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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (3657)	9/18/2003 12:38:25 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

I'd question whether it was Arafat himself - at that point, he (personally) stood to gain plenty if he could make it work. There were however plenty of Palestinian extremists who didn't (since if Arafat's security forces were ever allowed and willing to function as such, they'd imprison or execute alternative powers); while the Israeli extremists and their Xtian fundie backers obviously wanted nothing less than the whole of Greater Israel; and electing Sharon was hardly a mark of Israeli good faith or trust, still less any wish for progress... Still, how effective it would have been, trying to get fragmented little Bantustans over below half the former Palestinian territory is debatable. I think this fails most Pal's on the 'nothing to gain' criteria. And before you quote the '98%' criteria, first remeber this is not the entire West Bank anyway - and ask yourself how able to rule the US (or anywhere) would be if it had to cede just 0.1% of its land surface , but that the 0.1% including every major road and highway. news.bbc.co.uk For me, the only workable solution has to be - complete Israeli withdrawal from West Bank and Gaza (and ideally any other bits still occupied of foreign soil) - guarantees from UN and West of borders and sovereignty of both Israel and Palestine: and drastic repercussions against anyone on either side transgressing - UN administration of Jerusalem in similar fashion to post-WWII Berlin...

To: E. T. who wrote (3657)	9/18/2003 5:38:44 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Israel had little choice when the suicide bombings began, imo, but to use a heavier and heavier hand. What alternative did it have, if Arafat moved to using terror tactics instead of relying on dialogue (which he had agreed to) to achieve his ends? LOL! Arafat didn't use terror tactics. After 6 weeks of settlers going on violent rampages, backed up by the Israeli military, some extreme factions of Palestinians began to fight back. The Palestinians merely reacted to Israeli violence. You want the Palestinians to reward Israel's terrorism with concessions? That wouldn't send a very good message. Tom