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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23595)4/5/2002 12:05:50 PM
From: slacker711  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
All the stuff your talking about would have been dismantled by the offer on the table at Taba. If the settlements were the issue, a negotiated settlement was in sight. So why isn't there a negotiated settlement?

They may be a red herring for Arafat and the Palestinian leadership....but they still may be a point of rage for the Palestinian people. It is an easy example of proof (for the Palestinians) that Israel is planning on stealing the land from them.

The fact that Israel is willing to dismantle them now doesnt change the fact that it was a mistake to continue building them in the '90's. If you know your opponenet is looking for a fight, why give them a club to hit you with?

It would be different if there was a large material advantage to these settlements....but it seems mostly like an appeasement to the hard-right in Israel.

Slacker



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23595)4/5/2002 12:25:58 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Like others on the thread, I have never seen an objective analysis of what was actually "in sight" during those negotiations.

Just two different perspectives from two parties who would have difficulty agreeing about whether the sun sets in the west.

At any rate, that was then, this is now. If you look at a map that shows Israel's borders pre-1967, the settlements are inside what, in theory, should become Palestinian territory. Either they go, or they don't.

Do they stay or do they go?

Or shall we simply continue to temporize until the end of time, hoping, maybe, for a deus ex machina?



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23595)4/5/2002 12:30:03 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
OK, I think I've figured something out. The Israelis don't want a two state solution, either, and are doing everything they can to thwart it. That's the only possible explanation.