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 (6773)	4/20/2004 12:57:51 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

If Bush hadn't explicitly stated his support, thus giving something to Israel for the very big risk they are taking What big risk? Pulling potential targets of terrorists BACK behind a wall? That's a risk? It was a political risk, because there is a large faction of Likud UNWILLING to give up ANY West Bank settlements. The risks, both physical and political, they DO have lie in CONTINUING to expose themselves to Palestinian terrorist attacks by permitting these settlements to remain in the West Bank. Pull out, build their wall, and segregate themselves from the Palestinian workers you claim they don't require. Seems to me to be less risk in that, than in remaining in Palestine with vulnerable settlements that do not border Israel proper. To say otherwise is to lack understanding of Israeli politics. Yes.. the politics that say that Israelis have a destiny to inhabit the West Bank, be damned with the reality and the danger of doing so. And be damned any additional radicalization that occurs in the Palestinian population, which decreases Israel's security interests long term... And you think my plan for a international military presences and nation-building project in Palestine was "risky"?? Bullshit it was. Arafat broke the talks in 2000 over 'right of return'. The two sides had done a deal on land, so Arafat put 'right of return' back on the table to break the deal. And you and I both agree that Arafat would have found ANY pretext for breaking that, or any, deal. Because he had little interest in peace... His power lies in maintaining a continual level of turmoil in Palestine. The minute they have a state, then he has to deal with the expectations of his people.. And he will no longer be able to realistically blame the Israelis for the incompetent and corrupt management of their economy. So screw Arafat.. We all know the Israelis were NEVER going to agree to a right of return. But in exchange, they NEVER offered to dismantle their own settlements and withdraw behind the green line, or even to those settlements that lie directly adjacent to Israel. So there was nothing, except internal extremist politics, that has prevented Sharon from just withdrawing.. So the only risk to Sharon was the internal risk from Israeli extremists such as the ones who assassinated Rabin. So just as Sharon is telling the Palestinians to deal with their extremists, Sharon must also deal with his own extremists, who would rather stand and die on the West Bank than to return to Israeli borders. And look at the settlements that Sharon wants to retain: news.bbc.co.uk Hebron which lies in the south central portion of the West Bank. Kiryat Arba which also lies in the southern portion, but closer to the Dead Sea. And how about this one?? Maaleh Adumim, the extent of which almost completely separates the northern and southern portions of the WB territory. passia.org Givat Ze'ev which one might understand given it's just north of Jerusalem. Of course, given that the Israelis government has been heavily subsidizing ($$$$) settlement in that area, apparently they never planned on giving it back. Ariel is also well within the northern portion of the West Bank. It is completely surrounded by the borders of the proposed Palestinian state. Gush Etzion (couldn't find it)... Now, once again.. I can see retaining settlements that lie close to the Israeli border. But for them to balkanize (or should we say gerrymander) the rest of the West Bank with hodge-podge settlements all over the place is ridiculous. Give those settlers the choice of moving back, or opting to submit to Palestinian authority. They knew this possibility existed that they might have to move, or come under the control of a Palestinian government. And expecting Israel to be responsible for governing, policing, protecting, and providing utilities to those settlements is just plan stupid. And I hardly see US interests being served by this inane land grab by the Israelis. mideastweb.org Hawk