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: FaultLine who wrote (28745)	5/7/2002 5:14:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Please, not again with Agha and Malley. Surely once was enough! As for the Palestinians, their basic interests can be defined as living in freedom, dignity, equality, and security; ending the occupation and achieving national self-determination; resolving the refugee issue fairly; governing and controlling the Muslim and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem; and ensuring that whatever deal is finally struck is accepted as legitimate by members of the Arab and Muslim worlds. The Palestinians have repeatedly torpedoed the chance of getting their basic interests in pursuit of their maximal interests. They did this at intervals for most of the last century. The breakdown of Oslo was just the last example in a long series of events that started in 1936. Have they got new leadership since 2000? No. Has their existing leadership undertaken new positions? No. So why should anything be different now?

To: FaultLine who wrote (28745)	5/7/2002 5:38:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<The time has come for an effort that is neither top-down nor bottom-up, but outside-in: the forceful presentation by external actors of a comprehensive, fair, and lasting deal.>> That makes too much sense....The ball is in The United State's court. IMO, we must be much more proactive. FL: thanks for posting the article. -Scott

To: FaultLine who wrote (28745)	5/7/2002 5:49:00 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

John, and the entire thread, it is imperative to read the FA piece by Agha and Malley on an imposed settlement. It's in the latest issue. My apologies. I must have missed the post by carranza. I agree. I read it sometime back and use it a good bit as I think about the process now, particularly the argument that piece meal settlements create a structure which undermines the process. Malley also had an op ed piece in the Times in the last couple of days.

To: FaultLine who wrote (28745)	5/7/2002 6:32:02 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Physically linking Gaza and the West Bank could be achieved without splitting Israel by providing the Palestinians unhindered access to and control of a safe-passage route connecting the two areas. Does anyone want to take a shot at explaining this to me. I don't get it. --fl

To: FaultLine who wrote (28745)	5/7/2002 8:46:10 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

The Last Negotiation Funny thing. I wrote earlier today in response to Malley's oped piece: If they want the outside interference ( and that's what it is) to work, then they have to follow the model of a failed state. If this means imposing sensible borders, a new constitution and security apparatus, so be it. The civil service part of the PA has not been destroyed except for some of its physical plant and it can be absorbed into the constitutional structure minus the ideologically motivated terrorists. Difficult but not impossible. Palestine is only as big as a minute and could be smothered in police type security -- and will need it to eliminate outside interference from the usual suspects. Nadine's objection is valid if the Palestinian leaders are the same as at present. (It's not such a big problem for the Israelis: they can change their leadership in a minute). Can the procedure in the article be successful? The forceful presentation by a U.S.-led international coalition of a deal like the one outlined above would oblige the leaderships of both sides to either sign on or defy the world -- along with large segments of their own publics. Indeed, even an immediate negative reply from one or both sides would neither erase the initiative nor rob it of its importance, for the very proposal would marginalize those reluctant to espouse it and set in motion a new political dynamic that, in due course, would force a change of heart among the leaders -- or else a change of leaders. As mentioned earlier in the article the leaderships are under pressure from part of their constituencies to continue the all or nothing programs. That is what has to be neutralized in one way or another. The Israelis can probably do it but how can the Palestinians when they have no depth of government? (They got no pitching strength - it's all screwballs they throw). If Palestinian leadership right now changed its direction radically some part of the minority would kill them. I think an outside imposed arrangement might work but the details of how to deal with the Palestinian weaknesses -- no democracy, no decent civil rights -- have to be fleshed out further. The imposition of a government on the Palestinians from outside isn't that radical but it can't be imposed by Israel, and it can't be imposed by others unless there is some Israeli give up in the process. Whatever the Palestinian government might be, it can't be the PA, even if it's still called the 'PA'. The advantage of imposing a government wholly made with constitution requiring scheduled elections is obvious, especially if there is a greater power there to ensure it happens. There are all kinds of practical arrangements that could be worked out to assuage the Palestinian and Israeli concerns regarding territory, security and demographics. That's not the problem and it never has been.

To: FaultLine who wrote (28745)	5/8/2002 2:08:01 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Imposing A Peace Effort? Led by the United States, the effort should involve a broad coalition of European, Arab, and other countries and institutions capable of providing security, as well as economic and political support, to Israelis and Palestinians. The proposal should be sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution and complemented by a number of third-party arrangements such as a U.S.-Israeli defense treaty, possible Israeli membership in NATO, a pledge by Arab nations to recognize Israel and move toward the normalization of their relations (a process that, to be completed, would also require a peace deal with Syria), American and European security guarantees to the Palestinian state, and a sizable aid package to help build the new state's economy. Led by the United States, OK the effort should involve a broad coalition of European, Arab, and other countries and institutions capable of providing security, as well as economic and political support, to Israelis and Palestinians. SO FAR SO GOOD The proposal should be sanctioned by a UN Security Council resolution IF ISRAEL WILL LET THEM and complemented by a number of third-party arrangements such as a U.S.-Israeli defense treaty, WHATEVER BAKES YER POTATO possible Israeli membership in NATO, DON”T GO THERE FOR AWHILE – TOOOOOOOO DANGEROUS a pledge by Arab nations to recognize Israel and move toward the normalization of their relations (a process that, to be completed, would also require a peace deal with Syria), ABSOLUTELY American and European security guarantees to the Palestinian state, TO BE ENFORCED WITHOUT BIAS and a sizable aid package to help build the new state's economy. WE WILL START A COLLECTION TOMORROW <G> KC