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: TimF who wrote (327163)	2/24/2007 1:31:24 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577883

I think removing all of Jerusalem from Israel is a complete non-starter (of course any Arab-Israeli peace plan would be hard to start and harder to effectively complete), so is Pasreal. If peace depends on one of those then you simply won't have peace. Return to the 1967 borders (in other words giving up not just the West Bank, and Gaza, but also East Jerusalem) might be a distant possibility but it rather distant. I assume you think these ideas are all non-starters because the Israelis and/or the Pals will resist them, correct? If so, how about if the rest of the world, in the form of the UN, gave one of these ultimatums that said "Do this in a year, or sanctions on you." In other words, the PUSH to start on of these plans came from outside. THAT possibility is not all that out of the question, and is something over which the US has a great amount of control. All we have to do is say "adopt resolution 242 by Jan 1st next year, or economic sanctions are yours until you do". I'm not saying that is likely this month, but any President could fairly easily sway the US's position on Israel to a more balanced position from its current "Israel can do no wrong" position.