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: jcky who wrote (31973)	6/9/2002 8:24:14 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

All wars are ugly, whether or not there are victors. But wars fought without strategic goals, are senseless wars, I think that both the Israeli and Palestinians have clear strategic goals, and it remains to be seen who can achieve those and by what means (war or peace). Zeev

To: jcky who wrote (31973)	6/9/2002 9:18:13 PM
From: brightness00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

IMHO, the article is of questionable value because it is based on the assumption and yardstick that the success/failure of Sharon/Arafat policies is whether it would maximize the benefit for Israelis/Arab Palestinians. Well, that is patently untrue in a real world situation. Sharon's primary policy objective is to keep Likud, espeically his own faction instead of Netnyahu's, in power. Given that Israel's proportional representation system, the religious parties will throw their weight behind whichever major party/faction that will perpetuate their highly profitable enterprise collecting donations for settlement building. Arafat's self-interest is even more brutally clear: if there were peace, he'd probably lose his dictator gig, the associate the money flow as well as possibly his life. Perpetual war is a very profitable state of affair for both political players, not to mention a handy tool to undermine political opponents in their respective constituencies.