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 (49431)	10/7/2002 5:41:59 PM
From: Capitalist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<I have a simple definition of non-violence: if the soldiers being attacks do not respond violently, will they come out of the encounter alive and uninjured?>> What if those soldiers instead had chosen not to be present at checkpoints in the middle of occupied towns, to dictate every aspect of the lives of that foreign population in the first place (in this case, Palestinians, who are told if they can go somewhere, when, where they can go...etc.)?. Anyway, though, the First Intifadah is ancient history at this point, and is probably not worth debating over. <WHY are settlements "a major obstacle to peace"? Why is it okay for Israel to have a million Arab citizens but impossible for Palestine to accept ANY Jewish citizens?> Let's see...where do I start. First of all, those Arab citizens were in Israel BEFORE Israel became a state. Those Jewish settlers are being IMPLANTED there from foreign lands (in most cases, America and Europe). Secondly, you don't have entire Jewish towns being FENCED OFF for the sake of a few thousand Arabs who want to live among them. Let's take the Gaza Strip for example...you have 1.5 million Palestinians living on 60% of the land who are fenced off in what has become the most densely populated region on Earth (that's quite impressive, isn't it?). Why are they fenced into such a small area? For the sake of 6000 Jews who decided they just had to live among them on the other 40% of the land. So let's recap...you have 1.5 MILLION Palestinians crammed into concentration camp-like conditions on 60% of the land (again, the most densely populated region on Earth), while 6000 Jews live on the other 40%. Call me crazy, but something is a little INEQUAL about that...Perhaps that has a little something to do with the fact that the Gaza strip is one of the poorest and most poverty-stricken regions in the world, as well? In short, my point is, there is nothing wrong with Jews living among Palestinians, but when the presence of those Jewish settlements create hardship and infringe on the basic rights and freedoms of the indigenous peoples, they ARE an obstacle to peace as evidenced by my Gaza example. (We won't go into how settlements are frequently built on Palestinian-owned farmland.) <<To me, Barak's offer at Taba, the one that offered to dismantled 80% of the settlements, proved that pretty clearly.>> It is funny you should mention Taba, because it was Barak who first pulled out his negotiating team, while Arafat begged them to remain and continue (we could also debate about how Sharon, along with 1000 Israeli police, helped to sabotage the Taba talks with his strategically provocative visit to the Temple Mount). The sad truth is that a deal was very near at the Taba talks (unlike the ones at Camp David), and it is very unfortunate that they weren't given more of a chance (you cant exactly negotiate 50 years of conflict in 1 week, as Clinton tried to do at Camp David). So let's get all this straight, the offer at Taba was much more fair then the one at Camp David, I will give you that, and Arafat NEVER rejected Taba...ever notice how Arafat is always saying how negotiations should resume from the point they ended at Taba? Cap