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: Katelew who wrote (195761)	8/7/2006 4:27:17 PM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Besides that land doesn't belong to Israel and there's a UN Res. ordering Israel to vacate. It's the right thing to do, the smart thing to do, and only the US can make it happen. The US only enforce resolutions against the Arab and certainly not Israel which has countless resolutions against it. Correct me if I am wrong Hawkmoon.

To: Katelew who wrote (195761)	8/7/2006 4:56:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't know that Shaba is all that useful or important to anyone. In theory Israel could give it up, but if it gave it up for nothing it would probably be taken as a sign of weakness. The Golan is somewhat strategically important. Maybe not as much as it used to be, with longer range attacks easier to pull off than in the past, and with Israel being confident that it can defeat Syria (and Syria probably being confident of that fact as well) if they did go to war, but still I can see why Israel is reluctant to give it up without a peace treaty and formal recognition from Syria.