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: Dayuhan who wrote (116360)	10/7/2003 9:40:03 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Arafat has suffered heart attack, admits aide Officials tried to hide condition of president threatened by Israel guardian.co.uk Chris McGreal in Jerusalem Wednesday October 8, 2003 The Guardian Yasser Arafat has suffered a mild heart attack but the Palestinian leadership has sought to keep his health problems secret for fear it will "create panic". The 74-year-old Palestinian president, who is suffering from Parkinson's disease, disappeared from public view last week and re-emerged at the weekend looking extremely ill. His face was pale and pinched, he had lost weight and he was almost inaudible. He had trouble standing for more than a few minutes at a time. The Palestinian press said he was suffering from flu. But Palestinian officials told the Guardian that Mr Arafat had suffered a heart attack last week. "Although he has had a slight heart attack, the doctors say he will make a full recovery. He is in full control. There is nothing to worry about," said a close aide to Mr Arafat, who did not wish to be named. Asked why it had not been made public at the time, the official said that it would "have created panic at a critical time when the Israelis are threatening Arafat's life". At the beginning of last week, the Palestinian president was visited by his personal physician from Jordan, Dr Ashraf al-Kurdi, and a heart specialist, Yousuf al-Qusous, after he abruptly cancelled all appointments and disappeared from view. The doctors said the Palestinian president had been hit by flu but was recovered. "The illness is over, thank God," Dr Kurdi said at the time. But a few days later, Mr Arafat was again isolated from all but a few close aides. Again, the official explanation was flu. Sources inside the Palestinian leader's compound in Ramallah say he was too weak to eat for several days. When he reappeared at the weekend, regular visitors to Mr Arafat's compound commented on how ill he looked. Yesterday, the Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath, said Mr Arafat was suffering from a stomach ailment which was believed to be an ulcer. He described him as "very frail". Israeli officials say the Palestinian president's health is not a factor as the government considers whether or not to carry out its threat to exile, or even kill, Mr Arafat. "It would be very convenient if nature were to take its course," said an Israeli foreign ministry official, Jonathan Peled. "But Mr Arafat is a cat with nine lives and we do not believe he has used all of them yet." If Mr Arafat require medical treatment that is not available in Ramallah, he would be likely to travel to Egypt or Jordan but only if Israel permits him to return to the West Bank. Mr Peled said the government would be happy to see Mr Arafat leave but was unlikely to allow him to return. The Egyptian press recently reported that Mr Arafat has sought the help of the government in Cairo to ensure that when he dies he is buried next to the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Islam's third holiest site. Israel would have to give its consent for Mr Arafat's body to be moved from Ramallah to Jerusalem. Israeli officials say that would be unlikely in the present climate. Mr Arafat was on hand yesterday for the swearing-in of an emergency government led by the new prime minister, Ahmed Qureia. But the new administration is already beset by power struggles over crucial issues such as control of the Palestinian security forces. Khalil Shikaki, a leading Palestinian political analyst, said Mr Qureia's government was unlikely to ease the conflict with Israel. "I don't expect this government to deliver very much on the two main issues that confront the Palestinians, political reform and security," he said. "The reform process was destroyed by Arafat when he equated it to disloyalty. The previous government had a much better chance to bring peace because it had the 'road map' [the US-led peace plan] and a ceasefire from Hamas. That is all gone." "Today, escalation is the dominant theme. Sooner or later the Israelis will expel or kill Arafat, and invade Gaza and reoccupy it. The logic of the Israeli policy is escalation."

To: Dayuhan who wrote (116360)	10/8/2003 7:30:37 AM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict takes center stage because we need the oil Everybody, not just us, needs a stable oil supply but I think oil is truly the secondary consideration. The primary consideration is something like this, but not just this: and because of the special position the Jewish faith has in the prevailing mythology of the West, not because it is unique, or even particularly severe. There is more to it than that, isn't there? If we are to couch the discussion in terms of the prevailing mythology -if by that you mean the common narratives which make our social and political life meaningful- then I think the matter of the relation between Israel and the US has far more content than empathy aroused by stories of despair by the waters of Babylon, the Holocaust, and for some, biblical prophecy. Just as important and central to the US-Israel relation are the stories of the American Revolution, the US Constitution, slavery, civil war, civil rights movement, the development of science, the near extirpation of native tribes and archaic custom, and the 20th century wars against totalitarianism. These are some, not all, of the pervasive stories of the struggle and triumph of modernity, and its instruments, democracy and reason. The stories of the Jews, their religion, and the Jewish heretic, after whom the faith claimed by the majority of Americans is named, are given, as you note, lustre by their religious nature but I don't think they are any more lustrous in the vision of the majority of Americans than the collectivity of these other narratives. Whatever its imperfections, Israel is a modern democracy, it participates in the modernity narratives, and this stands as far more important in US foreign policy than whatever place Judaism might have in the continually told stories. The Palestinians tell a story almost resonant with the Trail of Tears and it does generate some empathy in Americans but falls short of generating large support because their "leadership" is not as modern as that of 19th century Cherokees. The Trail of Tears is one of modernity's great shame making stories: huge injustice was done to a people who had earnestly taken up modernity - we blew away some of our own. Relatedly, the Gandhian tactic worked in India, not only because it showed that Indians were willing to die for their independence, no matter what was done to them, but because it demonstrated they had become enough like the British in their modern, educated, democratic form, that it was unjust and impossible to continue British rule.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (116360)	10/11/2003 6:02:19 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That is a rational formulation, but also a most unlikely one. Why? It appears to em that if the Palestinians quit attacking the Israelis, Israel will quit attacking them. And I believe history has shown the converse is not true for the very reason you mention: A lot of Palestinians believe, rightly, wrongly, and for whatever reason, that they are at war and that terrorism and intifadeh are the only weapons they have. I’m also not sure that all the Palestinians want the Israelis to leave them alone. I suspect that there are people in the Palestinian leadership who believe that the Israelis can be provoked into retaliatory measures extreme enough to endanger American support, and that this is one of Israel’s most vulnerable points. The Palestinian argument seems to be likely asking daddy to wallop your brother because he hit you back. It was a fight between people who lived on some land and people who wanted to control that land. Not unlike the fight between the Israelites and the Philistines. Come now. Highly simplistic. It was THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF REAL ESTATE and its historical and religious associations they wanted. Uganda would not do. the special position the Jewish faith has in the prevailing mythology of the West, not because it is unique, or even particularly severe. As one of the other respondents pointed out, there are many other strains that feed into American political thought and their originators sometimes get little respect or consideration. Think "France". We were talking about the first half of the century, when the oil that had been discovered in the region was firmly in the hands of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The Arab states had nothing. Most of the ones we know didn’t even exist. And we are talking of a time when Israelis-to-be were BUYING land- -commercial deals- -not stealing it. You may argue superior economic power versus primitive feudalistic societies all you want, the fact remains that they did not steal it. They bought it from willing sellers. The way you are presenting matters appears to me to put all the blame for the current situation on the Israelis. It is hardly that clear cut for me. I'd call it a 50-50 split on blame at this point. The only question worth discussing is how to fix matters- -if they can be fixed without a bloodbath. Not at all, but what do you think would happen if they were buying up land in Silicon Valley with currencies of enormous value (imagine spending dollars or euros in Bangladesh or Vietnam) and flooding it with immigrants, with the avowed intention of establishing a sovereign state “as Asian as England is English”. I'd say all except the "soverign state" has happened. When I moved into my current neighborhood in Silicon Valley 20 years ago, it was definitely predominantly Caucasian. Now we are a minority; the majority is Asian (I am including East Indian in "Asian"). When I sometimes here a Causcasian neighbor gripe (which is quite unusual), I remind them that they are lucky; it could be some other group of non-Causasians. These people work, pay their taxes, obey the law, don't deal drugs, and keep up their properties. To get any perspective on the conflict you have to look at the fundamental problem: the establishment of a Jewish State in a region with an existing and prevalently non-Jewish population was not a goal that could be achieved without violence. And to get perspective on THAT, you need to go back to Nazi Germany. "Never Again!" was a fully understandable reaction on their part.