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 Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Fred Levine who wrote (70730)	10/20/2003 1:28:53 PM
From: runes	Respond to of 70976

<<Indeed, the L of N's did not even have the US among its members.>> ...Oh, please! The US had no interest or involvement in the Middle East when the British Mandate was granted - their absence was irrelevant. But every independent nation in the region opposed the UN's partition plan. In effect the Western Nations and their allies rammed the partition down their throats. ...Which of these two facts is more invalidating? <<We disagree on the legal status in 1947 of the League of Nations vs. the UN ... I think you could not believe that they have equal status.>> ...Not equal status but the validity of the British Mandate of Palestine did have the same standing under the UN as it did under the League of Nations. ...Or are you of the opinions that when the UN is disolved to make way for the Federation of Planets, that Israel will cease to be a sovereign nation? <<...my views changed profoundly when Arafat rejected, out of hand, the Barak peace proposal.>> ...So how many rounds of negotiations had previous been concluded with positive outcomes and had resulted in improvements in the quality of life for both Israelis and Palestinians? ...And yet, the moment that the next negotiation broke down - a negotiation that attempted to to resolve all outstanding issues all at once - you (and the Israeli's?) decide that the situation is hopeless? ...Sounds to me like you all were just waiting for an excuse to call it quits! <<Recently, even Sharon accepted the cease-fire and did not respond to an act of terrorism.>> ...So he turned the other cheek - and the level of violence went down considerably - on both sides. <<Do you doubt that there are significant factions in Palestine that cannot accept peace?>> ...Of course there are. But are you going to let some minority faction dictate the prospects for peace? ...The whole reason for turning the other cheek isn't to give the other side one chance to back down. It is to terminate the cycle of violence. Of course after two years of violence there will still be some after effects but those will run their course. ...And yes there will be a few people who will keep trying to re-ignite the violence for their own purposes. Catch them when you can, arrest them when you can, expose them when you can. But don't give them what they want - more violence. <<the events of 9/11 were an eye opener.>> <<I view your judgement to be one-sided and, unfortunately, dangerous.>> ...Let's see - we attacked Al Qaida in Afghanistan, captured and killed many, and disrupted their network and then moved the war on terror to Iraq. Since then they have had bombings in Bali, Saudi Arabia, Jakarta, and may be responsible for a couple of bombings in Iraq. And the reports are that the ranks of Al Qaida are swelling with new recruits. And just this weekend we got another love letter from Osama. ...Is this winning the war on terror or are we just descending into the same hell that they went through in Northern Ireland and are going through in Israel/Palestine? On the other hand - we are getting out of Saudi Arabia and are trying to get ourselves out of Iraq and get peace in Israel/Palestine. ...If we do these things and do them correctly - will that bring an end to the Al Qaida violence? Or at least reduce it?