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 (54033)	10/22/2002 9:33:26 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You are repeating yourself Nadine, and failing to address points I make: So, you think the Palestinians will keep attacking over the 1967 borders, but the Israelis should withdraw anyway. A unilateral Israeli withdrawal will convince the Arabs of -- what, besides Israeli weakness? I don't get the logic. Here's the logic. Best if you get a negotiated settlement - as in the case of Egypt, Jordan. Glad we moved so far - there was a time when you claimed that giving up land equalled dead Israelis - which was provably wrong. NEXT BEST is unilateral non-negotiated withdrawal. YOU CUT DOWN ON CASUALTIES - provably so. See the logic? Color me crazy, I prefer fewer casualties. And as I keep saying, yes, appeasement reduces casualties -- short-term. Long-term, it increases them. And I addressed this point, which again, you keep "missing". Here's the link, and the answer: Message 18134064 No one disputes that surrender and withdrawal lead to short-term drops in casualties. That's the appeal of appeasement. LOL! NO. What leads to a drop in casualties, is when you withdraw from STOLEN lands, when you STOP OCCUPYING, when your aggression stops. Ask any colonial power that was subject to casualties in liberation wars. Casualties diminished when they stopped subjugating people and confiscating land. Lebanon's "security Zone" was NOT Israeli territory. It was stolen land. Israel did not "appease" or "surrender" - Barak, a decorated Israeli general, was not a surrenderer, or appeaser. He had to correct for Sharon's-ilk insane expansionist policies. Same with PAL territories - stop occupying does not mean "surrender". See? LOL! You keep trying to simplify the situation - think what is REALLY in the interest of Israel - a few parcels of land they'll eventually choke on, isolated in the world, or to be in recognized pre-67 borders not occupying anyone, and supported by world opinion (including folks like me) when they are then attacked by (much diminished) illegitimate terrorists, and when casualties diminish drastically? See Nadine? Please take off the Debkafilter, it is significantly impairing your performance, LOL! You haven't added the casualties from the coming Israeli-Hizbullah war into your Lebanese withdrawal calculations. LOL! Really that's got to be some kind of new Debka low of debating tactics. You want me to count YOUR numbers of alleged FUTURE casualties of an alleged future war to make PRESENT number of casualties look bad? LOL! This kind of speculation and throwing of numbers is worth exactly zero. Let us wait and see, I prefer not to rely on the Debka crystal ball, LOL! So far facts are on MY side: there are fewer casualties. Let the future speak for itself. Oh for cripes sake, who recognizes those borders? Does Saudi Arabia? Er... have you heard of the SA peace initiative? Besides, that's hardly relevant. What you want is LEGITIMACY in the eyes of the whole world, the U.N. and public opinion. That's far more important than what Libya or Iraq say. The key is: Israel can defend the 67 borders with full world opinion support, whether Iraq agrees or not. If I were you, I would spend more time worrying about the Arab soul -- they need it more. Nope - that's just the point. I don't concern myself with the Muslim/Arab soul, for that's a lost cause. My concern is that Israel not go into the same lost region. Clearly you don't get it, but that sadly proves my point.