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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (32547)	6/18/2002 5:08:14 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

They are gunning for victory or bust. The authors' views about negotiation being the only means of stopping terror bombings are probably correct, in theory. However, there has to be a reciprocal party to negotiate with, otherwise any Israeli steps toward negotiation will be viewed as surrender in the face of a simple tactic that has the capacity to nullify overwhelming conventional force. The Israelis do not have anyone to negotiate with at the present time. The challenge for Israel is to bring the Palestinians to the table without being perceived as surrendering to the Palestinian H-bomb. A very difficult thing to do. At the end of the day, it seems that a secure fence is going to be the only way to stop the terror bombing. The question is whether to abandon the settlements as part of a fence. Unfortunately, I think letting them go is the only rational solution if the fence is the choice. After the fence, what? I suspect a more conventional style of war will prevail, in which the Palestinians and their supporters sustain significant losses. Afterwards, peace. That's how I see it getting played out in the next five years or so if no WMDs enter into the scene. If WMDs are used against Israel, all hell breaks loose.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (32547)	6/18/2002 5:36:57 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "There is no rational reason to believe that negotiating with the PA under terror would bring a decrease in terror no matter what was offered." This is rather obviously untrue. It reminds me of the statement by the anonymous State Department guy about the situation that pervades much of the violent parts of the world: "You stop an old lady on the street and ask her if she wants peace, and she'll say, yes, of course, I pray for it daily. All the things you'd expect her to say. Then ask her if she would be willing for her clan to share power with another in order to have that peace, and she'll say, 'With those murderers and thieves? I'd die first.'" #reply-17596453 What you really mean to say is that *Israel would prefer to die than to share power with those murderers and thieves.* Of course if Israel allowed the Palestinians right of return, removed the religious distinctions in their laws, and included all the territories in a new country, their terrorism problems would be over. If not immediately, then soon by population growth, the Palestinians would have won. Israel's problem is the inability to see the futility of continuing their attempt at trying to stay clean, in control, and on top, in a mud wrestling match. It's simply not in the nature of modern military power to control civilian uprisings. It won't be for about a decade or so, but once they realize the hopelessness of their situation they'll realize that simply agreeing to dismantle the religious state of Israel and replace it with a fully democratic state with equal rights for all the inhabitants of the regime will buy them peace. Once Israel realizes that they are forced to negotiate from a position of equality, or even a position of inferiority, peace will come quickly to them. It's going to follow the South African model, where the white minority made "of course we'll fight to the death against these terrorists and communists" noises right up to the week that they began negotiations to what was essentially a bloodless unconditional surrender. -- Carl