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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (147104)	5/14/2002 1:08:14 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584250

Ted, However, its the timing of this vote just as things were starting to calm down What do you mean by things calming down? Didn't a Palestinian terrorist just murder 15+ people Joe, this is the Mideast........I am speaking relatively. If we wait for things to calm down to our standards, several millennium will go by before anything is done. <g> after a lot of work on the part of other countries including the US. Are you referring to the plan to send the terrorists / kidnappers from the Nativity Church to seaside resort hotel? No, the Peace Corp's plan to go in and rebuild Arafat's headquarters.<g> Seriously, I am talking about everything......the various EU nations 'taking in' the Palestinian exiles, the Saudis and their peace plan, the UK and Tony Blair, the UN, all of it. Ehud Netanyahu I don't know if you meant it as a joke, but it is Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu. Chief hawk and ex-chief (ex-)dove. The funny thing is that Barak now sounds indistinguishable from Netanyahu, just from watching him for about 2 minutes on TV this weekend. I know, I know........I corrected myself. They ARE sounding alike and starting to confuse me..........actually, Ehud Netanyahu is a blend of the two. <g> If Israel is not serious about the peace process and I suspect you are right, then I think the US needs to pull back its support. Israel is entitled to her independence but not at our expense. Have you considered that Palestinians are trying to destroy Israel and kill it's citizens, (well, men, they have other plan for the women) and it is inconceivable for "peace process" to proceed under the current conditions? How come its always Israel that is going to get destroyed but its the Palestinians with the higher death toll and greater degree of property damage? Just for moment can you stay neutral long enough to see the incongruity of your statement. The Palestinians are paying the dearer price for maintaining this conflict. Meaning that one side can be wrong? I know you have a temptation to find moral equivalency, even when one does not exist. But consider a scenario that there is no moral equivalency, that Israel has done nothing wrong, but are facing murderous thugs. I would consider such scenario.........that there is no moral equivalency but it would not be true.......at least by my understanding of moral equivalency. There is plenty of room for Israel to share the blame. Israel is not without blood on her hands, figuratively speaking. Just one very small example is the Likud Party saying there can be no Palestinian state. You blow it off as if it were simple words spoken by an idiot savant. The Likud is currently the ruling party of Israel and one of its major parties. Since its inception, the Likud as been opposed to a free Palestinian state. You yourself admit that probably most Israelis agree. And yet you think it has little impact on the Palestinians? I not only think it has impact; I suspect its an affront to the Palestinians, and psses them off to know end. Would it be a correct policy to punish Israel by witholding support just because they are in a neighborhood with murderous thugs, and have given up on a "peace process" with murderous thugs?* Israel chose to move into the neighborhood and had nearly hundred years to get familiar with the texture and tone of its new neighbors before its independence. None of the current animosity can be a surprise. So to answer your question, yes, I can say we should cut off support to Israel and Palestine if they continue to threaten the stability of the Mideast region as well as the world. The Likud party continues to become more radicalized and along with suicide bombers, is one of several threats to the peace process in the Mideast. As I said before, I don't have a recipe for defusing the situation. I am glad I am not Colin Powell or Bush. There is an obvious solution, which is to let Israel crush the Palestinians, the way Germany was crushed, and hope that a peaceful country would emerge (like Germany) it it's place, one with with intention to live in peace with it's neighbors (no need for "peace process"). And why would you treat the Palestinians as the Germans were treated.....talk about a lack of moral equivalency. Palestine has not set up death camps, its not invaded and annexed several countries, its not amassing at the Israeli border.......... It seems to me that the perception of the Palestinians tends to diverge from the reality of who they are, and is colored almost exclusively by the acts of the suicide bombers and Arafat. The only problem is that the world would be brought to a crisis worse than anything we have seen in last 55 years, which makes it extremely high risk proposition. I don't see Bush & Co. taking the world on such a dangerous road. So it looks like we are stuck where we are for now, kind of paralyzed, waiting for something terrible to happen, since reaction to something bad takes less strength than taking steps preventing something terrible from happening. The reason we are in this mess is because I don't think we are willing to remove the tinted glasses which allow us to maintain our bias that favors all things Israeli. Until we remove those glasses and really see both sides of the argument, I believe we will be ineffective arbiters in the peace process. ted