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: zonder who wrote (52189)	10/15/2002 11:45:45 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I never have. My comments were on how Sharon's policy of oppression/occupation/dropping bombs on homes and killing children et cetera ad nauseam is feeding support for Arafat and for terrorism. And my comments were that once a leader has shown that he's a dictator planning only on war, giving him concessions makes things worse and not better. Both comments can be true, though I doubt that support for Arafat is really growing; it's just too unhealthy to oppose him. WinSmith had posted an Economist article today that says more or less the same thing: Yes, I know. It blamed Hamas solely on Israel, neglecting the little fact that a violent irridentist organization like Hamas was permitted to flourish under the PA, despite Arafat's solemn commitments to control and disarm the radicals. It is instructive to compare the PA to the early days of Israel here. In 1948, the arms ship Altalena came bearing arms for the Irgun. David Ben Gurion ordered the arms turned over to the new Israeli army. Menachem Begin refused, and Ben Gurion ordered the ship sunk (a young officer named Yitzkhak Rabin saw to it). Ben Gurion was building a state, and a state must have a monopoly over the use of force inside its territory. Arafat was supposed to be building a state too, but having terrorist organizations with plausible deniability suited him fine, so he never moved against Hamas or PIJ (though he could have done so), just bargained with them occassionally, while they grew fat on Saudi support. Of course they grew great -- Hamas, which is smarter and more honest organization than the PA, built its base by supplying the social services that the PA never provided. Now, it looks like Hamas will be the master in Gaza. But the history goes back further than two years the Economist is looking at.