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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6632)	4/1/2004 4:14:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

And it being a multi-national effort, the Palestinians would be hard-pressed to refuse the effort for fear of completely being cast as intransigent and militant. Many of them (and some Israelis as well) are intransigent and militant. Some of them probably won't agree to anything that leaves Israel in existence. Many wouldn't agree to anything less then 100% of the West Bank and Gaza plus East Jerusalem. Israel might not agree to that even under heavy pressure. But lets assume Israel agrees to the 95%, does Arafat? If no then presumably other Palestinians don't either and you are occupying Palestinian territories (at least the buffer zone) against a "Intifada" trying to get through you to Israelis or perhaps just directly attacking NATO forces (the new "occupiers"). NATO can either try to make the line it controls into a series of large fortified positions with little strategic depth and no patrolling in to the areas it doesn't control, or it can occupy or at least patrol more of the West Bank and Gaza. But lets say Arafat also agrees. Does Hammas? Unlikely in my opinion. So you at best have a lesser version of the same problems you would have if Arafat does not agree. And if you can get all major organizations to agree you still have a terrorism problem even if it is at a lower level, and if the agreement is from say Hammas is just an agreement to try to get a state to use as a terrorist base against Israel you might not be making any real long term gain. I could see the possibility of such a force being a buffer between both sides after a real negotiated solution (and even then it wouldn't be easy or problem free or without risk) but I think sending such a force to impose a solution from the outside is very problematic. Again, the key is multi-national effort aimed at diffusing the problem and dealing with Islamic militancy in the Palestinian territories. No Palestinian government, dominated by militants, should be permitted to exist... That sounds more like a real occupation and less like a force patrolling a buffer zone. Tim

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6632)	4/2/2004 1:05:21 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

As a beginning, the 95% that the original Israeli-Palestinian peace accord specified during the Clinton administration. The rest would be negotiated. That "rest", a very small patch, has a major neighborhood of Jerusalem on it, and the Gush Etzion settlement bloc, and several other towns right by the Green Line, containing in all about 400,000 Israelis. Or were you suggesting that Israel give up hunks of land inside the Green Line? And it being a multi-national effort, the Palestinians would be hard-pressed to refuse the effort for fear of completely being cast as intransigent and militant Sheesh, never stopped them so far. What's to stop them from using their tried and true method, agreeing in the end to negotiate just so long as they get tangible concessions up front in return for worthless promises of good behavior? No Palestinian government, dominated by militants, should be permitted to exist... So, does NATO begin by doing a regime change on the PA? You didn't specify that.