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 (241248)	9/7/2007 10:33:53 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Trust must be built and economic progress for the people trumps all. I learned the first from reagan and the second from ho chi minh. Folks who won in vietnam ultimately were able to feed the folks a bowl of rice a day. Trust but verify is as true today as it was under reagan. Nadine wants verify first. Reagan went with trust. Thats one of the chief difference between the bushies and the reaganites.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (241248)	9/7/2007 11:37:28 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The Palestinians would take over Israeli greenhouses and export cherry tomatoes to the European Union. They would pump gas from lucrative off-shore gas fields being developed by British Gas to bring in huge revenues to the Palestinian people." is pure fantasy. Do you think that if this miraculously happened that Israel would simply UNOCCUPY the WB?!? Of course it's pure fantasy, that's precisely the point. Yet it was propounded to us by people in your camp, bobby, that if the Pals got control of Gaza we would see them make positive changes to run their own affairs. The well-meaning types who coughed up 14 million dollars to deliver the greenhouses intact to the PA did so thinking they would be used, not destroyed, did they not? So you agree that if Israel simply withdraws from the West Bank, the same thing will happen there as happened in Gaza? It sounds like you do. [Resolution 242] Looks like a demand for complete Israeli pullback to me? Am I missing something here? Yes, according to the author of Resolution 242, you are. There was a big tussle at the UN between the USSR and the US over the wording of the resolution, with the USSR wanting to write in a complete withdrawal, and the US wanting to leave it open to negotiation. The final wording said "withdrawal from territories" not "withdrawal from the territories" and also mentioned Israel's right to secure boundaries to be settled by negotiations. That was the compromise. Israel has always understood this according to the US intent: secure boundaries settled by negotiations, meaning not all the way back to the Green Line, which leaves Israel 9 miles wide at places (not very secure), with final status to be negotiated. The Arabs always interpreted it by the USSR intent: meaning as a complete do-over on the Six Day War, put everything back the way it was on June 4, 1967. The Euro-left accepts the Arab interpretation. BTW, Resolution 242 does not mention "Palestine" at all. It purely addresses Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Nothing short of seeing the demise of the west will satisfy al Qaeda......no startling revelation there. Why heck, lets just never try any negotiating if that's the case! Radical groups will always exist. With a well structured, heavily financed and closely monitored fully agreed transition process, a much greater possibility exists for success. There seems to be a big missing step between a) and b) here bobby. We are told over and over that an Israeli/Pal solution will molify Muslim grievances. Yet you acknowledge that it won't begin to molify the radicals. I think your mistake is in thinking that there are just a few radicals way off to the side, but the main course of Muslim grievance is entirely different. It's not so different. It's all one continuous political spectrum of Islamist grievance. Many believe it sincerely, others whip it up cynically to maintain themselves in power. Al Qaeda's message resonates nonetheless. What Dore Gold is trying to point out is that if you just concentrate on the less radical end whom you might be able to negotiate with, you won't notice that you are inflaming the more radical end even more, giving them the feeling of victory, and encouraging them to claim all the credit and recruit more followers. Did Hamas moderate when Israel pulled out of Gaza? Did it strengthen the moderates, or the radicals? You have to notice the actual political dynamic at work here.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (241248)	9/7/2007 1:04:40 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

BTW, I also checked out some other articles on the website you linked and saw titles like..... ... "Sorry Mohammed, you'll have to get your milk from a bowl from now on" I checked that one out. Now, who is nutty, the guy who notices that somebody proclaimed an insane fatwa like this, or the guy who proclaimed it in the first place? To me, this article represents the sane side of the argument, along with that poor Egyptian female professor who is quoted protesting the whole thing. She has to live in a society where pronouncements like this seem to occur on a routine basis. ____________________________ Fatwa: Sorry, Mohammed, you'll need to get your milk in a bowl from now on By israelinsider staff May 23, 2007 Shavuot is a Jewish holiday associated with dairy products, but this breaking milky news pertains to our Muslim cousin. AFP reports that a professor at Egypt's Islamic Al Azhar university Monday has retracted a religious edict which states that a woman can only be left alone with a strange man if she breastfeeds him. Ezzat Attia, president of the university's Hadith department, which studies traditions based on the Prophet Mohammed's words and deeds, has withdrawn his fatwa and apologized for any inconvenience he caused. He had stated that a woman is allow to be alone with a man to whom she is not related -- such as an office colleague -- if she nurses him "directly from her breast" at least five times. The ruling had reportedly put a dent in milk sales throughout the Muslim world. According to Mabruk Attia (apparently unrelated), a professor of theology at the university, the Prophet Mohammed had advised a woman to nurse her adult adopted son, to become his wet nurse, following an Islamic ban on adoption. The woman gave the man her breast milk from a bowl, and not directly from the teat, this other Professor Attia attested. The ruling sparked a furor, especially among female professors. "If the country's top cleric himself had made the same statements, he would not be considered respectable," the aptly named Milka Yussef, a professor of theology at Al Azhar, told the weekly Al Karama paper. She said even debating the issue was "insane." She doubted that most Muslim women could produce more than four bowls full. Ezzat Attia may have had liberal motives for his ruling, since Islam's strict prohibitions on male-female fraternization prevent men and women from working together. He argued that if a man nursed from a co-worker, it would establish a family bond between them and allow the two to work side-by-side without raising suspicion of an illicit sexual relation. More conservative pundits in Egypt would have none of it. "When you walk into a government building, you should not be shocked to find a 50-year-old civil servant suckling his colleague," the independent daily Al Dustur said ironically after the fatwa was issued. Apparently, colleagues will now need to be content drinking dairy delicacies from a bowl. web.israelinsider.com