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 (147190)	5/15/2002 5:31:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584759

he Palestinians had the greater claim because they lived there continuously.. 1 - Only a relatively small number of them have ancestors that have lived there continuosly from before the late 19th century let alone continuosly for thousands of years like you suggest. 2 - The "Native Americans" where here before us and we conquered part of what used to be Mexico by force should we give the US (or large chunks of it) back? Then Israel misrepresented the situation. At first, the WB was going to go back to the Palestinians intact. Then over time, things changed. Huh? At first Israel planned for no Palestinian state ever. The "West Bank" was considered "Judea and Samaria" and was supposed to be eternally under Israeli control. The settlements where mostly built during this period which really didn't end until less then a decade ago. Then Israel talked about offering a Palestinian state that would have most of Gaza and maybe half of the West Bank (the idea was to close none of the Israeli settlements and to leave buffer zones around them and connections between them in Israel's hands). The Israeli offer at the last round of peace talks was a huge leap. It may still not be enough but they have kept offering more. They have not reduced there offerings, at least not until the latest period of violence. That sure is stretching the law......I think they were referring to an invading army. Its not a stretch at all. An attack is an attack. It can be a huge army, small raiding parties, special forces, terrorist cells, or missile or artilary barrages or whatever. In fact there is some responsibility for countries not to let their territory be used as a base for attacks. For example if some anti-US group set up in Northern Mexico and attacked Texas and then retreated across the border again and again, and Mexico would do nothing to stop these attacks the US would be withing its rights to invade Mexico to wipe out the attackers. 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. Jordan (with the help of Syria and Egypt) attacked Israel again and again and Israel took the west bank from Jordan. They didn't invade any Palestinian state and they have probably abused the Palestinians less then Jordan used to. 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. The Palestinians number in the millions. There is a lot that is analogous between Al-Qaida and the PLO and Hammas. They are all bloodthirsty terrorists who strike mostly at civilians. As long as they are making terrorist attacks against innocent civilians any attack on them is justfied as long as it doesn't inflict too much colateral damage. I don't care if they want to solve world hunger and cure cancer it is their method that defines them not there motivation. Also the Palestinian terrorists want more then independence, the majority of them want to destroy Israel. Also even if the motivation was important, my hypothetical was if bin Laden did in your opinion have a legitimate grievence. What if some seperatist "Native American" group did something like what bin Laden did and said they would stop the violence if the US gave them 50,000 sq miles of land so that they could form there own independent country? Should we negotiate with them or capture, arrest or kill them? 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. Arafat is a dictator. Also however he came in to office he causes or allows Palestinians to be abused by his security forces or by Palestinians mobs for things like being to friendly to Israel. Charges of being a collaberator with Israel have become a way to eliminate rivals in the West Bank or Gaza. You never need real proof, just the flimsiest justification and a passionate accusation. Often you enemy will be imprisoned or killed with little real chance to show his innocence of the charge. This is silly......which is better; having a good port already built, and then improving upon it, or building one from scratch? A lot of what is in Israel was built by from scratch by the Jesish settlers or later by Israeli citizens. Small ports without much infrastrcutre are common and only useful if you have nothing better. Besides to the extent that there was anything there before it was probably built by the Turks who ruled the area before the British, or by previous rulers before them. Also the two ports that you mentioned are only a tiny part of Israel's urban infrastrucutre. I wasn't focusing on ports but rather the whole infrastructure. 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. Its not just a matter of wanting the other side to act better first (although I don't think it is reasonable to expect Israel to negotiate without at least a short term truce first). Its a matter of being able to deliver something if you do agree on it. If Arafat can not control the violence then any agreement with him is not worth the paper it is written on even if he was the most honest and honorable man on the earth (and of course he is far from that). Its like if I enter a contract with you to sell you the Brooklyn bridge for $1mil. Once you pay me the million dollars I can't deliver anything because I do not own the bridge. If Arafat can't deliver then negotiating with him could at best be good PR for the Israelis but it could not result in peace. Israel gave up land to Egypt because Egypt credibly promised peace and they have delivered peace even if it is a rather cold one. No one with any power among the Palestinians has credibly promised Israel anything. Perhaps no one can credibly make such a promise. Tim