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 (94197)	1/7/2005 9:41:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793761

I think this post from Mideast on Target is fair. Abu Mazen is no less a terrorist than Arafat, the diplomats are just getting their hopes up because he is somewhat more pragmatic than Arafat was. In the course of doing that, it is all too easy for them to delude themselves that Abu Mazen doesn't like terrorism, that he will want to avoid it if he is provided with other options. The evidence for this belief, based on a review of Abu Mazen's past career and current statements, is nil. It's important to bear that fact clearly in mind. _______________________________________ The Abu Mazen Test By Elliot Chodoff Abu Mazen, the soon-to-be winner of the Palestinian elections, is being touted as the best chance for peace in the Middle East since the signing of the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn in 1993. He has been quoted as saying all the right words, or at least some of them, and is being hailed as the brave new leader needed by the Palestinians to lead them to the land of peaceful coexistence with Israel. Again. We have been down this before, and the results were far from satisfactory. After he was appointed prime minister by Yasir Arafat in the spring of 2003, Abu Mazen went through the same motions, with no appreciable result (see “Talking the Talk,” Archives, June 5, 2003). The fact that he considers the war started by Arafat in 2000 to be counterproductive points to the fact that he is somewhat better at cost-benefit analysis than some of his colleagues. That same aptitude may well lead him to understand that terrorism should be permitted to continue if he wants his chairmanship to last for any appreciable time. Abu Mazen is now caught in the jaws of his own pragmatism. On the one hand, he appreciates the devastation of the Palestinian economy and infrastructure as a result of the war with Israel, and on the other he is faced with the violent opposition of his primary constituents who are the principle protagonists in that war. The ongoing rocket and mortar campaign against Israeli population centers in and around Gaza exemplifies Abu Mazen’s dilemma. He certainly has no ethical problem with raining bombs on Israelis, but finds the paucity of casualties somewhat disconcerting especially since the Palestinians are forced to pay a high price for the effort. The attacks threaten to disrupt the elections, given that they will inevitably lead to IDF operations that will make voting difficult if not impossible. Nonetheless, the attacks, and the consequent IDF tank fire that killed 7 Gazans, gave Abu Mazen the opportunity to rail against the “Zionist enemy” in a campaign speech, certainly boosting his popularity in a crowd nostalgic for the good old Arafat days. Abu Mazen may be more cautious than some of his friends, but he is no less a terrorist. A leader in Fatah for decades, he played the brains role behind Arafat’s bluster and it is a credit to his skill that he has maintained the image of the behind the scenes peacemaker rather than the terrorist mastermind he has been. And he is clever enough to know that he will not remain in office long if his calls for an end to violence are backed up by actions. He has already made it clear that he has no intention of taking on the terrorists in anything more serious than an occasional reprimand. In the end, Abu Mazen will be forced to choose between the Fatah terrorists who are continuing attacks and the stability he knows is necessary to run an administration and move any peace negotiations forward. He will be forced to recognize that his public enemy number one is neither Israel nor the Hamas terrorist opposition, but rather the corrupt, self-serving terrorist warlords of his own Fatah movement who are wreaking havoc on the Palestinians. As of now, we would bet on the warlords.

To: Lane3 who wrote (94197)	1/7/2005 11:57:20 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793761

related to the distorted fear reaction people have where they're terrified of anthrax but get into a car without batting an eye. You like to play word games with risk factors. What you carefully avoid is direct comparison. Have fun with word gaming that concept....I know you will. Being exposed to common auto travel may be relatively risk free in comparison to common spaceship travel or the life of a Lieutenant in combat, or Anthrax exposure, or it may not be depending on the drive, the flight, the combat operation, or the exposure method. Assuming one factor poses less risk than the other without comparative data is the fallacy of your continuing argument. Definitions, terms and relative exposure are important. The relative risk of a leisurely drive definitely pales in comparison to direct inhaled Anthrax exposure. Relative risk opportunity (this is where we disagree) may be a consideration for the immediate moment. It cannot be ignored long term. 25 years ago AIDS research grants amounted to pennies. 100 years ago the average life expectancy for an American was 48 and nobody had even dreamed of penicillin. We cannot solve all human problems at least not yet. Yet we are pretty good at devising solutions to the problems in front of our collective faces. We have devised partial but pretty good solutions for auto accidents, for Anthrax and for the lieutenant. The world has bigger problems than all three together. I have seat belts and impact airbags for wrecks and a bottle of Cipro in the glovebox for Anthrax. An American combat lieutenant has direct fire and indirect fire defensive capabilities that never before existed in combat.