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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (25654)	3/9/2004 1:12:51 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 25898

Let's assume we are not playing the blame game wherein we both disagree ab initio. Sharon's approach is pretty close to what you are suggesting. I don't think it will be possible to go back to 1967. At one point, I'm told Israel was about 15 km wide. It just was not defensible. Same with Golan Heights, ity can't be put back in hostile hands. I admit that these arguments will eventually lose their merits as nuclear suitcases and biological weapons becomes more available. Most Israelis want a settlement that brings 2 peoples and 2 nations peace. The political systems and leaders of both peoples have been to blame. Here's where you and I diverge. I believe that although Sharon and other Israeli leaders have made mistakes, they are not nearly as "awful" as the Arab leaders in the use of hatred, terror tactics and cynial use of their own people. Yes, I'm getting back to the blame. Rather than debate you on that. What do you think of Sharon's suggestions for unilateral withdrawal? I suspect you will answer with the simplistic, "It's a land grab." Am I wrong?

To: zonder who wrote (25654)	3/9/2004 4:01:33 PM
From: E. T.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 25898

"if the leadership is not good, the cause is not to be supported?" If every peaceful overture I make is followed by one suicide bombing after another then peace will have to wait. I've lost the sense of what the Palestinian cause is, kill every jew in sight? Push Israel into the sea? Is the PA cause one that precludes peaceful negotiation? "'a natural outcome of terrorism is oppression' It's the question of the chicken and the egg." No it's not, I said it earlier, in the 70s and into the 80s Palestinians by the tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands commuted into Israel everyday to work. Israel on a daily basis was crawling with working Palestinians. People I know hung out with Palestinians and supported their cause for nationhood. PA people and Israelis were in constant contact every day. That was a good thing. Constant terrorism killed jobs in Israel for Palestinians. More terrorism has brought only grief to the PA. That's what the PA leadership wants. Oppress my people so that they will rise up against you. But it's not going to work, because the Palestinian culture isn't one with much substance. It's a society with a growing death wish. "Then Israel should act against this plan, right?" Correct, and Israel pursued that end with Oslo and Clinton and all that happened was more terrorism. Hence, the fence and more oppression. Your're dreaming, being unrealistic, if you think 67 borders are an option. The PA is dreaming if they think they can regain what was offered in 2000. Why are you so much against dialogue and so much in support of terrorism? Israel showed good faith in 2000, did the PA? What overtures to peace do the PA make now? Can you name anything?