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: stockman_scott who wrote (26121)	4/19/2002 6:32:24 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

This critique of Sharon is inconsistent: If this were just a case of refusing to bend under fire, Mr Sharon's failure might be forgivable; most Israelis believe that surviving depends on showing no weakness. The trouble with Mr Sharon is that he seems not to accept the principle upon which any imaginable peace must rest, namely Israel's evacuation of most of the land it conquered in 1967, so that a viable Palestinian state can arise in the West Bank and Gaza. Right now, he weeps crocodile tears over the collapse of the Oslo process he never supported. But under cover of fighting terrorism, he shows every sign of wanting to resurrect the vision of a “Greater Israel”, for ever in charge of the West Bank, which inspired Likud governments in the 1970s and 1980s. Refusing to bend under fire is ok, but only if Sharon somehow simultaneously offers a political horizon and a state. Well, Sharon has said that he accepts the vision of a Palestinian state; how is he supposed to offer more while the suicide bombing is going on, without bending under fire? Maybe the Economist won't believe this declaration since Sharon has a history of opposition to Oslo (btw, why do opponents of Oslo never get any credit for foresight?). That means that Sharon would have to actually give the state in order to be believed, but that looks like bending under fire again, doesn't it? Face it, both sides felt that negotiations were at an impasse. The Palestinians turned to their intifada and the Israelis hired their bulldog (Hawk phrased it well) to hold up their end. Any outside party who comes in now to impose a peace will wind up fighting one or both sides. I don't see any volunteers for this duty, except the UN, who intend to save themselves by acting as human shields for the Palestinians, just as they do in Lebanon. But they certainly won't impose any kind of peace.