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 (147188)	5/15/2002 4:10:40 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584670

Alot of their ancestors where moving in to the area at the same time that the Jewish ancestors where moving in. And then the Jews left. I'm talking about the 19th and early 20th centuries. Not ancient Israel. A lot of the Jews stayed. Tim, a few thousand; just as there were a few thousands Christians. The vast majority were Arab and/or Muslim. So what you are saying is that the spoils belong to the strongest even if the weakest happened to be there first. No, but I am saying the strongest are not normally going to end up with the short end of the stick or with anything that increases their possible danger. I am saying that being stronger gives you an advantage. I also would say that both sides have a claim on the land, I'm not sure I agree with you implication that the claim of the Palestinians is stronger. The Palestinians had the greater claim because they lived there continuously....not in Europe or Africa or N. America like the Zionists but in Palestine. I am not sure why that's difficult to understand. That's the plan and you're falling right into it. They sent 300k settlers into the WB just so they could make such an argument. Its reality. No state is going to want to give up any hope of secure borders or allow almost all of its territory to be in artillery range of a hostile power if it can avoid it. To get any solution a lot of those 300k settlers are going to have to be pushed in to moving, but the densest settlements in the most strategic areas are probably not going away. Israel isn't trying to take the west bank, it already took in in 1967, they are trying to give it up because its too much of a hassle, however they are not going to want to have their country be less then 10 miles across. Then Israel misrepresented the situation. At first, the WB was going to go back to the Palestinians intact. Then over time, things changed. Palestine is supposed to be a separate and independent state from Israel. The Israelis don't really want that......they want more control that that.......and its bs. I may be nervous about Canada but I don't have the right to enter Canada with my army whenever I want nor should Israel have that right but they want it. Again, its bs. If Israel is attacked it has the right under international law to respond to the attacks. We didn't have any agreement with the Taliban to let us put our army in their country but that didn't stop us when we where attacked. That sure is stretching the law......I think they were referring to an invading army. only way Israel would ever agree to give up the right to hunt down terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza is if the terrorists from these places are no longer a threat. If Canada trained and armed terrorists and then sent them down to attack American targets at some point the 10th mountain division would probably head north from Ft. Drum... If Canada had been a US possession from decades but terrorists from Canada demanded independence we probably would not give it to them while we where still being attacked, and that's with the enormous territory the US has. If our country was 10 or so miles wide then we would be even less likely to give up control. And you don't think the Canadians would fight back? Israel invaded the WB and took it in its war with Syria and Egypt. Not surprising........the Palestinians see the Israelis as an invading army. And typically, invading armies are often subject to attacks by insurgents both in the occupied territory and at home. Again, not surprising......its a fact of war. Imagine that bin Laden had some grievance against the US that you accepted as legitimate. Does that mean that after 9/11 we should have set down and negotiated with him instead of destroying his infrastructure in Afghanistan. I don't think so. There is little, if anything, analogous between bin Laden and the Palestinians. bin Laden sees himself as a world revolutionary. The Palestinians want their independence. Throughout human history, when the aspirations and freedoms of a society are denied, that society usually will revolt. The longer it is kept in check, the more frustration that builds and the more violent the revolt. I'm not sure "freedoms" is a good word in this context. They would not have much freedom under Arafat or any of his likely successors. How do you know that? As far as I know, Arafat was elected to his position. Of course, I am not sure of the quality of those elections. History has shown that you usually can't negotiate with people who say give us exactly what we want or we will start killing. Often you just have to kill them, or kill enough of them to make them act more reasonably. I hope it doesn't come to that because it could take a lot of Palestinian deaths. The have the most developed infrastructure because they developed this infrastructure. BS. The Israelis may have improved upon the infrastructure but originally Haifa and Jaffa were Arab ports. And they where greatly expanded and developed by Israel. Tel Aviv was pretty much created by the Jewish settlers. Most of the development in Israel sans west bank and gaza was done by the Jews. This is silly......which is better; having a good port already built, and then improving upon it, or building one from scratch? "That what does Israel get by talking to Arafat?" Not control over the Hamas, that's for sure. If the violence will continue during the negotiations and with almost any possible result from the negotiations then Israel has no incentive to negotiate. Then, most likely the suicide bombings will continue. Each side wants the other to act better first. That's why blood feuds are hard to resolve. Sheik Ammin... He says when the occupied territories are no longer occupied and Palestine is a free state, then and only then will the suicide bombers stop. He is on record as considering the occupied territory to be all of Israel/Palestine. Not surprising......but when he spoke on tv, he said WB and Gaza. ted Enter symbols or keywords for search: QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top Terms of Use Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor.

To: TimF who wrote (147188)	5/15/2002 4:34:33 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584670

Arafat Calls for Palestinian Elections, Reforms By Mohammed Assadi Reuters RAMALLAH, West Bank (May 15) - Yasser Arafat, responding to pressure at home and abroad to overhaul his beleaguered government, said Wednesday he had made mistakes and called for sweeping reforms and new elections. The Palestinian president described his proposals only in broad strokes and with scant detail, a day after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ruled out peace talks unless Palestinians cleaned up what he branded a ''corrupt terror regime.'' The United States and the European Union welcomed the statement but said they were now looking for action from Arafat to fulfill his promises which, if carried out, would offer hope of pushing the stalled Middle East peace process forward. ''It is the time for change and reform,'' Arafat told the Palestinian Legislative Council in a speech marking the ''Nakba'' (Catastrophe), the uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in fighting as Israel was created in 1948. ''I call for a review of all our administrative, ministerial and security forces,'' Arafat, wearing his trademark military uniform and Arab headdress, told the lawmakers in the West Bank city of Ramallah, who offered only brief ripples of applause. Arafat said the struggle for a Palestinian state would continue and that peace remained his ''strategic'' goal. But he reiterated calls for attacks on Israeli civilians to cease and, in a rare display of self-criticism, accepted blame for any mistakes made by the Palestinian leadership. ''Allow me to propose to you the speedy preparation of elections,'' he said in a 40-minute speech. Arafat set no date for elections and gave no details. There was little expectation Arafat would loosen his grip on power despite Sharon's efforts to sideline him, and some of the legislators said they had heard such promises before. GROWING DEMANDS FOR CHANGE Arafat's comments were a response to demands by Israel, ordinary Palestinians and the United States for change in the Palestinian Authority after years of failure to bring prosperity and charges of cronyism, corruption and inefficiency. Reforms could be crucial to hopes of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of Sharon's refusal to negotiate unless Arafat makes changes and violence against Israelis halts. The White House said President Bush was looking for deeds from Arafat to follow his pledges. ''Yasser Arafat's words are positive. What is important, and what the president will await to see, is whether there is any action,'' White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters. ''The president is looking for action that will lead to a better life for the Palestinian people and will enhance the prospects for an enduring peace.'' A European Commission spokesman said Palestinian elections ''would be a very welcome development'' if they were held reasonably quickly and were fully democratic. Israel took a wait-and-see approach. ''These words must be accompanied by an uncompromising fight against terrorism, by a consolidation of all Palestinian armed forces under a single central authority,'' Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said. Calls for change have grown more insistent since Israeli forces ended a 35-day siege of Arafat's Ramallah headquarters earlier this month following a major Israeli offensive across the West Bank which further weakened the Palestinian Authority. Arafat said such Israeli ''aggression'' would not break the Palestinians' will in their uprising against occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. ''Our dream is real freedom and complete independence in the state of Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital. Whoever likes it or not, it is our aim to have that,'' he said. Arafat's vow to achieve statehood seemed a pointed response to a vote by the central committee of Sharon's Likud Party on Sunday rejecting the idea of a Palestinian state. A Palestinian cabinet statement said Tuesday night Arafat had ratified a law establishing an independent judiciary. Nakba commemorations were muted compared to last year, when the anniversary drew mass marches and clashes with Israeli troops. The army temporarily occupied Palestinian-ruled cities last month in an offensive which it said was intended to crush militants behind suicide bombings. At least 1,350 Palestinians and 474 Israelis have been killed during the 19-month-old Palestinian uprising. Tensions remain high, despite a relative lull in fighting in the past few days which world leaders hope to build on to arrange an international peace conference this summer. Israeli forces have continued to raid Palestinian areas despite the end of the military offensive last month that followed a wave of Palestinian suicide attacks. Two armored vehicles entered the West Bank city of Hebron in an apparent search for militants Tuesday afternoon, witnesses said. Thousands of exiled Palestinians marched in Lebanon to mark Nakba day, some carrying the deeds of homes they lost half a century ago as Israel was founded. In Cairo, hundreds of Egyptians marked Nakba with protests calling on Egypt to cut ties with Israel. They demanded Egypt expel Israel's ambassador and called for a boycott of goods from the United States, Israel's close ally. REUTERS Reut12:56 05-15-02 Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited.