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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (30409)	5/22/2002 10:55:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, and no serious mention of the Israeli settlement policies. About as "fair and balanced" as Fox News. You'll notice I called it the facts behind the hawk case, not all the facts. Still, consideration of these facts should give pause to the crowd who thinks that ending the occupation would end the trouble. It wouldn't. The settlements are definitely the weakest part of Israel's case, though I would say so for different reasons than I suspect you would. Since Israel took the land in a defensive war, I don't hold any strong brief for Israel owing it back to the aggressors, who have in any case disowned it since then. But Israel tried to have its cake and eat it too, by settling areas without annexing them. This kept the Palestinians from having democratic rights or any stake in the Israeli system. Israel was afraid of Palestinian numbers, but that meant that they had to either not settle the land, or deport the inhabitants, which they did not have the ruthlessness to do. Israel should have decided what it wanted to settle, and annex those areas, as it did with East Jerusalem. There were other Arab towns that actually requested annexation, like Beit Jala, but which were not annexed for political reasons, did you know that? Then Israel would be able to draw a border, but now it's a total mess.