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: carranza2 who wrote (50833)	10/10/2002 12:27:23 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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. agreed. I fully understand that the Palestinians bear the lion's share of the blame for the current mess, and take every opportunity to point that out to appropriate audiences. But that doesn't mean that the Israelis are blameless, and that they couldn't help themselves and the situation more generally by taking certain steps. IMO, stopping the building of new settlements (or additions to existing ones) makes sense as a unilateral Israeli move, regardless of whether the Palestinians reciprocate or not. And that could well apply to evacuating some of the settlements also (altho there you do get into the problem of seeming to reward terror if there's no Pal quid pro quo). tb@toughonall.com