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: bentway who wrote (160703)	4/20/2005 6:23:34 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am not wedded to 67 borders but i am against anything that makes palestine less than a contiguous state with the obvious exception of gaza and West Bank. I agreed with essence of the clinton plan to compensate pals for any lost lands. Right now i think Pal exists on 92% of disputed territories. Every time rejectionists reject and Infatadas start, the pals have and will lose more land. Thats the long answer. Short answer is that i think sharon is on the right track. He has been checked by israeli courts on the wall and that was good. Real borders can be created but settlements which house 75% of settlers on that 8% of land will stay. We didnt give texas back to the Mexicans either so dont expect israel to be more magnanimous that we were. At some point de facto become de jure. Mike

To: bentway who wrote (160703)	4/20/2005 6:33:42 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

An addendum. I have no problem with folks feeling bad for the Pals. But if you really want to search the world for victims there are much clearer cases. Ask the millions of Tutsis who died in Ruanda or the folks currently dying in Darfur. How about the hundreds of thousands, saddam gassed and what of the iranians he used chemicals against. Is Sharon worst than Mugabe? How many folks did Mao kill? What about North Korean victims whose numbers we can only imagine. Or Bosnians? The list goes on. Israel/Pal is a small border war. It may be as Marcos might say the Jews looking for an exclusive state in an area that they once populated and ruled but where others had migrated too later on after the Jews had been expelled. But even when looking for an exclusive state for Jews as a nation, no different that germany or france or belgium, they still managed to include a few million arabs who live better than arabs elsewhere and who would live even better if the two peoples (Arab and Jew) overall could make peace.

To: bentway who wrote (160703)	4/20/2005 7:47:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I feel if these were abandoned and turned over to the Palestinians as a peace offering, there would be no more Palestinian terrorism. Please, do Hamas the credit to listen to what they say. Ditto Hizbullah. Ditto Fatah, when speaking in Arabic. They all refer to the "occupation of 1967" and the "occupation of 1948". They do not accept Israel as anything but a temporary reality, if that. They certainly don't accept that it has the smallest right to exist - at all, in any borders - and pledge themselves to permanent resistance to this "occupation". Before you dismiss Hamas as a fringe, note that the PA is trying to delay this summer's elections because they know that Hamas will win them.