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 (6657)	4/2/2004 3:58:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

After all, isn't that how things work in real life when neighbors threaten to call in the cops to settle a dispute between two aggrieved parties? More often than not, they recognize that it's in their interest to get compromise lest the situation be dictated to them by outside parties (who would get the "glory"). But the Middle East neighbors want the fighting to continue, not to stop, so the analogy hardly works.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (6657)	4/2/2004 5:35:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

After all, isn't that how things work in real life when neighbors threaten to call in the cops to settle a dispute between two aggrieved parties? I don't think the analogy holds up to well. The relationship between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist isn't like that between two neighbors even hostile neighbors. The cops have more power and usually get more deference then NATO or the UN does. If two neighbors had a problem with each other only a psycho would shoot at the cops when they arrived to calm things down and that psycho would probably be shot or arrested. NATO has a lot more power then the Palestinians, or even Israel but it doesn't have the same ability to overwhelm "the neighbors" that the cops do. NATO isn't likely to get the same amount of respect and deference that the cops often get and if some ME faction starts shooting at the NATO "cops" it isn't going to be quickly resolved. You can't arrest the whole faction that would resist and the equivalent of shooting them would be genocide. There is a small chance that NATO could put down Palestinian violence better then Israel has but IMO that chance is very small. NATO has more total resources but Israel doesn't lack for anti-terrorist resources. NATO also is not as hated by the Palestinians and might not be even if it tries to suppress some Palestinian violence but "as hated" is relative. If NATO tries to impose a solution that the Palestinians don't agree with then the Palestinians will be likely to hate it, and if it attempts to use force to suppress resistance then the resistance will likely be violent. NATO also has less commitment to the solution. If NATO faces as much resistance as the US and UK have in Iraq will French and German and Spanish soldiers stay in Israel/Palestine? Or perhaps this is just a US/UK operation? Even the US would probably have less staying power then Israel for the simple reason that Israel has to be there and the US doesn't. I disagree with Bilow about Iraq but I do agree that while the Iraqi resistance could never outright defeat the US if things get much worse and stay that way the US would be likely to eventually walk away from Iraq (the difference is the Bilow thinks this is inevitable while I think it is unlikely that things will get much worse in Iraq). I think the resistance from the Palestinians to a solution forced on them might be worse then the resistance in Iraq. They won't have the old Baathists but they will have the Al-Qaeda types joining them plus they already have a large terrorist infrastructure. In any case I don't think a decision to forcibly impose a solution on the Palestinian Israeli conflict would get approved by either NATO or the UN Security Council. Of course the US can act without the sanction of either but I don't think you would get a majority of congress or American voters to support a "unilateral" imposition without support from Israel, the PLO, the UN or NATO. The one thing I can say for your plan is that it is a well motivated plan to try to solve a problem. It could be argued that the problem isn't getting resolved "so why don't we try something new", but "doing something" isn't always better then doing nothing. It can just make the problem worse. If the Palestinian terrorist did not have the support of many Palestinians then maybe your plan would work but if the terrorist lacked support I think that they would have already been rendered fairly ineffective by Israel. Tim