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: paul_philp who wrote (31695)	6/6/2002 4:18:52 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Why the should in your statement? Because in my view that is the only rationalization for systemic violence that makes any sense. Oh come on. If it was simple self preservation why not return to the 1967 borders and have done with it? Why expand settlements into the West Bank?. Why not remember Camp David? Any decent negotiator doesn't give away 110% of what he needs to give away. Starting with 90% was incredibly generous. Good thing they were not negotiating with me. I think it much more likely that the palestinian people are deeply split and managing a overall coaltion is very difficult. Probably true and a very incisive piece of commentary. On the other hand, your comment paints a terrific reason for getting rid of Arafat. Why should any divisions in the Palestinian camp be the Israeli's problem? Why should they take that into consideration when dealing with the Palestinians? Any divisions are for the Palestinians to resolve, and are not the Israelis' to solve. You are making a terrific argument for the proposition that the Palestinians need to unite for peace or suffer the consequences. Which is my point. Life is not necessarily easy. It's full of hard choices. No guts, no peace.