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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (116713)	10/13/2003 4:14:28 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hamas and Likud are both sure to reject this plan, because both are maximalists, who want all the disputed land for their tribe. Today, no, there is no chance for this plan, which looks similar to the final Taba proposal. Both sides are today committed to war. When both sides have become weary enough of the killing (2005? 2010? 2050?), then they will choose non-maximalist leaders, and there will be peace. The eventual treaty will look a lot like this. It's just a question of when they get tired of killing each other. The other choice, is for nuclear weapons to be used, probably by both sides, with the demographic borders radically altered, one way or another. Why do you assume that an Israeli withdrawal from settlements will be seen as weakness, and lead to more war? It's only ever been tried once by Israel, (when they gave Sinai back to Egypt the second time) and it worked then. If there were Palestinians defending honor killings posting on this thread, I'd be responding to them, exactly the way I respond to Chinese defending their Tibet colonization, Indians defending their mosque-razing, and Zionists defending their racist family/marriage laws. I'm an equal-opportunity tribalist-basher. There just doesn't happen to be anybody on this thread, defending that particular evil. Ariel was built where it is, to make a Palestinian State impossible. That's its purpose, that's why it exists: to sit between major Muslim populations, astride the roads, breaking up the Arab-held land into little pieces. It is an act of aggression, and it has to go, if Israel is ever to have peace. If Israel is unwilling to give up Ariel, that means Israel is unwilling to allow a Palestinian State with contiguous land, anywhere west of the Jordan. It's one or the other: peace or Ariel. And not just Ariel, but all the settlements that do what Ariel does.