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: tejek who wrote (2681)	2/11/2004 10:28:55 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| 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 have no idea about what you are talking. I don't understand why you can't grasp the idea but I'll try to restate it. The Palestinians have fought for control of "Israel/Palestine" or at least a large chuck of it to be a Palestinian state, but they have not defeated Israel or seriously threatened to defeat Israel. Under those circumstances it is surprising that Israel has made offers to give a large chunk of the land to the Palestinians. Hence my original statement "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." Frankly, I don't think you or any of us would know what we would do in such circumstances. I know what I wouldn't do under such circumstances, even if I don't know exactly what I would do. If I suddenly found myself in that situation I would not become a suicide bomber or other form of terrorist. 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. The statement is false if even once Israel offered the same amount or more land then they had in a previous offer. Are you really saying that in any offer they have ever made throughout the entire history of negotiations with the Palestinians they have decreased the offer each time? If you truly believe that I suggest you check your facts. That's just not true. Here is a relatively recent poll: A lot depends on how you phrase the question. If you asked "Do you support Palestinians controlling all of Palestine?" you would probably get a majority that would say yes, but even from your poll "70% support reconciliation between the two peoples after peace and statehood" means that 30% do not support reconciliation while the % of the religious right that thinks gays should be killed or exiled is far lower. 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. That is a defense but not one based on the analogy. My statement still stands that the analogy to the religious right is not a defense of the actions of Palestinian extremists and terrorists nor an argument in support of their cause. As for your current defense - The majority of Palestinians support the terrorism, that isn't a moderate position nor is it working within the confines of any peace process that deserves the name. Perhaps there are moderates who do reject terrorism and want a real peace process but they aren't a majority and they apparently have no ability to restrain or prevent terrorism. 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 religious right is not small but it is a minority. Most of them are not fanatical, unless you define "religious right" so narrowly that they are indeed a small minority. And the % even within the religious right that would "get rid of gays and most minorities" if they had the power to do so would at most be in the low single digits. Do you honestly believe there are tens of millions (enough to not be a small minority in the US) of people who are supporters of traditional version of Christianity who also support the killing or forcible expulsion of "gays and most minorities". If so your vision of the religious right and this country in general is very distorted. 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. Of course their are no absolute guarantees but unless you are reasonably certain that you are actually getting peace in exchange for land there is little reason to give up land esp. when you have so little of it and are surrounded by a sea of hostile or potentially hostile neighbors. That's not true. The Likud party controls the show right now and they are not receptive to the two state idea. They have endorsed the two state idea, they are just greedy about how much of the land their state will control. More importantly if in negotiations they agree to a two state solution they (or Labor should they get in power) can impose it on the Israelis. The PA hasn't seriously tried to impose any control on Hammas and nor has it contained the terrorism of the "martyr brigades" that it created and funds. If the PA/PLO can't impose peace on its side then Israel has no one to negotiate with. If it just doesn't want to then Israel has no one who wants to have real negotiations with it. Only if the PA/PLO (or some other Palestinian body or group) can and will impose a peace settlement on its side can you have real peace negotiations. The ability and willingness of the PA/PLO to impose such a peace is at best an open question. Arafat is still in control; apparently, he refuses to implement the peace because he hasn't gotten what he wants. Make sense to me. Are you under the opinion that all of the following are true? - 1 - Arafat really wants a peace agreement and will agree to peace if he just gets a bit more through negotiation; 2 - If Arafat comes to some sort of agreement he will treat his obligations under it seriously; and 3 - That he can impose a peace on Hamas, the "martyr brigades" and other radicals and terrorists? Tim