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 (28751)	5/7/2002 5:52:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	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. Scott, could you please explain to me which part of the following reasoning you find unpersuasive? Message 17432536 As for killing Arafat, the noise level sure would have gone up, while most Arab rulers breathed a quiet sigh of relief. The violence was already running at such a high level that threats of more violence were losing force -- after all, we do know that no Arab country is in a position to actually risk war. The real reason Israel held back, besides US State Department pressure, was fear of enough world backlash to force more creeping internationalization on the situation, as in 96 when they got stuck with those stupid TIPH observers in Hebron. The positives for getting Arafat out of the way, for both Israelis and imo Palestinians, are very great. Arafat is a huge obstacle to peace.