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: JohnM who wrote (25566)	4/16/2002 11:38:13 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Finding leverage in the rubble Chicago Tribune / Editorial Published April 16, 2002 Yasser Arafat's homeland is in a shambles. His people are dying by the hundreds and he's living in a hovel without running water surrounded by Israeli troops. Yet the Palestinian president thinks he has the leverage to demand that Israel withdraw from the territories before negotiations on a cease-fire can begin. Ariel Sharon's nation is besieged by suicide bombers. Large demonstrations around the world protest his latest military incursion into Palestinian towns and he is making the one major ally he has left, the U.S., look feckless. Yet the Israeli prime minister thinks he has the leverage to demand Arafat commit to end terrorism before he will engage in political negotiations. These two gentlemen are losing touch with reality. Neither has leveraged himself into a stronger position. There is no military solution to this conflict. Yet each insists on blaming the other for the crisis while their people die and their dispute flares--dangerously threatening to escalate into a regional conflict. Secretary of State Colin Powell's peace mission may yet yield results, but at the moment things look pretty dire. Sharon's statement Monday that Israel will pull out of some, but not all, Palestinian cities within a week provides scant relief. Powell flew to Lebanon and Syria to try to calm increasing tensions along Israel's northern border, including attacks by Hezbollah guerrillas against Israeli forces in a disputed border area. But the Syrian-backed Shiite rebels vowed to continue attacks. At home, President Bush is being criticized on the right and the left for his handling of the crisis. Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are taking him to task for demanding that Sharon pull back Israeli forces reoccupying Palestinian cities in the West Bank--as well as for allowing Powell to meet with Arafat, given his history of terrorism. Bush was right to send Powell, whether he comes home with a truce or he doesn't. Bush could no longer afford to be anything less than fully engaged, despite the odds. This conflict threatens to undermine Arab and Muslim support for U.S. efforts to wipe out the Al Qaeda terrorist network and take action against Iraq's Saddam Hussein. It could threaten the stability of America's closest moderate Arab allies. If Powell's mission doesn't succeed, the U.S. is likely going to have to take a different tack. It may try to set up another regional summit meeting on the order of the 1991 Madrid peace conference, which included representatives from Israel, Arab states and the Palestinians--but not Arafat. If that fails, the U.S. may have to look long and hard at its financial commitments in the Middle East. America gives Israel $2.8 billion a year in foreign aid and it donates roughly $100 million annually in aid to the Palestinians. For all their enmity, Sharon and Arafat have one thing in common: an obstinacy that is harming their people, their cause, their homelands--and those who try to help them. Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune chicagotribune.com

To: JohnM who wrote (25566)	4/16/2002 11:40:16 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

No, those are not structural reasons. Neither are the structual reasons political, at least at first. They become so when offered as political tools. The structural reasons are the serious inequities, the occupation of the West Bank, etc. Inequities per se do not become "structural reasons for despair", they just create resentment. They lead to suicide and murder when offered as political tools, as you say. In fact, I think it's a mistake to keep talking about the "despair" of suicide bombers, since they are motivated by hope for victory, not despair. If this girl had been sure that her death was going to be useless, would she have killed herself?