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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (6764)	4/19/2004 9:10:03 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Res. 242 uses careful ambiguity on the issue of borders, And Bush just destroyed that ambiguity, now didn't he (at least for the US)? He took sides in order to help Sharon pass the withdrawal plan amongst the Likud party. And thus, the US just became officially associated with the Israeli right wing, when all he had to do was not officially say anything. I'm an American Nadine. I'm not a Zionist. And the policies of my country should be be publically associated with the extremist positions of any political party. If Sharon wishes to appease his extremists by declaring that they will retain "certain settlements" (illegally built under 242 because they were not "negotiated", but annexed), that's his business. But Bush has now committed the American people to Sharon's policies and limited our flexibility to be seen by the entire Arab world as an facilitator and arbitrator. Now Israel's policy of annexing West Bank territory is now seen as Bush's policy. And that disturbs me as being unecessary. The US has bigger fish to fry, namely defeating the ideology and appeal of Islamic fundamentalism. And being seen as an ally to the Israeli right will not benefit our struggle against the Islamic right. You get street cred in Gaza by killing Jews. If Hamas can't keep up, they'll lose it. Now they'll get it by killing Americans. After all, Bush has just officially removed the technical barrier between Israeli and American policy. They are not one and the same, IMO. And we've severely diminished our ability to effect influence the nature of any Palestinian state. And European leaders will be placed in a position of having to side with the Palestinians versus the US, since we have given up our neutrality. Again.. Sharon could have accomplished all of this without Bush deciding to eliminate that neutrality. Hawk