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: TimF who wrote (147154)	5/14/2002 10:51:21 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584596

However, the Israelis are not much better. Each time they negotiate with the Palestinians they claim its the best offer they have ever made and the Palestinians should be grateful. And then it turns out the offer gives the Palestinians just another centimeter of land. It's not like the Israeli's have been angels but they are not really guilty of what you discribe, in this case. They offered a lot more then they ever offered before and they actually gave the PA control over large areas when originally the PA controled no area. Tim, if you read your paragraph back, does it not sound to you like a parent dealing with a child? It does to me. The Palestinians were the indigenous peoples when the Zionists came to Palestine. And now, you don't even want to give them table scraps without a certain set of rules and conditions. If I were a Palestinian, I'd tell you to go fukk yourself. That's not true......there are settlements all around the area that is adjacent to the neck of Israel.....that part of Israel that's the most narrow. Don't you remember Z talking about it.......that the area was too narrow. I saw a map once showing the settlements......I will see if I can find it again. Yep that too, but there is a lot of overlap between "near Jerusalem" and "Israel where it is most narrow". The narrow part is north of Jerusalem. But the area involved is like 3 to 5% of the "occupied territories" There are 29 Israeli settlements around E. Jerusalem, there are 42 in the Golan Hts., 25 in Gaza and 231 in the WB. As for number of Israelis in the settlements, there are 173k in East Jerusalem, 20k in the Golan Hts., 6.9k in Gaza and 176k in the WB. Frankly, I suspect when its all said and done the effected area will be much more than just 5% or 10% of the total land area of the WB......and don't forget Israel wants land surrounding the settlements for expansion purposes. I don't think this is a minor issue. Not at all....your argument would be fine if this all started 3 years ago but it didn't. This fighting started nearly a hundred years ago shortly after the first Zionists landed in Palestine. Who started it first.....who knows but neither side is guilt free, and the Zionists had the edge because they had a prior relationship with the Brits. The Palestinians ended up getting screwed; that's life but don't expect the Palestinians to be all warm and fuzzy over it. Before Israel's independence the British often favord the Arabs (there wasn't really a group defined as "Palestinians" at the time). They restricted Jewish imigration but not immigration of Arabs in to the area. That's because the Arabs were already there.........they had been there for hundreds of continuous years. The Jews left two thousand years ago in the Great Diaspora. There were few Jews living there until the late 19th/early 20th centuries. When Israel did become a state the western powers gave Israel only a tiny bit of land out of what was formerly Palestine (Palestine included Israel, Gaza and Trans-Jordan (which included the west bank). If the arabs had not attacked Israel they would have had over 90% of the former British mandate. They still have over 50%. So I'm not sure how much of an edge Israel got from the Zionist's relationship with the British. Try this.......the Israelis got 273 km of Mediterranean coastline in which the Mediterranean climate prevails [mostly mild winters, warm to hot dry summers]; excellent beaches; the most developed urban infrastructure; less arable land; Lake Tiberius in the north, a major source of water: the mts/hills in the north; and two or three very good ports, Jaffa, Haifa and Hadera, I think. Now lets see what the Palestinians get [if they are very, very good]: the WB is landlocked; more arable land; the climate is cool to cold in the winter [desert climate] and hot in the summer; very little water, no ports. Lets look at Gaza....no ports; the densest population in the region; climate similar to Israel's; 40 km of coastline. You tell me who got the better deal. None of this is very right but I think the Israelis need to start acknowledging their responsibility in this whole mess instead of playing the martyr. They got their land and independent state......now its time to pay up some back taxes. If they cave, and give a lot more then they want to, in response to terrorism and terrorist threats it only makes them look weak and makes the Palestinians think they can get more. And I contend not being fair is a major reason for the terrorism. Sure Israel is not weak if you are talking about military power, but if they give up a lot because of the threat they will look weak willed. Even if the Palestinians would be 100% satisfied with say 100% of Gaza and 98% of the West Bank, and more then enough additional land to more then make up for that 2%, and some presence in the Arab part of Jerusalem and some other odds and ends thrown in, this caving in the face of terrorism would set a bad precedent. But in fact many Palestinians will not be satisfied with Israel existing at all, caving in response to force will only result in more force being applied. I think that's more of the feud rhetoric. That issue is very carefully spelled out in the Saudi peace plan. The Saudis have agreed to recognize Israel and are encouraging all Arab nations to do the same when the Palestinian state is formed. The Palestinians won't even give a ceasefire for negotiations. If their leadership is so powerless that it can't offer a cease fire then it is useless for negotiations, and if it can but won't then giving in to it without a cessation of hostilities will only keep it alternating between terrorism and talks. Do you really think Arafat has control over Hamas? I don't. The recent suicide bombing was on the day that Sharon was to meet with Bush. It made Arafat look like sh*t. I think Hamas exists, in part, because Arafat is so ineffectual. ted

To: TimF who wrote (147154)	5/14/2002 11:25:26 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 1584596

Tim re: They are home. nicely said -Albert

To: TimF who wrote (147154)	5/14/2002 11:49:13 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584596

If they are not willing to stop killing for it then they will not get it, but they might be able to die for it. Negotiations are about compromise and depending on the other side to deliver on their promises. If there is no willingness to compromise, and if there is no trust that the other side can or will deliver what they promise then there is not much you can negotiate about. The negotiations could be a tactic like they where in the Vietnam war where the communist never planned to give up there push for conquest of the South, they just hoped to help control the pace of the war and win political points through negotiations. The difference here is that the Palestinians are less powerful then the Vietnamese communists where, they have less support from the outside world, and the Israelis are not going to give up and go home. They are home. Tim, and so are the Palestinians. I think that goes to the heart of the problem. ted