SI
SI
discoversearch

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: JohnM who wrote (71352)2/4/2003 1:32:41 PM
From: slacker711  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
My point, way back in agreeing with Klein, was that a recognized deal was out there, that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians, in their present governmental configurations, were likely to make moves toward it, but that the Bush administration could. Just wouldn't. I don't think future historians of these moments will deal kindly with Bush.

If you believe this, can you explain the failure of the Clinton administration to get the deal done? It was definitely not from a lack of trying....a ME peace deal would have done wonders for Clinton's place in history.

He was also working with an Israeli administration that would have been far more willing to accomodate a deal. The only constant in the formula is Arafat.

Slacker



To: JohnM who wrote (71352)2/5/2003 1:12:54 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
My point, way back in agreeing with Klein, was that a recognized deal was out there, that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians, in their present governmental configurations, were likely to make moves toward it, but that the Bush administration could. Just wouldn't

But you yourself said that Arafat was not "able" to make a deal - not "unwilling", not "unlikely" - "unable".

If he was and is not able to sign and implement a peace deal, what would further American pressure or Israeli concessions have been able to achieve?