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 (25546)	4/16/2002 10:39:15 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Their idea is for an American-lead imposition of fair terms on both sides, objections by either be damned. As the terms are implemented and enforced, each side will presumably learn that the other is serious about peace. A sort of enforced trust would result. I would concur that, outside of Israel defeating the extremists and imposing their "best offer" scenario for a Palestinian state, that an outside intervention would be required. Unfortunately, whoever imposes such a status would incur the responsibility to assuring it's success. And that would make them targets for extremists on both sides who have little interest in the type of peace the authors refer to. I'm not against imposing a peace, as it certainly would assure Israel of their security needs (the US effectively guaranteeing it), and the Palestinians of a state. It also would be significant financial aid.. But since it would involve even more "western influence" in the region, the Muslim extremists would have even more reason to make things uncomfortable for the US, to the extent that we cease being a "fair" arbitrator. Such an intervention certainly has the potential of becoming a political and military quagmire. But as UncleWest reminded us the other day, there are sins of ommission and sins of commission. Such an intervention would definitely fall under the latter, while doing nothing could be interpreted as the former. Of course, there's the argument that the US shouldn't get involved at all, except diplomatically, and that the two parties should work it out for themselves. Hawk