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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (378784)	3/26/2003 1:49:51 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

I'm not saying to abandon israel but some of their settlements are too agressive for the region and everybody knows it. Those aggressive settlements are there in response to muslim savagery and entrenchment. Israel simply wishes to assert its right to its turf. Without this, the arabs would simply employ murder to take what is not theirs. Were the arabs civilized and to employ non-violent means of protest and pressure, Israel would have a very hard time selling settlements and harsh retaliation against arabs. It is because of the muslim savagery that no one really gives a rip. The US will not strongarm Israel because it intuitively senses that Israel has a right to defend itself against muslim savagery. I think Bush mentioned a palestinian state once. I can't see any reason for opposing that. Bush did indeed mention this – once. 911 and the Intifada changed all that. I think a Palestinian state would be a good thing, were the Palestinians civilized enough to run it without threat to Israel. At this juncture, a Palestinian state under existing circumstances would be a disaster for Israel. Until the Palestinians view Israel as a valid neighbor, Israel cannot rationally allow it to arm itself as a fully sovereign state.