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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7720)	4/8/2002 4:43:01 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Considering that there are strategic and nationalist considerations for occupying the whole of Eretz Israel, the fact that the West Bank has not been annexed is rather remarkable. Partially, it is because driving out the Palestinians would be a humanitarian catastrophe, at best, and partially because incorporating them in Israel would harm the demographic balance, increasing the "fifth column" in the state. However, there is a great deal of ambivalence about permitting a Palestinian state on the West Bank, considering that Fatah, which is touted as the most responsible PLO faction, is a terrorist organization itself, and all the other pro- Palestinian factions, with the exception of a few academic peaceniks, are worse. Think of it: Arafat was the best they could do for a negotiating partner. That is like a Jew embracing Eichman. Thus, the Likud preferred the "autonomy plus" formula: something short of statehood, but allowing internal matters to be handled by the Palestinians, and a lightly armed militia to keep the peace when the police were insufficient. They even explored the idea of co- sovereignty with Jordan. The settlements were fundamental to that effort, by establishing the sovereign rights of Israel without actual annexation. Besides which, they shut up those that wanted full annexation, at least for the time being, which was important to coalition building in the Knesset. They also were partially meant to shove in the face of the Palestinians, as in, "keep blowing up school buses, and you may get a bunch of settlers plopped down in your town." Besides, in the end, Israel is likely to annex the area around Jerusalem as a security buffer, and the settlements in that area will help to secure that territory........

To: Lane3 who wrote (7720)	4/8/2002 4:47:48 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The better choice would have been not to expand them in the first place. That's blood over the dam. The question now is what happens now. The Israelis indicated originally they were bargaining chips to up the ante and force a settlement. Which sounds suspiciously like BS. I wonder if in fact an Israeli gov't could say that, in response to a peace offer with guarantees, it was going to abandon the setllements. It would probably have to send tanks in to shoot it out with the Israeli settlers who wouldn't leave. And face riots by Israelis in Israel.