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: epicure who wrote (111406)	8/14/2003 11:54:29 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

don't think it was only because of internal opposition, so we will disagree about that. Stepping into war crimes territory is always dicey, especially when you are counting on aid from a great humanitarian giant like the US. I just pointed out that the US didn't approve of the settlements either, and it didn't stop the Israelis or cost them US aid. As for "war crimes" territory, it's easy to say. Of course it presumes that Israel had a universally accepted Eastern border before the war (no Arab state recognized it) and that Israel mounted a simple war of conquest, instead of defensive war against 200,000 troops massed on her borders, egged on by the Soviets. The Green Line was the truce line of 1949, and the Arab states had all reneged on their promises to recognize Israel within them. One reason why Resolution 242 says Israel is to withdraw from "territories" not "all the territories" occuped after 67, and that borders are to be settled by negotiation. Of course, the Arabs took the position that the Green Line, which was as nothing to them in May 67, became sacred and inviolable in June 67 after Israel took the West Bank, lol. I see why they say this, but not why you agree with them.