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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (77813)	7/1/2006 4:21:22 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

>>Should Israel lay down their arms and announce there will be no further retaliatory acts what would be the Arab response ? Would you expect the UN Security Council to announce an emergency meeting in response to the first Israeli death from the that response ? JMO but you could move all of Israel to Baja California and the attacks would not stop.<< Sdgla - First, that last statement is silly. Of course the attacks would stop if you moved Israel. It's fundamentally a territorial dispute. Second, I have one question. How's the current Israeli approach working for them? Not so well, as far as I can see. They've been mired in this tit for tat conflict for fifty years or so. Maybe the Israelis should unilaterally renounce violence. How do we know what would happen then? Nobody's ever tried it, apart from Ghandi. But obviously that's not a good parallel to draw here. The big problem I see is that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want to take any responsibility for all the harm they've done to each other over the decades. They are concerned only with the sins of the other side. It's a lose-lose situation. I find it hard to see how emulating the Israeli strategy is going to work for us, especially considering that the main source of the enmity between Arabs and the U.S. is our continuing support of Israel. - Allen