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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (114463)	9/10/2003 7:42:49 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Certainly; I'll grant you all that, and agree: The Arabs rejected the UN Partition Plan, which could have given them a Palestinian State 55 years ago. The Arabs refused to accept Israel within the 1967 frontiers. The "right of return" (the deal-breaker at Taba) is part of a two-step plan for the end of the Jewish State. All that is true. But Arab rejectionism has been matched, by Israel's constant aggression, pushing outward the demographic frontier. Israel is never going to get a LandForPeace deal, if they never stop taking Arab land. At some point, Israel has to stop and say, "This is all we want; this is the limit of our hunger for land". Saying that, is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for peace. And without peace, Israel is on the road to destruction. Multiple choice question: Israel should make a LandForPeace deal: 1. now, while no frontline Arab State has nuclear weapons 2. in 2-4 years, when Iran has nukes 3. a few years later, when Syria and Egypt have nukes 4. a few years later, when Hezbollah and Hamas have nukes 5. after nuclear weapons are smuggled into Haifa harbor in a container ship, and detonated (and all the Arab States loudly proclaim their innocence, and America tells Israel not to randomly retaliate against Arab cities). This ought to be an easy one to answer.