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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (66989)	12/9/2002 3:06:16 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 70976

"I am convinced that it is not in the long term interests of America to excercise without restraint its military superiority and singular position as global superpower. This means no invading other countries on whims." I dont disagree in principle. When i argued this side of things in the serbia/albania period i was attacked by liberals who where then on the other side. I still hear the left blast the US for non-involvement in Ruanda. These same folks oppose american intervention in iraq. I dont get it. I made a choice after 9/11 because that was an attack on us.

To: zonder who wrote (66989)	12/9/2002 3:55:44 PM
From: Fred Levine	Respond to of 70976

Zonder-- The Rogers' posts were excellent. Since I am banned by that thread, I'll comment here. Zionism is, of course, aimed at creating a Jewish State. Overwhelmingly, most Jews (including me), given the history of persecution, are supportive of that. The historical traditions for any state to be created are settlement, purchase, or conquest. Israel's creation used all of the above traditions. However, and I regard this as tragic, the early founders of Israel were so motivated by the justice and need for their mission, that they were blind to the symmetrical nationalistic yearnings of the Arab populations. The early Zionists truly believed, naively, that they could live peacefully with an assimilated Arab population. They thought they could bring peace with Arabs by raising the general economic level, by bringing water to the desert. In fact, many Palestinians living in Jerusalem fear being turned over to Palestine for the loss of economic and political freedoms. Read Amos Alon's book, "The Israelis" about this--written abt 1970's. The intensity of Palestinian nationalism is no different from that of the Jews. Given a conflict of such intensity, no negotiated settlement seems likely,. However, after several wars, usually an equilibrium range is met (e.g., Mexico-USA) and things settle down. But, at every point, the Arabs demanded surrender rather than compromise. They still do--e.g., the Barak proposal. From a secular, socialist, and somewhat pacifist state, the series of wars and threats have led Israel to become more and more a military state. Look at the last series of Prime Ministers --Begin, Rabin, Barak, and Sharon. All have been either generals or high in the resistance movement. The only exception has been the most militant -- Netanyahu. He, however, has a brother who was a war hero and a hero in Entebbe. Also, given the relative ease of Israeli victories, Israeli territiorial ambitions soared. Increased settlements, more restrictions on Palestinians, and more faith on military answers. To make a terrible situation terribler, we have the growth of the ultra-orthodox in Israel along with the growth of Muslim fundamentalism. Both have god's mission to accomplish. It is dreadful. The hate in the area is palpable. I agree with those who wrote that a third party imposition seems the only viable approach, and we are still far from that. fred