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: Sir Francis Drake who wrote (54422)	10/24/2002 12:47:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

then there is no productive exchange, at which point I stop the dialogue. I haven't seen much dialogue from you SFD.. Just rhetoric about how Israel should retreat to pre-1967 lines, apparently with no guarantees for its security interests. Rhetoric about how Israel is the "occupier" when its clear that Jordan gave up all claim to the West Bank, granting Israel full authority to determine its permanent status through negotiations with the inhabitants. Also, it is good form, and also good for ones position to do basic research so as to make an exchange meaningful. Are you implying that I haven't done more than my share of research?? Then go right ahead and poke holes in my logic SFD.. And back it up with your own research... After all, that's the very reason I even bother to involve myself in this discussion thread. In order that fine fellows such as yourself can logically show me where I am screwed up.. After all, that's how people learn, isn't it?? Have at it.. And now a few select snippets from your previous posts: That is a lie by Israeli propaganda. The PA did NOT support terrorism - in fact they cooperated with Israel to contain it. BullSht... The evidence is there that Arafat was paying for explosives, paying the salaries of various terrorist personnel, if not actually handing out the order. Al Aqsa is a splinter group of Fatah, and Fatah are Arafat's praetorian guard. As for Israel trying to defeat Palestinian national aspirations, who's to deny that?? Why should they support it?? But don't be so ready to excuse Arafat's personally aspiration of being the "father of his country" by creating a Palestinian state in a "baptism of fire and blood"... Because it is hardly an auspicious path to statehood if it has to occur through mere negotiations and involve the permission of Israel. It only means something if people have to fight and die to create that state.. So don't sit here smugly and try to tell us that Arafat didn't have a MASSIVE motivation for continuing armed conflict with Israel. His "legacy" depended upon it. And the children of Israel will not know peace until they stop occupying another people.* And as we've "discussed" before, they were all Jordanian citizens until 1989. The territory was abandoned by Jordan at that time and permanent status talks occurred commencing with Oslo II (actually 1996), after Jordan and Israel signed their official peace in 1994. Now you may not like it, but let's face some facts.. Israel had the authority to conduct permanent status talks according to its own timetable. Arafat had the choice of creating his state under the terms being dictated by Israel with regard to halting terrorism and meeting Israeli security concerns, or launching into conflict. NO NATION, let alone Israel, would permit a hostile entity to be formed right on its borders (especially given the boundaries constituting the green line).. And anyone but Arafat would realize that... The biggest problem with Arafat is that he wants nation/state born in blood and violence. He just is not going to get that... Israel cannot, and will not, permit it. The best tact the Palestinians could take would be peaceful resistance. Embarrassing Israelis into giving them the entire West Bank. Staging massive, BUT peaceful, demonstrations... Taking the Ghandi approach, if you will.. That would accomplish their goal of a national state... But that's not the ultimate goal, or end game, now is it?? To that your response is: well so I say attack Palestinian civilians. But that was not the issue - the issue was that you claimed it was somehow wrong or inhuman for the Palestinians to attack those busses - No SFD.. it is the issue. The issue is how brutal and flagrant the violence is permitted to become. If one side refuses to show any restraint, then how can we expect the other side to do so?? If they are going to bomb buses were 1/2 the passengers were plainly civilian, then why should the world care when Israel attacks militant bases located in civilian territories.. If you and Bilow can claim that the Palestinians were only attacking a "military target" and did not mean to kill the civilians, then why not accept it when Israel says the same?? But then again.. the Palestinians never make releases that state they were only targeting military troops on those buses.. Just like they were targeting military targets in that discotheque.. or that pizza restaurant... You're going to have present some better "research" than that SFD.. Cause it don't fly... Hawk