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 (50889)	10/10/2002 2:31:52 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

good comebacks. on the first, just because there are lots of Arabs and a few Eurolefties who haven't gotten the news doesn't mean Israel (in its pre-67 borders plus some) isn't here to stay. If one really believes that the settlements are an organic and ineradicable part of the Zionist project, then one is really stuck, and either has to stomach the costs and strife that come from endless conflict with the Pals, or stomach giving up something you really, really want. Either way, it's not my--or our--problem. Re the second point, yes, what I'm talking about is close to the Taba plans, or at least the Clinton plans. and yes, those were grudgingly accepted by Barak's team, and rejected by the Pals. So yes, the chief onus for the current impasse and violence, IMO, lies with the Pals. But the sad fact of the conflict is that if there's any end to it in sight, it's going to be something like the Clinton Plan--and thus the best that Israel can hope for in combatting the current intifada is a status quo ante solution, sort of like the US in the Korean War. If the Sharon government were to make very clear that it supported the Clinton Plan and was prepared to restart negotiations over implementing it, then I'd be much more inclined to give them a free hand on their anti-terror operations. tb@yup.com