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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (298797)	8/8/2006 4:44:04 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578704

I still don't know why you insist on applying today's standards to what happened almost 60 years ago. That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm suggesting a peace plan that I believe is likely to bring peace to the Israel-Pal situation, and that is just, and that has American values of equality of humans at its core. Just because it's not some elected politician's peace plan doesn't mean that it's not legitimate or worth discussing. How many other "wrongfully drawn borders" do you also want to correct? There's no need to broaden the discussion. We're talking the Israel-Pal situation in the ME. If you want to discuss Tibet-China, go ahead... The fact is that Israel is now a functioning society that has a right to exist. Not only that, but they are also a very strong, functional society that has shown incredible resilience in the face of Islamic fundamentalism, the same ideology that gives rise to terrorism. My proposal isn't based on some "right to exist", it is an idea to bring peace to what has been a troubled region since the founding of Israel (and before). I don't deny that Israel has a right to exist, I'm just proposing a solution that is superior to the status quo. And even though Israel may be strong, it has numerous enemies that are not going away as far as I can tell. What good is maintaining a country at war with its neighbors in perpetuity? I'm suggesting something designed to convert Israel's enemies into allies, and marginalize the Islamic fundamentalists. Changing a Jewish homeland which occuppies Jerusalem into a non-denominational country (~50% Muslim) which occuppies Jerusalem reduces a lot of the Islamic fundamentalists reason for existence. At what point are you going to advocate living with the borders we have today? When the borders today are superior to the potential borders, of course. Simply put, a country in Pal-Israel land which accepts both Muslims, Christians and Jews as equal citizens and grants citizenship to the appropriate Israelis and Pal refugees has a greater chance for lasting peace over the long term than one which separates the various groups based on religion. Why is that difficult to grasp?