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: teevee who wrote (29373)	5/12/2002 11:13:29 PM
From: Elsewhere	Respond to of 281500

I heard on the news today that the political machinery in Israel has taken an official stance It was the Likud party which voted, not the Israel government. See #reply-17457803 #reply-17458033 that the civilized world will embargo Israel for as long as it takes for a change in official policy It's not official policy. What surprised me positively was Sharon's role. He had wanted to avoid the vote altogether but after it happened he left the meeting. This means that he does want to be able to offer a Palestinian state in future negotiations. He's a good strategist so I am optimistic he'll find a way around his party's opinion, and today's resolution will be but a footnote in history.

To: teevee who wrote (29373)	5/12/2002 11:14:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

heard on the news today that the political machinery in Israel has taken an official stance that they are against the formation of a Palestinian state and against giving back even 1 inch of the territories they have taken and settled. It is obvious that Israel does not want peace of any kind teevee, are you unclear on the concept of political parties? Bibi is making his move in the Likud party, and he's running to the right of Sharon. I don't think much of his timing, but you do understand that the US Government does not change policy every time the Republican party adds a new plank to its platform, it is a similar situation here. Sharon said point blank that he is not changing his policy, and he regards a Palestinian State as inevitable. The Likud's new position is that Palestinians should be given autonomy, not full statehood. If Bibi does not trust the Palestinians not to enter a military alliance with Iraq, and invite Saddam's troops in, who can blame him for that?

To: teevee who wrote (29373)	5/12/2002 11:17:23 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Teevee, at present, international relations are conducted by the oldest method in biological history, territorial conquest, dominance and genocide. Despite the pathetic trial of Milosevic, which is based on no legal system other than a cobbled-together International Court of Justice approved by a completely undemocratic political process, the current rules are Might Makes Right. If people don't like it, they have to do something about it. Israel is the toughest political enterprise in the Middle East at present. The Arabs have vowed to do what Hitler failed to do, but they don't intend doing it in the typically well-organized, documented and bureaucratic ways that the Germans used. Arabs will use the most atavistic methods imaginable; we have seen hands held up to windows, covered in Jewish blood, live head hacking of a journalist and on and on ad nauseum. So, at present, it's toughest ape gets to be boss and decide who lives and dies. My preference is the civilized world of Israel. Arab and Moslem states seem barbaric by comparison. I have no intention of boycotting goods and services from Israel. I am more likely to boycott "Made by Moslems" products and services. It is obvious to me that Jihadist Moslems don't want peace of any kind which doesn't include Death to Jews, Death to Americans, Death to Infidels, Death to Me. Mqurice