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: Elroy who wrote (225516)	3/29/2007 10:29:14 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What should be encourage is the two side (or Israel and the many "other sides") laying out their demands, and starting from that seeing where accomodation can be reached. That is why I say Israeli needs to be proactive. Both sides in the ME tend to state negatives, not positives. This is poor negotiating. Israel should respond that they are excited about a comprehensive peace plan, and they want to jointly see if a solution can be obtained. Clearly any sovereign state controls it's own immigration, so Israel should retain that right. In addition, Pals should stay in Pal state. However, WB settlements should not stay in Pal state either. Both sides can give, that is required. Further issues are the holy sites, and both sides should accommodate each other. It would rapidly be up to the Pals to show their response, and with joint Arab & world pressure, this would likely be their best shot at a reasonable future. If they fail to take it, the rest of the world needs to clearly remember the missed opportunity, and who was too blame. Israel needs to very clearly not provide the Pals, the Arabs, or the rest of the world with reason to blame them instead. Israel needs to look very carefully at the fundamentally important issues for their state, vs. the rather tangential ones. My own opinion is that following 9/11 Bush should have taken the Saudi plan when first floated, and put $500B into that rather than Iraq. But just my 2 cents.

To: Elroy who wrote (225516)	3/29/2007 11:36:11 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My own opinion is that Israel should be more proactive in looking at a more accommodative stance on East Jerusalem, the West Bank settlements, and some joint control of the holy sites But as carranza says, the Arabs negotiate with a mirror. To the Arabs, concessions are a sign of weakness and invite attack. Oslo was a concession. Camp David and Taba were big concessions. What did it get the Israelis? Casualties and more demands. Now the Arabs demand not only the 1967 borders, but "right of return" and an end to Jewish immigration. Their demands have not lessened in compromise, but grown greater. Now they demand the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Meanwhile Hamas openly demands the destruction of Israel, and the rest of the world is telling it that there is little price to be paid for this. Israel would have been better off making no concessions whatsoever. It gambled for peace, and lost.