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: Lou Weed who wrote (240383)	8/30/2007 4:56:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Please elaborate....I've maintained consistently that this has always been about land. Where have I said the opposite?!? You said that the talks were doomed to failure because Arafat was the negotiator. I replied that Arafat was the negotiator because he was an immovable fixture. No matter how he behaved, no matter how many times he reneged on his word, no matter how big a disaster he was for the Palestinians, he was immovable. And why? He was the creature of Egypt and the Arab League. They put him in, they paid him to continue the 'armed struggle.' They weren't paying him to make peace and gave him ZERO support for peace in 2000 or at any other time. So if the entire negotiations were GUARANTEED to fail no matter what was offered, then it wasn't about land or Israeli intransigence, now was it? BTW Arafat didn't break the deal over land. The negotiators had actually agreed about borders. He broke the deal over the 'right of return' of the Pal refugees - to Israel. If I was to take 100% of your land from you and then 30 years later offer you back 95% of it but I'll keep the 5% where the well is.....would you be happy? And the other choice is take 0% and start another war that I that I have no chance to win and will destroy the chances of any future negotiations? I would take the 95%, wouldn't you? Negotiations are not about making one side 100% happy. They are about compromise.