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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (81881)	3/13/2003 4:37:49 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Eventually, Israel will do one or the other (move the Arabs or the Settlers). And only one of those ways leads to peace." Jacob, I agree with you, settlements should go. I believe in the 1967 lines too, with modest, mutually acceptable modifications. However the last statement is wrong. Since the deal cant be struck in a terrorist environement, the other solution may just happen as Pals leave voluntarily and israelis excercise self defense which would equal repression and perhaps expulsion. If the arabs leave and/or are forced out, there can be peace with the jordan river as a definable natural border. What about Gaza? Perhaps give that back to egypt if they will have it and build the mother of all fences there. But dont get nervous, the removal of settlers is my first choice and the best one today, although the passing of time, freedom and people make it less likely as we go on. Pals must stop terrorism--they must renounce it--and believe in a non-terrorist solution. Where is the Pal Ghandi or MLK? mike

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (81881)	3/13/2003 5:14:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But since 1967, Israel has blurred that boundary True. However, Israel did not wake up one day and say, "let's blur the boundary". Egypt and Syria decided to make a concerted effort to wipe out Israel, and failed. In the process they lost the territorities. After they lost, naturally the border that they had been trying to wipe out suddenly became sacred -g- In the wake of the war, the UN passed Resolution 242, which, since it called for a negotiated Israeli withdrawal resulting in secure borders for all, was soundly rejected for by all the Arabs for twenty years. In retrospect, doubtless it would have been better for Israel to just give back most of the land anyway, without demanding a peace treaty. (Eshkol did offer, but he wanted a recognition and a treaty in return. The Arabs said NO.) That left a situation of occupation, which was too great a temptation for the Israelis to resist. A multi-national State, or any significant minorities living on the "wrong" side, is not workable. Jacob, are you suggesting that Israel deport the million Arab citizens of Israel? Or does this rule too work for one side only?