SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (116715)10/13/2003 11:35:49 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  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

If Likud was anything like what you say, Sharon would have deported the Arabs already. Likud's in power, in case you didn't notice. It's sure as hell what Hamas would be doing, if they had the power to.

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.


No, it's been tried twice. In 2000 they withdrew from their security buffer in Lebanon, and it was seen as weakness, and it led to war. The 2000 example is a much closer comparison because they withdrew in the face of an active terrorist campaign, as they would do if they withdrew from the settlements now. That was not the case in the Sinai in 1979.

Ariel was built where it is, to make a Palestinian State impossible

Why does everybody assume that a Palestinian state cannot hold any Jews whatsover? Could it possibly be the nature of Palestinian rule so far? Consider how much more solvable the whole situation would be if the Palestinian leadership behaved like civilized people, and the question on the table were securing minority rights for those settlers who chose to remain under Palestinian sovereignty?