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: Ilaine who wrote (26045)	4/19/2002 10:57:16 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I have also read that many of the settlements are not populated by IDF and former IDF, but by ordinary civilians Not so sure about that, since all Israelis have to serve in the IDF after high school. However, they could be recent immigrants... Either way, most of them are heavily armed for their self-protection. But I still contend the settlements are a red herring, in general. If they were constructed in previously unoccupied ground, then obviously they didn't directly take the land from the Palestinians, but rather.. have denied them the future use of it. I'd wager that if the settlers are forced to relocate, IDF bulldozers will destroy every last trace of their existence so that the Palestinians can't inhabit them. If they want to live there, they can build settlements of their own. But yes.. it's a tough situation and one can understand the different perspectives. However, the Israelis, rightly or wrongly, are primarily presenting their for continuing the settlements, on the basis of national security. Remove that threat, and they will have to scramble to justify the continuance of them. Again, it's the difference between a Ghandi approach and one of threats and violence. Hawk