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 (50863)	10/10/2002 2:07:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do we have the "right" to be in America because a bunch of Europeans came here a few hundred years ago and pushed aside the Indians? At some point in the evolution of a nation from ideological project to full-fledged reality, talk of rights gives way to more practical concerns, and I think that time has been reached in the case of Zionism. I don't see how you can make the case that Zionism has reached this point when the whole Arab world says that Israel must be destroyed (and funds the conflict) and the European Left writes editorials titled "Israel has no Moral Right to Exist". And that is the tragedy of the conflict. Because it really matters if this point has been reached or not. If it has, then we have a border conflict and should negotiate a settlement. If it hasn't, we still have an existential struggle and compromise is only handing land to the enemy so that they can attempt to destroy you from a stronger position later. Israel thought its existence had been accepted by 1993. But it turned out to be a ruse. The Israelis would have a much better case for holding onto stuff beyond the green line if they limited their claims to some relatively small stuff done for clear defensive purposes, geographical contiguity, and some areas of Jerusalem. In practice, they'll be able to get away with keeping the large settlement block suburbs around Jerusalem too, altho I think it was a mistake to build those. Most everything else should go--and if it did, and the situation didn't improve, then the hawks would have an even better case for not compromising further, no? Doesn't that pretty well describe the Taba offer? Which fell apart not over borders, but "right of return"?