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: Rascal who wrote (47511)	9/27/2002 7:10:53 PM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Very well written post however long and often repetitious, but it fails to address its main issue : the solution besides another Jews exodus, or,the failure of the last Camp David negociations. If elected Arafat did not accept to a deal because of a few acres of buildings (basically stones) in Jerusalem, and a couple of hundred of square miles of not such good land in order to let the deal go through; all this while this article never mention him as a terrorist while the Israelis are portrayed as such, means to me that this paper is oriented. That deal was almost done. Another couple of days, a Taba, a new Taba, and they would have reached it. And it didn't fail because of the square miles issue, the water issue, the Jerusalem sacred stuff, or the right of return. Arafat didn't have the guts for a deal. He couldn't even draw one when firmly asked to do so by the most important person of the planet. He was into satisfying his masses, protecting his life from his own extremists and portraying himself as a hero forever. So he lost it all, and two thousand people already died for the ownership of some tomatoes fields (at best), some old stones, and some tourists souvenirs shops. However the article is right when it says that the Israeli Arab 20% population is not treated equally. As it is true that the Israeli establishment does not have much confidence in that segment, and that many of them arabs feel quite Palestinians, which is their utmost right. And this leads to the question on the settlements : Why wouldn't the Palestinians accept a couple of hundred thousand Israelis living in their own built suburbia in the West bank, with as much security as the million two hundred thousand Israeli Arabs have in Israel proper ? Seems to me here that the Jews have less rights. (Not that I'd care to live in those settlements more than in downtown Bagdad or Fes? Marrakesh was perfect for a couple of years, early 70ies, but they (Arabs) thought I was French/German (ng), while the, (Euro, Us) knew I was Israeli, but somehow didn't care, nor saw me as a colonialist(g)). Where is the problem if most of those Jews settlers feel some historic, philosophic or religious attachement to those places and names just as it is true for the Muslims places inside Israel UN ? Why couldn't the Jews, before 1967 go shed tears on the wall of tears ? Remember : it's King Hussein of Jordan who was in charge. A Nobel price! And since then, when were the Arab masses prevented from going to pray above that wall of tears ? Even by Israelis PM portrayed as terrorists : Begin, Shamir, Sharon, to name just a few ? The problem is elsewhere. The problem is psychological. Read hysterical. Not to say that Jews are not also hysterical, but it just might happen that those that get elected cannot succeed in getting enough public leverage if they are hysterical while, on the other side, successorship is hereditery or handed out by the last, just like it used to be under th Pharaons. So when the Arab leaders from the Atlantic to the Far East will stop pretending that they descent direcly from Allah and Mohammed, thus that they speak for the Creator of the Whole F.... Universe, this small planet will have a chance to savour its tomatoes. And till then, just get ready for the worst on all continents but Antartica. Because the problem is allah, those that speak for him, and what they say.