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: GST who wrote (115625)	9/24/2003 8:59:50 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I make no excuses for the behavior of the Palestinian leadership Sounds like you are to me... After all, we have two political entities, one a soveriegn state, and the other a group of people who are seeking to be recognized as a state. The sovereign state has fulfilled its obligations under UNSC 242, vis a vis Jordan, by making peace with that Kingdom in 1994. And since Jordan abandoned any further claim to the "occupied territories", and I don't believe I've seen it recorded anywhere that the Jordan transferred its claims under UNSC 242 to the PLO. Thus, those territories effectively placed Israel in place as trustee over the land and any people residing there. In fact, agree with them or not, legally speaking, the Likud party makes some very sound, if "legalistic", arguments that cause one to wonder if 242 even pertains to West Bank and Gaza... likud.nl Israel's capture of Judea-Samaria-Gaza and the Old City of Jerusalem in 1967 did not constitute an illegal "occupation" of someone else's land, because prior to 1967, there was no legal or recognized sovereign power there. The Jordanian occupation Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem during 1949-1967 was illegal, having been carried out in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. The only countries in the world to recognize it were Pakistan and (in part) England. Thus, since Jordan had no right to occupy that territory, and CERTAINLY no right to wage aggression from it, the Israelis effectively can assert their right to it since it is not claimable by any soveriegn entity... But let's be realistic here and deal with it from an objective perspective. The Israelis aren't about to relinquish any more territories until they can be provided reassurance that further attacks by Palestinians and armed militant groups operating within the PA have been squelched and civil order established by that government. Israel has no obligation to permit a non-democratic, corrupt, and overtly aggressive state to be created there. And the UN cannot honestly claim that it intended for a dictatorial Palestinian state to be created in that territory.. So the question is what kind of state should be permitted, if any, within that territory and how does it get accomplished? What sacrifices must be made by both sides, and what are the "deal-killers". I think it's pretty much a deal-killer to have militant groups vying for control over the PA with Arafat or any other group, launching violent attacks against Israel (or even the PA authorities). After all, if the PA cannot show itself capable of maintaining internal security and political control, then it's apparent that no peace agreement with them will succeed. So why bother? To negotiate anything, there has to be at least two parties involved who are able to obtain and implement an agreement. Israel clearly can negotiate and implement a peace accord, even if it means squashing some of its own militant dissidents (as recently occurred). The PA clearly cannot. Arafat, since he's once again the primary player on the Palestinian side, has a problem. For him to be acknowledged as being worthy of negotiating with, he has to prove he's in control of the militants. But the reality is that he probably isn't in control. But by not cracking down on them, out of fear of civil war, he's also confirming to one and all that he's not nearly as powerful as he would like to make himself out to be. But when he continues to assert his claim as "president" of the Palestinians, he creates the impression that the militants are under his control, if not sanctioned by him personally (as is evidenced by the discovery of pay records from Arafat to these militants)... So the Palestinian people languish between a rock and a hard place. Eventually Arafat will be out-powered by the militants because he can't deliver.. And the whole situation will regress back to conflict... The only solution, and most people recognize this, is for the US/UN/Europe to thump both of their heads together and impose a peace settlement. But they'd better hurry... That security fence/wall could very quickly become the new border between Israel and the PA. Hawk