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.

Pastimes : AMAT Off-Topic Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: runes who wrote (690)	4/23/2002 8:50:10 AM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 786

Runes-- I am not an apologist for US policy. Indeed, I condemned much of the atrocities you cite in previous posts. I am also aware of other genocides, e.g., the French killed 500, 000 Algerians. My point is that if the Arabs, for political and religious reasons, killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs, it stands to reason that Jews (and Christians) would not fare better. My difference with you was that the cause of the current conflict is Israeli and US policies. I regard that as hopelessly simple -- and worse, a prelude to genocide. The Taliban destroyed Bamiyan -- a cherished Budhist statue. Project the intentions of the fundamentalist Muslims from this alone. You cannot attribut this senseless destruction to either Israel or the US! It derives from a religious fervor that glorifies violence. You try reasoning with this mentality,. I know I can't. You also misintepret the UN resolutions. I condemned the settlements, but the right of return, to my knowledge, was never a UN requirement. Please look this up as I will. In fact, and I'm sure of this, the UN resolved that Israel withdraw from land occupied after '67, but was quite clear that did not mean all the occupied land. It was specifically acknowledged that boundries needed to be flexible to assure Israeli security needs. However,the UN is still, unfortunately, not critical when national security is threatened. You are absolutely correct that I now advocate force. After the examples that you and I gave, the only conclusion that seemed rational in order to preserve stability and lives, is that force is necessary as a deterrent. In a previous post, I told a story about how after my 14 year old, very mild son, started lifting weights, he proved very strong. Word got around the school and he came home saying how the school bully was nice to him. He raised his hand in the air, and said. "I no longer believe in unilateral disarmament!" Extrapolate this to world politics. IMO, the one thing Arafat cannot handle is a Palestinian state. He doesn't have the skills, temperament, and is corrupt. When you state he'll get killed by accepting a peace without the right of return, you are probably correct. Obviously, the right of return cannot coexist with a Jewish state. In a similar situation in Turkey, Attiturk cruelly chased the Greeks out. When dealling with basic conflicts, there are rarely solutions, only alternatives. Would the exiled Palestinians be better off being absorbed by the Arab states or remaining in settlements. Israel, with a much smaller border, has absorbed many many more Jews than there were exiled Palestinians. They were cruelly exploited and not allowed to assimilate in Arab lands. However, the point is that Arafat has not and will not make peace. He has been and is still a terrorist. Tragically, the syntax of dealing with terror is not the syntax of rationality and universal compassion. fred