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: Fred Levine who wrote (695)	4/24/2002 11:27:18 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 786

And mikes position keeps moving too. The Sharon plan to annex 50% of the WB is being discussed now openly. Its not at all what i wanted but if you assume it is impossible to go back to Camp David and the Barak offer it has to be considered. I think it is clear the Palestinians want the right of return & control to the 1947 line if that. There is no place for the israelis in that scenario so the Israelis feel that they need the buffer. World opinion which is so biased need not concern them anymore. No matter what they do they are villified anyway so why bother. And arafat is a hero to the euros as they talk of rescinding perez nobel peace prize but arafats will remain because he must be a true man of peace. Give me a break. mike PS Stern gang once committed an act of terror against the british ambassador i believe and Ben Gurion told his forces to hunt them down and arrest them with shoot to kill orders if they did not surrender peacefully.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (695)	4/24/2002 11:35:13 AM
From: runes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

Fred - Of course we are crossing lines - it wouldn't be much of a debate otherwise. I don't expect you to suddenly change you mind and vice-versa. But what we are doing is airing things out - exposing the weaknesses of each sides positions and debunking some of the misconceptions. I didn't respond to all the points in your post because there were so many. So I tried to hit the main points. <Arab assimilation of the immigrant issue...> ...First, your statement is again a blanket "them Arabs" statement which is effectively treating the problem as a racial issue. For the record - it is a PALESTINIAN refugee problem, not an Arab refugee problem. ...Second - as a matter of politics, nobody wants to do Israel a favor by making the refugee issue disappear from view. Not to mention the fear that Israel might start creating new refugees if the consequences are mitigated. Begin and terrorsim - ...The point was that having been a terrorist does not preclude the possiblity of peace. What Begin did was still an act of terrorism. And while they British were not civilians I would argue that they were still in the "innocent" category much as the marines were in Lebanon. US killing innocents - ...My point there was the fallacy of your "logic" where you take selected anectdotal evidence and synthesize a general conclusion. I see you passed on synthesizing a conclusion for the long history of Christian led persecution and Islamic tolerance of the Jews. Understandable as the obvious conclusion would absurdly deny the current realities. Bin Laden - ...As a practical matter - If the US had stayed out of the Gulf War then Osama would have led the Saudi Army to victory over the secular (infidel) Sadam. At least this was Osama's wet dream as he returned from defeating the Russians. So history would have been very different (the manic would probably have gotten himself killed). ...As for his statement - he is giving an PR interview to the US media and his fame has been generated by attacks on US targets. So do you really expect him to say that deep down he is a nice guy just trying to fix US policy. Or do you expect him to say that he is a real scary guy and he is coming for us? <I can't find a better alternative that's effective> ...And, sadly, that is the one opinion that most Israelis and most Palestinians have in common. And, taking this to it's logically absurd conclusion, you have a situation where each side depopulates the other until the entire region is eventually conquered by the Grand Duchy of Monaco and turned into a resort for religious gamblers. ...Or do you prefer the scenario where Israel wipes Palestine off the face of the planet once and for all? ...Or would you defer to history where the first Christian crusade (also based on their right of return) held the holy land for 100 years before they were driven back out. ...Or how about the one where the Palestinians are exiled and migrate around the world for a few hundred years before they claim their right of return? ...Sigh - so many bad endings to chose from. Funny how solutions based on force tend to be unpalatable. ...Being a bit more realistic - it is clear that ultimately there will be two states with Jerusalem a split (or independent) city. And some form of right of return/reparartions will have to be worked out. (IMO - at least half of that should come from the British hide for their incompetent stewardship of the region). And Israel will need to have a sense of security from the arrangements. ...And that solution will never happen under the threat of force.

To: Fred Levine who wrote (695)	4/24/2002 12:41:02 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 786

Fred, What happens if sharon annexes 50% of the WB and removes settlements from the other half? Legally when a country is victorious in war as israel was in 1967, they get to keep the land until there is a deal. Now that there is no deal and no prospects for one and the Palestinian Authority has shown(&israel has evidence) that only the destruction of israel will satisfy them, one can make a case that annexation would be legal. Its a strong legal case in international law--not popular but strong enough to have a chance of winning in a courtroom. This was not my first choice ever, and i still think that the current discussion of this might might be a precursor for israel imposing camp david on the palestinians with more land adjustments than in the original. So somewhere between 5% and 50% defensible borders may be found along with a further truncated Palestinian state. Palestinians keep shrinking their own state because they want it all including israel. Runes is a nice guy but all wet on this one. mike

To: Fred Levine who wrote (695)	4/24/2002 3:25:33 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 786

Sorry Fred but i think we are being played by runes in this argument. He is a master spinner looking to get under our skin. I believe in his last post he showed his true colors as to what his position really is. When you start referring to jews as europeans, that evokes coded messages that he is unaware he is sending or the opposite more sinister conclusion. Zionism is not even an ideology i share but terrorism is one i abhor. So i am on the victims side. Arafat had a deal and chose terror. Nuff said. By the way i was ROTFLMAO on his assertion that osama would have led the saudis against saddam. mike