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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11384)	10/8/2003 6:53:03 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793655

But the American and European Left seem unable to ever get there. We will never be hit hard enough, either here or in Europe, for them to believe it. Look at how long it took the left in Israel to face up to it.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11384)	10/9/2003 1:12:53 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793655

We are putting the screws to Syria, it is about time. Read Friedman on your own today. He just won't give up on Arafat. ______________________________________ October 9, 2003 Panel Approves Sanctions on Syria With White House Support By CARL HULSE WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Congress stepped up pressure on Syria on Wednesday when a House panel endorsed diplomatic and economic sanctions against the country, accusing it of sponsoring terrorism and fostering turmoil in Iraq. The White House dropped its previous opposition to the sanctions plan. "The time has come to hold Syria accountable for its actions," said Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida, as the International Relations Committee easily approved a proposal that allows the president to cut diplomatic contacts and block American investment if Syria supports groups involved in terror. At the White House, the spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the administration would no longer resist the sanctions, as it had previously when it argued that it needed time for diplomacy to work and that Syria was helping apprehend terrorists. "We have repeatedly said that Syria is on the wrong side of the war on terrorism and that Syria needs to stop harboring terrorists," Mr. McClellan said. House officials said they viewed the White House statements as a clear sign that President Bush would sign the measure if it reached him, and House leaders hope to bring it to the floor as early as next week. It also has strong bipartisan support in the Senate. The measure has been circulating in Congress for months but was given new momentum by the heightening of tension between Israel and Syria, and reports that Syria is allowing people to cross into Iraq to attack American forces. In explaining the change in policy, the State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, said Syria had been warned that without significant action against groups linked to terror, the nation would face sanctions. "Frankly, the Syrians have done so little with regard to terrorism that we don't have a lot to work with," Mr. Boucher said. "There's nothing — there's no particular reason or facts that one could go back to Congress with and say this is a bad idea." Under the proposal, approved 33-2 by the panel, Syria could not receive certain American goods that could be converted for military use until it ended support of terror groups, withdrew its forces from Lebanon and showed that it was not developing medium- and long-range missiles and chemical and biological weapons. The president would also be directed to impose two or more of six specific sanctions: a ban on American exports except food and medicine; a ban on business investment; restrictions on Syrian diplomats; a ban on Syrian airlines in American airspace; a reduction in diplomatic contacts; and a freeze on Syrian assets in the United States. Representative Tom Lantos of California, the senior Democrat on the panel, said he had told President Bashar al-Assad during a visit to Damascus about six months ago that Congress would act "unless Syria changed its ways." "Nobody in Damascus should be surprised by our action today on this legislation," he said. "You might even say the Syrian government is the moving spirit behind it." But Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, said he believed the sanctions approach was a mistake and could bring the United States more trouble in the Middle East. "I see this as a dangerous move," he said. Representatives at the Syrian Embassy did not respond to requests for comment. nytimes.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (11384)	10/9/2003 5:52:32 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793655

We have discussed this Ad nauseam. But, what the hell, this is a good review. _____________________________________ Arafat, Sharon and the War of Attrition By Uriah Kriegel - Tech Central Station The Israeli-Palestinian conflict divides the world roughly into two camps. On the one side are the handful of nations who consistently sympathize with Israel; these include, first and foremost, the United States, but also Denmark, the Netherlands, and India. On the other side are the nations whose sympathies lie with the Palestinians; those constitute most of the rest of the world. The two camps are consistent in their actions and proclamations vis-à-vis Middle-East events, and they often seem completely hardened in their respective positions. But the Israeli cabinet's recent decision to remove Arafat "in principle" has drawn nothing but condemnation. Even Israel's few friends roundly objected to the idea of expelling Arafat from the Palestinian territories. Cons… The arguments against expelling Arafat are straightforward. Doing so will only have a symbolic effect and will not bring about a decrease in terrorist activity. If anything, such belligerence on Israel's side will only galvanize the terrorist organizations. Expelling Arafat is almost sure to bring about an unprecedented cycle of violence. It will also deepen the resentment among all Arabs to any non-Arab presence in the Middle East, a resentment that could spill over to America's careful occupation of Iraq. An expulsion of Arafat from the territories is also sure to isolate Israel diplomatically. Many leading countries around the world, especially France and Britain, will be outraged by such a move -- as will be the occidental media outlet. Such diplomatic isolation will only weaken Israel's hand in future negotiations. … and Pros However, little attention has been given to the positive case for expelling Arafat. To appreciate it, we must consider it from the perspective of Ariel Sharon's long-term strategy in his own war on terrorism. Sharon's strategy is based on a very specific understanding of the big picture -- the deep nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Always the General, Sharon sees the current conflict primarily in military terms. Israel has fought for its survival five "normal" wars against Arab coalitions, and won each and every one of them. For Sharon, Israel now confronts a new and unusual kind of war -- a war of attrition. The Palestinians' second Intifada is not supposed to lead to the direct physical destruction of Israel. Rather, it is supposed to break Israelis' spirit -- to undermine their resolve and eventually erode their confidence. (In this regard, the second Intifada is not dissimilar to al Qaeda's war on America, which is also primarily a war of attrition.) Sharon's big-picture strategy, little understood even among Israel's friends, consists in taking the Palestinians on and showing them that even in this war they will eventually lose. For a peaceful Palestinian state to emerge, it is imperative that Israel win this war of attrition. Operationally, this means that every terrorist attack invites without exception a proportionally tormenting retaliation; that no genuine concessions are offered in return for mere promises; that Israel is entitled to take the initiative in this war of attrition, e.g., by hunting down the leaders of terrorist organizations with ruthless consistency; and that no negotiations, hence no signs of hope for the Palestinian people, are ever to be considered until terrorism come to a full stop and the war of attrition is fully won. The ultimate goal of Sharon's strategy is indeed to break the Palestinians' spirit and bring them to heel. This sounds harsh and uncivilized to many leaders of Western nations. But that's unsurprising since they have little concept of the meaning and reality of a war of attrition. The simple fact is that Sharon's strategy is working. Recent polls show that more Palestinians favor moving away from the "armed resistance to the occupation." While Sharon is not given credit for such results, the polls are loud confirmations that his is a winning strategy. If Sharon's diagnosis of the nature of the conflict is on the right tracks, it then becomes clear why expelling Arafat may not be such a bad idea. It may turn out to be the tipping point in the war of attrition. To be sure, in the short run it will increase the violence. But its symbolic force may in the long run be very effective in breaking the Palestinians' spirit. After the initial rage subsides, the Palestinians will ask themselves even more poignantly "Where is all this leading us?" and come closer to realizing that honest and non-violent negotiations are the only way to a better future. Perhaps then will there be popular support for forcibly dismantling the terrorist organizations. It is the lack of such support that led to the demise of the Road Map. And the reason the popular support was wanting is that, somewhere and in some way, the Palestinians still believe that they can win the war of attrition they have declared on Israel. Expelling Arafat may once and for all expunge this notion -- not in the immediate aftermath, but over the next couple of years. The thought of years of more violence is certainly disheartening. But such is the nature of a war of attrition. Copyright © 2003 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com