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: tejek who wrote (147160)	5/15/2002 12:57:01 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584599

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. Many of the Palestinians are no more inigenous then the Jews. Alot of their ancestors where moving in to the area at the same time that the Jewish ancestors where moving in. As for a parent dealing with a child and offering table scraps - Most nations, throughout history, if they found themselves in Israel's poistion would knock the Palestinians around violently until they gave up, or at least simmered down. This has worked a lot in the past and it still can now but it requires you to be really callus about inflicting death and destruction and that can bring outside pressure or even intervention. Israel is more subject to outside pressure then many of the other countries in the area, and in any case I don't see the Israeli people supporting the killing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel is the stronger side. Usually when there is this much disparity in strength what is offered is not "table scraps" but nothing. But Israel offered close to as much as they can without greatly impacting on their security, ( they could give more in terms of water rights and control of the border and a few other issues but in terms of land they offered just about as much as they reasonably can). The "rules and conditions" Israel has tried to impose are things like a cease fire before serious negotiations and a comitment to supress terrorism. Without those things there isn't much point in negotiations. Or they are details to be worked out in negotiations, like water rights or the exact border line. Or they are things that Israel can not be reasonably expected to offer such as a "right of return". Where do they have much flexibility to give a lot more? 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. The Israelis don't even consider those living in East Jerusalem to be settlers as they have annexed that land. The Golan is really an area of contention between Israel and Syria not a Palestinian area. Most of Gaza would be cleared out, its not strategically as important as some areas of the West Bank are and it is densly populated with Palestinians. Most of the West Bank settlers are either near Jerusalem or at the point where Israel is very narrow. The 3-5% of the occupied territories that Israel would like to keep contains most of the settlers. The rest would presumably have to move, or possibly take their chances with a Palestinian government being in control... 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. There where not a lot of Arabs living there before the late 19th century either (but yes there where a good deal more of them then Jews at that point) The arabs where moving in to the area as well. A lot of them at the same time. So te restriction on Jewish immgration was a tilt in favor of or to appease the Arabs. the Israelis got...the most developed urban infrastructure The have the most developed infrastructure because they developed this infrastructure. The rest of the points you make are sensible, except one mistake you made, which if corrected supports your case better then the mistake. You said Israel has less arable land? Do you mean less arid land? Maybe more arable land? Of course the Arabs under British control got a lot more land because they got what is now Jordan, what is now the West Bank and Gaza and a lot of what is now Israel. Then they lost a bunch of this in an attempt to destroy Israel. However Jordan is still Arab (and largely populated with Palestinians) and is a lot bigger then Israel. And I contend not being fair is a major reason for the terrorism. If the terrorism is really out of control then you can't negotiate because you can't gain anything from the negotiations. If it is just a controled tactic to try to lever more concessions then giving in to it only gets you more concessions. Lots of other people face unfair situations many a lot worse then what the Palestinians have faced. In fact per-intifada the Palestinians had it better in occupied territory then they had it in a lot of Arab countries. The issue is the terrorism until it is at least halted talks wont get anywhere, and until it is stopped permantly there can not be lasting peace. And I suspect when considering who the new ruling class in a Palestinian state would be, even if Israel did give in to all of the Palestinians demands (except the impossibe right of return) there still wouldn't be peace, except perhaps for a short time while the Palestinians consoldate their gains. 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. I don't think it is only rhetoric. The Palestinians statements and actions have made it clear. A number of them view an independent state as only a stepping stone to eliminating Israel. They might see the independent state as the only part that is obtainable for at least many years but the long term goal remains Israel's destruction even if it has to wait a generation or 3. Do you really think Arafat has control over Hamas? I don't. That what does Israel get by talking to Arafat? Tim

To: tejek who wrote (147160)	5/15/2002 3:02:03 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1584599

Ted, 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. If a claim from 2000 years ago is weaker than one from 100 years ago, imagine how much weaker a claim from 50 years ago compared to today. Palestinians blew their opportunity to get something 2 years ago. I guess that they will never get anything remotely as good as what they were offered. 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. At this point, Arafat probably does not have control over Hamas. There was time when Arafat could have controlled Hamas, but chose not to do so. But let's look at it differently. Do you think Arafat wants to control Hamas? Do you think he wants Hamas controlled by someone? Do you think he wanted the scum of this earth (that occupied Church on Nativity) controlled? I am sure Israel is more than willing to do it for him. He just needs to ask. The point is, Arafat, Hamas and the scum terrorizing Bethlehem are all on the same team. Joe