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: tekboy who wrote (50822)	10/10/2002 12:10:05 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

At the risk of interrupting what promises to be a terrific discussion between you and Nadine, I would point out that the Palestinians recently had 99% of what they wanted vis-a-vis the settlements but rejected the offer. I know this is controversial and not writ in stone. Nevertheless, even if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with the offer, it was a very promising step that could have conceivably resulted in the end of the settlements as an issue. The whipping boy for the failure is, of course, Arafat. After the suicide bombings and the increased violence, I wonder how much more difficult it will be to get the Israelis back to the position that would have resulted in a settlement.

To: tekboy who wrote (50822)	10/10/2002 12:48:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One could kill them all or push them someplace else, I suppose, or sit on them for decades in the hope they may someday agree, or just accept the pragmatic reality that the easiest solution to the problem is to let them be, relatively undisturbed. Which is your choice? My choice is to let them become modern democratic humans who are much more interested in economic development than in killing Jews. Where do I go to vote for that choice? But the question remains -- why is it not only ok, but necessary, for a million Arabs to remain in Israel but a Jew-free Palestine is a universal assumption? Giving in to this way of thinking is to implicitly acknowledge that only the Arabs really have a right to be in Palestine; the Israelis are just squatting by right of conquest. As for whether it's a good idea to withdraw in the face of terror, well, retreating from exposed positions is always difficult no matter when it's done. Properly understood, however, that's just a delayed cost of the original stupid decision to get yourself into a position from which you have to retreat, not a new problem. That's another way to say that all the fault for any policy that turns out to be a mistake rests on the guy who first made the decision, no matter how long ago or what happened since. A little simplistic, no? Perhaps you meant something narrower, to only refer to the settleements. Even there, one could argue about the different classes of settlements. I don't think you'll find many backers left for the ideological settlements sprinkled throughout the West Bank, but you'll won't find many Israelis who regard the "internationally recognized 1967 borders" as sacred, or are eager to give back the Old City or Gilo either.

To: tekboy who wrote (50822)	10/10/2002 1:36:24 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am not a fan of the settlements for the reasons you give, and more, but would like to point out that Sharon, et al, have strategic reasons for the settlements, at least some of them. The strategic settlements are situated on high ground with clear lines of sight and populated by retired IDF. They are intended to act as "trip wires" for unexpected incursions. My brother-in-law took a tour of Israel sponsored by his alma mater, and Sharon himself instructed the tour group about this strategy.