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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2670)	2/9/2004 7:28:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Yes astonishing. It doesn't matter who controlled it first, its astonishing when someone is willing to give up such a large fraction of the land they control when they are not forced to do so." Huh? Who gave it up willingly? The Arabs fought tooth and nail: Fought tooth and nail? Perhaps but fighting for something it not the same as forcing someone to give it to you. I didn't say "when someone is willing to give up something peacefully and easily". It's surprising even astonishing when someone is willing to give up something important even after a fight if they haven't lost and aren't in much danger of losing. Its esp. so if they have a hatred for the people or group that they are offering this thing (in this case land) to, and know that the hatred is returned. Its even more surprising when they don't know that giving this land will result in a real peace rather then only a short truce. I have no idea about what you are talking. What would you do if someone took your land? The question doesn't address the point I made, and isn't very relevant to the issues we have been discussing but I'll answer it anyway. You don't provide much context for the questions. If a group of individuals came and took over my house and the law would do nothing about it I wouldn't attack their kids or their neighbors. If Canada or Mexico where the North American superpower rather then the US and they conquered us I wouldn't blow up busses in Montreal or Mexico City. I might (if I thought the attempt could succeed and if I was brave enough to make the effort) attack the Canadian or Mexican army using guerilla tactics, but I wouldn't strap a bomb to my chest and blow up a Canadian pizza place or sneak on to a Mexican farm to kill non-belligerent women and innocent children. Frankly, I don't think you or any of us would know what we would do in such circumstances. Just last year, some guy in the mts. cut off his arm to save his life. Palestinians did not come to the implementation of suicide bombings overnite. It took nearly 100 years of losing and not getting what they rightfully deserve. I think its very smug of us to sit here in judgement when none of us have faced the kind of deprivation and demoralization they have faced. Several generations have known nothing but refugee camps. Unemployment is skyrocketing. Israel determines what life in the camps will be like. To say you would do this or that negates the well known homily that "one can't begin to know a man's life until one walk in his shoes". Is it fair that every time their are peace negotiations the Israelis reduce the amount of Palestinian land they allow the Palestinians to have? It might not be fair but it also isn't true. It is true. So what? The religious right in this country wants gays banished from this country. "1 - Only a very small fraction of the religious right would want that." Only the Palestinian extremist want Israel gone just like the religious right in this country are extremists. Much more then a small fraction. Probably a majority want Israel gone, and a not insignificant minority think that some day this can be achieved. That's just not true. Here is a relatively recent poll: pcpsr.org "2 - If the religious right in the US does want that how is it a defense for the Palestinian terrorists?" Extremist are always radical in their demands. That's the analogy. Whatever analogy you make between the two it isn't a defense of the actions of the Palestinian terrorists or even an argument for their cause. Yes, it is because the non extremists are willing to work within the confines of the peace process. And their cause is a just one. Also the analogy is weak. The religious right is a minority in the US. Members of the religious right who would support getting rid of gays in the US are a small minority of a minority. Those that would actively support violence against gays to achieve this aim are a minority of a minority within a minority. Those that have committed violence or helped organize violence for this purpose are only a handful, and the number of members of the American religious right who are part of organized terrorist groups who's purpose is the killing or banishment of gays is probably zero. And if any such terrorist group existed few would argue that we should make a peace treaty with it, that let them have some part of the US to rule their way. The above is mostly hogwash. The religious right is mostly fanatical and they are not that small. And most, if not all, would get rid of gays and most minorities in a heartbeat. Afterall, they are God's chosen children. Sound familiar? The reason for the breakdown in peace talks has not been over whether the Palestinians recognize Israel or not. So I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. It wasn't a direct reason but its an important indirect reason. Not just recognition of Israel in some statement but real acceptance of Israel even if it is reluctant. As long as Israel thinks that a Palestinian state could just be used as a base for terror against it then it will want to minimize that base and retain some control over it or right to intervene in it. As long as Israel won't give more than that the Palestinians who actually want peace won't accept the agreement and the Palestinians who don't want peace are strengthened. See the poll above. Also peace talks or even a peace agreements are not the same as peace. So the fact that many Palestinians talk openly (even if only in Arabic) about a Palestinians state being just a step towards controlling all of Palestinine is a major hurdle to peace even if it is not a hurdle to peace talks. Conservative double talk.......you want assurances that everything will be wonderful when there is finally two states. There are no guarantees in this life. Who can predict what will happen in such a volatile state. There are some on the Israeli side that don't accept two states, but those who do accept the two state idea have the ability and apparent willingness to impose such a solution. That's not true. The Likud party controls the show right now and they are not receptive to the two state idea. They like the current mess......it works for them....suicide bombings and all. And before you come back all shocked and indignant, read more about the Likud and the policy statements they and other right wing Israeli parties have made over the last few years. You can continue to make the above statements but they are wrong. At the same time, I am done refuting them. You are choosing to be misinformed. In the Palestinian case it seems no one has the desire and perhaps no one has the ability to impose a negotiated solution on the extremists. In light of what's transpired during the peace talks, the above statement makes little sense. It has little to do with anything that happened at the peace talks. Its more of a prerequisite for peace talks to be meaningful. The Palestinians know that they are negotiating with a government that can impose its terms on its side. They might not like the terms, they might not even trust the government, so they might not accept the terms even if they want peace, but at least they have someone to negotiate with. The Israelis haven't been able to negotiate with anyone who they know can and will impose a peace agreement on other Palestinians. Arafat is still in control; apparently, he refuses to implement the peace because he hasn't gotten what he wants. Make sense to me. ted