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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23938)	4/8/2002 9:23:19 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sharon disagrees, for he believes that the condition was already fully in place: Arafat = Palestinian Taliban. And for the moment, he has Israel with him. Furthermore, I bet that if you asked Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield their opinions, they would agree with Sharon. They know they are asking Israel to act against its own best interests. US and Israeli interests have diverged. Hmm, I think that's only at a superficial level. I agree with your observation about Sharon. It seems to me he has had a variation of that equation since at least 82, perhaps earlier. As for the US administration, I notice you don't include Powell in that list, yet it appears now to be his turn to take a cut at addressing these issues. Cheney clearly went belly up in his turn; Bush is reduced to issuing orders to Sharon which strikes me as the worst kind of diplomacy. I'm still afraid that the consequence of Sharon's policy for the Israelis is much worse than just about any other alternative; that it increases the level of solidarity and anger in the Palestinian community to the point there is no chance of any kind of settlement for decades; that Israel's vulnerability is even greater than before; all because it is terribly difficult, close to impossible, for two peoples to live alongside one another with the level of anger this produces.