (aide to Clinton) and it wasnt very persausive. Slacker

To: carranza2 who wrote (23427)	4/4/2002 2:26:26 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi carranza2; Re: "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." People fight instead of negotiate because they believe that their results (which includes everything from pride to land) from fighting will be better than the results from negotiating. Countries negotiate ends to conflicts when both sides agree that the situation would be better without the use of force. Great Britain didn't negotiate with Germany in 1940. France did. The reason is that France could not see a way that her situation would improve through conflict, but instead concluded that they were defeated and that further conflict would make things worse for them. In this they may or may not have been correct, but Great Britain, with a body of well guarded water separating themselves from the Germany Army, saw things differently. The US and Vietnam negotiated an end to their conflict when it became clear that continuing the conflict wasn't good for either side. I'm still nothing short of amazed that relations with Cuba haven't been normalized. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when one side still believes that conflict will gain it its goals (and why shouldn't the Palestinians think that, plenty of neutral observers have concluded the same thing) and that the goal is worth the blood, and the other side doesn't agree, then there's no reason for negotiations. They're just a waste of time. When this is all over, Israel / Palestine will be a country where the right of return is available to all former inhabitants and their descendants (instead of just the Jewish ones), where there are no occupied territories and all the inhabitants are fully emancipated citizens with no distinctions in the law according to religion. If Israel were to offer this in their negotiations the Palestinians would become serious about negotiating. This is what eventually came about in South Africa. History will be repeated here. (Just don't hold your breath.) -- Carl

To: carranza2 who wrote (23427)	4/4/2002 2:46:03 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

After Oslo, there was no real progress towards a political solution. Carranza, if you wish to be somewhat complete here you need to note that the Israelis did not stop building out the settlements during this period. It could be argued both sides are complicitious. Or it could be argued that, to some degree, Arafat's reactions were the result of the continuing creation of settlements. Either way you might get a bit more human reading of him and his leadership.