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 (54665)	10/25/2002 1:34:17 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It's interesting how you dwell on the technique - "psyciatric lecture" - while avoiding discussion of the content - why much of the Left continues to push an analysis of the Mideast situation that is sorely at odds with the observable facts - then say the author has changed the subject, so that he can discuss the audience's denial instead of the "real problem". Most people would say that deep denial precludes discussion of any "real problem", since it impossible to solve problems that one refuses to acknowledge. This is precisely the author's contention, so discussion of the denial -- its symptoms and its cause -- it precisely his subject. I doubt this conversation has anywhere to go then, Nadine. It appears that what you wanted to do is put up a post which argues that folk of any political persuasion who disagree with your notion of the "facts" in the ME, have a psychological problem. I can't tell whether that's better or worse than your earlier contention that that folk who disagreed with you could be considered traitors to the US. This is not conversation. Simply trying to label folk who disagree with you. Everyone, John? Well, this is precisely what I mean by playing "gotcha." You and I both know what that quote from Brookings had in mind. So you rip it out of the context of the conference, stick a caricature in the air, and then throw rotten apples at it. Too bad. I thought you wanted to have a conversation.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (54665)	10/25/2002 1:53:49 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Ooops, this should have been posted to JohnM, not you. Oh, well. As for right now, I agree with the quote I found from the Brookings conference, that everyone appears to know what the endgame is--the Palestinians give up the right of return, the Israelis move back to the 67 borders--but no one can see how to get there. In the meantime, many die on both sides. I surely would like to see the Brookings report because I cannot imagine that it said what you have described. In point of fact, there are lots of unreasonable people married to unpalatable endgame scenarios ranging from one extreme--the destruction of Israel as a state (Hizbollah, Hamas, Arafat)--to the other (radical Zionists who want a return to Judea). The ones you describe are the merely reasonable ones, and there are lots and lots of unreasonable people and organizations in the ME. Could you post a link to the Brookings report?