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: Brian Sullivan who wrote (28169)	5/3/2002 8:06:01 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If the Palestinian stop all of their terrorism, recognize Israel right to exist and drop the right of return (to Israel) and select a democracy as their preferred type of government, then after all of these conditions are met we can talk about a "Palestinian" state on the West Bank. In other words, same-old same-old. If, if, if. " If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." James Madison, Federalist no. 51. But men are not angels, and angels do not govern men. Therefore, someone needs to impose peace by force. Someone who doesn't go on rampages and smash Palestinian civil infrastructure in a fit of pique. The Palestinian government has failed, and the Israeli government has failed.

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (28169)	5/3/2002 8:45:22 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

2. The other Arab countries should open their borders to their Palestinian brothers, so that the 80% of the people who don't want to fight Israel to the death have someplace to go to live a peaceful and productive life. Brian, That strikes me as a form of ethnic cleansing. Move them out and the Israelis will take over. Do you genuinely mean that?

To: Brian Sullivan who wrote (28169)	5/4/2002 4:37:33 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Brian Sullivan; Re: "While the Palestinians continue to use suicide bombers the IDF will be deployed to keep the peace. If they don't like the IDF then they had better solve their suicide bomber problem." This may be a bit of a problem. Since the technology of making suicide bombs is fairly simple, and since no government on the planet has anywhere near complete control over its citizens, I would be willing to hazard a guess that the Palestinian government, no matter what it does, cannot stop all suicide bombers. This is similar to the situation Ireland. When the British gave up control of the Irish Republic, the Irish Republic renounced the armed fight for freedom in the remaining counties. (I think they renounced the fight, but not necessarily the peaceful political struggle.) But even after that, citizens of the Irish Republic were often responsible for various violent acts in Northern Ireland. The Irish Republic would jail them if caught, but since there was a lot of support for them among the citizens (it only takes one person to make a bomb), the Republic couldn't possible stop the problem completely. The Palestinian Authority faces the same problem. They can't possibly halt all suicide bombings. As long as the Israelis continue to make attacks in Palestine (this includes assassinations as well as tanks and bulldozers), I doubt that the Palestinian Authority will even try to stop suicide bombers. In addition, even if the Israeli government stops its official violent actions, Israeli extremists will take up some of the slack (as they have in the past), and commit violent actions against the Palestinians. Both sides need to recognize that even if both sides make their best efforts at reducing their own violence, the result will still be that both sides will be under violent attack. This was certainly the case in South Africa. Until they reach this level of understanding they're not going to get anywhere. -- Carl P.S. By "violent" I mean to include any activity that uses force to obtain a goal. That includes everything from disruptive street gatherings or imposed curfews to full scale war. I don't mean to use the word in a pejorative manner. I'm looking for a neutral word. If the reader just can't stand this word, simply replace "violent" with "terroristic", "freedom fighting", "policing", or "legitimate grievances", as required.