Isn't that the author's point, that so many people have an all or nothing approach to the problem, yet there are many sides to each position?
I don't believe any intelligent person would deny the fact the terrorist attacks are detestable and ongoing. I will likely never visit Israel or the Middle East, but the stories I hear coming out of there are gut-wrenching and often move me to pray for peace. The question seems to be what is the most effective solution to ending this horrible situation. The article made me think about what that means to all sides. M -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:36 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Rumblings of Peace There is an alternative to reading it as it doesn't tell the whole story. There are not 2 parts but 1. If there was safety then there could be peace and the palestinians can have their state. If a state is given without safety then it'll just be a terrorist state where attacks will come from every day. Don't believe me? How about this: "Israel Radio reported that hours after the IDF withdrawal from Tulkarem, Palestinian gunmen have fired from Tulkarem at Trans-Israel Highway workers within the Green Line. There were no casualties in the shooting." At 01:09 PM 4/9/02, you wrote: >Here's an article on the Palestinian / Israeli conflict from the Washington >Post: > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16895-2002Apr8.html > >There is no alternative to reading it. > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
