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: neolib who wrote (228693)	4/25/2007 1:41:52 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Sounds easy but isnt. There is no trust on either side but the really big obstacle is the inability of the pals to accept 47 much less 67 borders. Problem is that this has always been a war without a formal surrender so for most arabs and pals its like the everready bunny. Pals must be the ones to come to accept the basic realty that israel aint moving to nevada or new jersey. How can they do that when some here on this thread talk seriously about moving the jews out albeit for their own good. You are a Pal sympathiser in the good sense of that term but even you NL would be viewed as a traitor to the cause because you accept israel as part of the future map of the region and they for the most part havent come to terms with de jure, only de facto and defact is always subject to change.

To: neolib who wrote (228693)	4/25/2007 7:42:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If anything, Bubba's problem at Camp David was that he didn't draw any maps. Unfortunately, I think all the principles there didn't want to actually draw anything, they wanted to be revisionists afterward as suited their views Did you not read, or not believe, anything that Clinton, Ross, Ben Ami or Barak had to say on the subject of what it was like to deal with Arafat? Can you not even believe the obvious - that Barak was desperate to close a deal, since it was his only chance of political salvation? Yet you claim he didn't want to draw a map because he "wanted to be revisionist later". This is automatic reaction in the place of judgement. You don't want to have to think about the details because they would lead you to a conclusion you don't want to make. Much easier to come done in the middle, condemn all sides equally, and so proclaim your "fairness."