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: chalu2 who wrote (32152)	6/11/2002 9:05:39 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I agree that you negotiate an end to a war with your enemy, but usually the enemy is a government able to deliver peace. What if you are negotiating with a "governmental" group unable to deliver peace, as it lacks control over militant guerilla groups who will not give up the fight? Excellent point and there doesn't appear to be an easy or ready answer to it. I can only say that the negotiating process would need to produce some fairly serious assurances on those points to be successful. What they might be or how they would be determined is impossible to say. I still think that a serious assurance of something like a timetable for a Palestinian state with something like the Saudi Prince's terms would offer sufficient hope within the Palestinian population to seriously delegitimize not only suicide bombing but movements who use it. It would not happen immediately but there is a strong possibility it would happen. If you notice in the poll numbers Nadine posted earlier that the numbers which see the point of the intifada as ending Israel have increased rather dramatically since Sharon's incursions. I hope/think there is comparable volality in the opposite direction.