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: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (119125)	11/11/2003 4:14:46 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Israel is bad for the Jews By Eliahu Salpeter While Israeli ministers and Jewish activists continue to describe every criticism of Israel - such as a problematic public opinion poll showing that Europeans see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the greatest threat to world peace - liberal Jewish circles in the West are facing a different political threat. Recently, several articles appearing in the West (most of them written by Jewish commentators) questioned whether it was a mistake to establish the State of Israel along ethnic lines - as a Jewish state. The settlements, it has been written, have ended any possibility of geographic separation between Jews and Palestinians, and therefore the remaining solution, in practice, is to establish a binational state. A specific reference to this idea appears in the October issue of the influential New York Review of Books in an article by (Jewish) commentator Tony Judt. At the end of a detailed analysis of the status of the conflict, he writes: "The behavior of a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at Jews... but the depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the Jews ...to convert Israel from a Jewish state to a binational one would cause far less disruption to most Jews and Arabs than its religious and nationalist foes will claim ... a binational state in the Middle East would require a brave and relentlessly engaged American leadership. The security of Jews and Arabs alike would need to be guaranteed by international force ... but the alternatives are far, far worse." Similar ideas are appearing in other journals, also reflecting the disappointment over Israel's policy in the territories. The veteran Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen recently wrote: "In the perpetual war against Israel - its enemies are winning, but history admonishes Israel..." And in the leftist liberal journal, The Nation, there was an article this month by Daniel Lazar titled "The One-State Solution" and that refers to one state for two peoples - Jewish and Palestinian. The article concludes: "Hounded by rabbis, terrorized by suicide bombers, hemmed in by nationalism, Israelis see no alternative but to throw in their lot with a strongman like Sharon. The logic is irresistible, but suicidal - unless somebody can figure a way out of the ideological cage."

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (119125)	11/11/2003 12:38:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

In an editorial last week the New York Times agreed that “with every passing year of increased Jewish settlement in [Palestinian] occupied areas, the possibility of cleanly dividing the land between two peoples fades To even think this way is to buy into Palestinian propaganda. The land has never been "cleanly divided between two people" - there are one million Arab citizens of Israel, for goodness sake. Yet somehow, a couple of hundred thousand Jews in small towns on the West Bank is supposed to "pollute" the land to unalterably as to make Palestine impossible forever. Say what? It is a measure of Arab barbarism that they insist that Palestine be delivered Jew-free. It is a measure of Leftist idiocy that the New York Times now buys into the notion.