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: Cary Salsberg who wrote (70119)	4/29/2003 12:38:35 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

I am not sure your scenarios are the highly probable ones. For example: The US gives tacit approval to the Israeli "transfer" policy US can never justify that to its own people, the Americans. That's who counts most for the US, remember? New Israeli settlements stop Just what correlation do you see between expansion of Israeli settlements into Palestinian territory and continued terrorism? Pals are allowed to return to their ancestral homes in Israel as Pal citizens With no rights? Second-class residents? Hm.

To: Cary Salsberg who wrote (70119)	4/29/2003 5:58:30 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Cary-- Read, "The War Against Lebanon", by 2 award-winning Israeli authors. It was a best-seller in Israel. Sharon, against advice from Israeli intelligence, misled the cabinet about his plans to fabricate a provocation which enabled him to invade Lebanon and then Beirut. Begin was aware of the plan and they were stupidly duped into it by Besher Gemayel, the Lebanese Maronite (who provoked Syria into an attack, as well). The cabinet, after they began questioning the plan, were kept in the dark about Sharon and Begin's intentions. They also misled the cabinet into believing that the US supported their plan. The PLO scrupulously complied with a cease-fire plan, but when an old land mine killed an Israeli soldier, that was the excuse for the disastrous attack. However, even tho most Israelis are against Sharon's policies, he has won because of the stupidity and incompetence of the clown on the other side, Arafat. Zonder is correct when she states that Israel doesn't have the right to chose who the Palestinians want to represent them, but given the primacy of security needs, when the dope Arafat encouraged terrorism, Israel felt that Sharon's take-no-prisoners approach was better with Arafat than the reasoned approach of Barak. I agree with their choice, given Arafat's recalcitrance to peace and apparent preference for terrorism. Think of how much more effective the Palestinians would be if they blew themselves up in protest, like the Vietnamese Buddhists, rather than blowing up innocent civilians. Many Israelis would be moved by those gestures. Given that Arafat rejected peace for war, the rest follows. Rule number one in war is to protect your own people, especially against attacks on unarmed civilians. Zonder seems outraged by the US shooting Iraqis after they protested, but justifies innocents being bombed in Jerusalem. Of course, israel is obliged to go after terrorists and of course there will be unintended civilian casualties. In addition to costing Israel a fortune to defend, the settlements are an unnecessary provocation that should be negotiated away when responsible Palestinians arrive. Also, for the record, most of the aid Israel receives from the US is to buy arms from the US. Cary, it is not necessary to defend either all Israeli actions or all American actions. But is is even worse to condone a policy of killing innocents; something Saddam and Arafat share. I am still dismayed that Israel is led by a leader who allowed Christians to murder Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila. However, that is many steps better than the Palestians being led by someone who planned the Munich massacre. Hopefully, the new Palestian Prime Minister will be more effective. fred