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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (85618)	11/11/2004 4:37:29 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793891

It is not necessarily the best deal that Israeli could have gotten, but it would have been better then what ensued. My disapproval has to do with the encouragement of Arafat to think that if Clinton could pressure Barak that far, a little trouble would get them East Jerusalem. In other words, the Israeli position was undermined by over- eagerness, and Arafat tried to take advantage.

To: Lane3 who wrote (85618)	11/11/2004 5:55:10 PM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 793891

The real problem was the misreading of Arafat's true intentions. As with all diplomacy, it still has to be judged with hindsight. Even Chamberlain's diplomacy with Hitler could have been a diplomatic coup of the century, if Hitler really had wanted peace. But fact is, Chamberlain misread Hitler, just as Clinton misread Arafat. They both get A++ for effort, but F for results. There is a fundamental problem here. Walking away from Oslo and Oslo II the way Arafat did is clear evidence of what his true intentions going in were. Going into Oslo II, Clinton misread Arafat, and Arafat misread the terms as a starting point to drive Israel into the sea, which he subsequently tried to do. There is no other way to put it.