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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (100596)	6/7/2003 4:57:23 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

Maybe they didn't like being dismissed as " irrelivant " when they made a proposal that looked like a good point to start from this time last year. Glad to see the Arab regimes still have an apologist. Maybe the US didn't care for a "proposal" that couldn't even offer terms in the normal language of diplomacy - the "offer" was, if Israel withdraws to the Green Line right now, we'll think about maybe recognizing Israel's existence (not that we'll normalize relations or anything). Oh, yes, all the Palestinian refuges have to have the right of return. No mention of Hamas or suicide bombing, which of course should be called "legitimate resistance", not "terrorism". Gee, do you think the US thought this was an offer they could refuse? The whole thing was timed to act as distraction from Iraq, no more, no less. During Oslo, when such a proposal, even a faint-hearted one, would have made a big difference, the so-called "moderate" Arab regimes gave no support to the peace process, rather the reverse. In your opinion, does last year's "effort" excuse Mubarak and the two Abdullahs from acting now to cut the incitement and supress the radicals?