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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (135417)	6/3/2004 12:38:23 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There is a mosque built on the site of Temple of Solomon. And what right did Moslems have that permitted them to build their mosque on the remains of the Temple of Solomon? As for eternal "grudges", is it alright for Muslims to have them, but not for Jews? Is it not just as inflammatory for Arafat to step upon the ruins of the Temple of Solomon? Hawk

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (135417)	6/3/2004 12:43:10 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So you know, one has to make way in order for the other to have religious fulfillment. Interesting. One might well wonder whether Muslims are worried about the Jewish Messiah coming? Or coming again, depending on your theory. Not to worry. He/She/It/Them won't be stymied by a little bit of half-ass construction on undesireable real estate in a backwards corner of a tiny planet in a smallish solar system in an unimpressive galaxy, given the fact that He/She/It/Them created the entire universe.

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (135417)	6/3/2004 11:52:44 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you recall, Palestinians were quietly awaiting the implementation of Oslo accords when Sharon went to the site with a thousand troops (in '98 ?) and declared it exclusively for Israelis. That is when the suicide bombings started. That's not a particularly accurate statement. The violence started before Sharon's visit, and the greater violence after it shows signs of planning. It wasn't (or at least not all of it was) a spontaneous reaction to the temple mount visit. The visit was a pretext to try to use violence to achieve the Palestinians aims after the talks had broken down. (Yes Oslo was signed but all the future talks and agreements that where supposed to happen under the framework of the Oslo agreement either didn't happen or didn't achieve anything significant). But even if the whole thing was just in response to Sharon's visit that wouldn't absolve the Palestinians of responsibility. In fact it would lend support to the arguments of those who say that their is no point in negotiating with the Palestinians. If they get so enraged that they go from a state of being peaceful and ready to implement a peace treaty to a state of terrorist warfare because of a visit to an area that is holy to both sides, when Sharon and his entourage did not enter or damage the mosques, then I'm not sure how any ceasefire, peace treaty, or final settlement with them is expected to stick. There will be other provocations. If they explode in violence at every provocation then there isn't any point in negotiating with them. Personally I don't think the Palestinians are so irrational. Their leadership wanted the violence so they caused it to happen with Sharon's visit as the pretext. If Sharon had canceled his visit they would have found another one, or perhaps just started the new wave of violence without a pretext. That doesn't mean that Sharon is innocent in all of this. He made his visit in a very provocative way. Sure he didn't enter or touch the mosques, but 1000 soldiers in the area of the mosques was over kill and was very provocative. Tim