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 (163236)	5/27/2005 11:41:54 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

US pressure will be key. Sharon is no likudnik. He is not a religous nut. He believes passionately in israel but is not wedded to the settlers at all although he helped create them. In the settlements there are alot of religous nuts. Most sane jews wouldnt want to live amongst a people who hate them anyway. Remember that the settlements were a tool devised by Labor not Likud post 1967 to wake the arabs up so they would negotiate a permanent peace. When they didnt, there werent enough secular jews to send so the religous appeared and went. When Likud took over all the talk about Greater Israel began and that dovetailed nicely with the settlements. What a mess and how far away from the original purpose the settlements have come. But they are there and they must be dealt with and borders must be created that satisfy both countries. Not easy stuff. But my main point about 1967 is same one i make about 1947--it was clear that israel did not want to keep the WB and Gaza in 1967. They used carrot and stick approach to the arabs to gain recognition. No arab state responded and thus you got arafat, likud, hamas etc. I am not a historian as you are not. I wonder whether nadine and marcos can take a better look at the origins of settlements that i have layed out here strictly from memory. Gotta go--be back at about 3pm. Mike