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 (50347)	10/8/2002 10:10:30 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "If you check the chronology, Carl, you will notice that development of the suicide bombers followed hard on the heels of the serious peace talks with a career terrorist." Ariel Sharon took power on February 6, 2001. He's had nearly two years to bitch slap the Palestinians back into "respect" mode, but still he has to have troops all over the occupied territories (and he's still losing armored vehicles). The terror continues, essentially unabated from when he took power, though it has had its ups and downs. The Israeli public is not infinitely patient, and eventually they will get tired of this, and they will elect a peace candidate, just like they always have in the past. For that matter, eventually the Palestinians will get tired of this and they will move towards negotiations. But as long as Israel negotiates from a position of strength they will make no long term progress. Any peace they obtain will be temporary, a breathing respite for the terrorists. *There is no permanent peace without justice, and justice, unfortunately, is in the eye of the beholder.* I don't want to get into the details of the chronology of who hit whom back first. Suffice it to say that the Israelis have not made a case that has convinced the majority of the rest of the world. But even assuming pure white motives and innocence for the Israelis, the simple fact is this: The Israelis have had plenty of time to figure out what the solution to terror is. *The Israelis have had terror for most of a century. Either the Israelis have consistently elected ineffective leaders, or obtaining respect is impossible or useless.* Like I've said before, I think that too much water has passed under the bridge for the Israeli state to survive. But I also don't think that the result will be particularly bloody. If the Israelis are truly convinced that the result will be a massacre, then I suggest that they obtain dual citizenship and get out. By the way, that's what the Hong Kongese did before the Chinese took over, but then when the result wasn't the bloody massacre they expected, most of them moved back to Hong Kong. Your explanation implies that Israel's foreign policy has been largely determined by effete or moronic politicians. My explanation is that you reap what you sow, and the Israelis have sown hate. I mean really, does Hawkmoon mean to compare the Israeli leadership to his one-time high school teacher? That's an f'ing insult to the Israelis *and* his teacher, LOL. If the US pursues the abusive foreign policy of the Israelis (or the Palestinians, for that matter), we will get a similar result. Terror and fear forever. Loss of civil rights. International pariah status. Economic destruction. The question gets back to exactly what I said at the beginning of the year: *Why should I take a bullet for the Israelis?* Europe looked at the above question, and their answer was "no bullet for us". Our answer will be the same, if not in this administration, then in the next. -- Carl P.S. My own explanation for why the Hong Kongese moved back to Hong Kong is the seafood.