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 (70160)	5/1/2003 10:22:53 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

That is not my definition of "broke down." My English is not perfect. So I apologize if that is an incorrect use for the term, but it seems to me that any negotiation that does not end in an agreement has "broken down". If you would admit that this 2nd intifada has been an unmitigated disaster for the Pals Yes, I agree that Palestinians are not happy campers at present, so you are right in pointing out that the intifada led to more suffering on their part. That is a very superficial way of looking at the issue, though. Another is, what would have happened if they had accepted the proposal on the table - concentrated into separate regions with some autonomy but no real sovereign state. I am not sure if, in the long run, that is the best option for a nation. My read is that he realizes that he would be closer to his goal of destroying Israel if he had accepted Taba. Of course, I believe that Barak and Clinton were promoting Israel's suicide with their proposals. I do not claim to know what passes for thought in Arafat's senile head, like you do. Alternatively, looking back, he may realize now that was the best proposal ever to come from Israel and that if he had accepted, then his people's suffering would have been greatly alleviated long ago. How would Taba be Israel's "suicide" in your opinion?