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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (176372)	10/9/2003 11:12:15 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571405

You need to tell the whole story. All that is well and good. But the reality is that it was the best offer they were going to get and Arafat made a devastating mistake in not taking it; unless, of course, he WANTS more death and destruction and terrorism (which he does). When parties negotiate, they have to give up things, not based on what they want, or what is fair or convenient, or what is righteous. It is about who has the stronger negotiating position. When negotiating, the stronger party wins, which is as it should be (a fact of life which seems lost on many liberals). Israel is the stronger party, and likely will be from now on. What Arafat failed to see is that his choice of innocent deaths over peace doesn't enhance strength in future negotiations; in fact, it likely makes Israel more determined, if anything. I think it is easy to get a sense of how Israel might feel just by reflecting on 9/11. Would WE have negotiated with the terrorists after it happened? Of course, not (well, the Madelyn Albrights of the world might have, but luckily, she wasn't in the picture).