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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (16155)	6/5/2002 3:32:30 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

So if the Israelis will only settle for total victory, how come Barak offered 95% of the territories to the Palestinians? Correct me if I'm mistaken. But I heard that the 95% offer of land was of land that is practically useless land, that it wasn't really 95% but a lot of hype to make the Israelis look really good. Also, on the Palestinians' side, there were those who thought that if an offer is too good to be true, it probably is. That is, the Israelis were perceived to have something hidden up their sleeves. In other words, the Palestinians, as ever, don't trust the Israelis. So, no deal!

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (16155)	6/5/2002 3:42:00 PM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 27666

I think that President Bush was exactly right when he said that as the descendents of Isaac and Ishmael, they are both the children of Abraham. Viewed in this context, it should be obvious to everyone that neither side can prevail. But, in the minds of many people, Israelis and non-Israelis alike, since Ishmael was the son of a servant girl, Hagar (Abraham's and Sarah's slave girl), the descendants of Ishmael do not have as strong a claim on Abraham's legacy as the descendants of Isaac have. Needless to say, there are also folks who believe the biblical account (in Deuteronomy of the Old Testament) was concocted stuff.