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 : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2554)	8/4/2001 2:49:45 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 23908

IS THE EVACUATION OF SINAI A PRECEDENT FOR THE GOLAN HEIGHTS? Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State: "...The Egyptian model fits neither the Jordanian nor the Syrian case...Former Secretary of Defense McNamara has said that if he were the Israel's Minister of Defense, he would never agree to giving up the Golan Heights...UNSC 242 authorizes the parties to make whatever territorial changes the situation requires - it does not require the Israelis to transfer o the Arabs all, most, or indeed any of the occupied territories. The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty awards [to the Arabs] more than 90 percent of the territory Israel captured in the Six Day War...[242] permits a transfer [of all the territories] if the parties accept it, but it does not require it..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, pp 18-19). acpr.org.il

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2554)	8/4/2001 2:54:29 PM
From: goldsnow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

In 1983, Israel received an unexpected endorsement for its call for defensible borders when the Pentagon declassified a June 29, 1967 memorandum from the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. In the memo, the Joint Chiefs concluded, "From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders." Specifically, the Joint Chiefs recommended a defense line down the middle of the West Bank "as a minimum." The hills of the West Bank, if possessed by Jordan, would offer it a "route for a thrust to the sea" which could "split the country [Israel] in half," the Joint Chiefs warned. The new defense line "would widen the narrow portion of Israel and provide additional buffer for the airbase at Beersheva." From a military point of view, the memorandum also recommended Israeli retention of the Golan and Gaza strip. "The organization of an adequate defensive position" in the Jerusalem area required that "the boundary of Israel be positioned to the east of the city," which, in effect, endorses Israel's refusal to redivide Jerusalem. In an era of weapons like the Stinger anti-aircraft missile --smuggled by mule into Afghanistan to lethal effect against Sovietaircraft in the mid- and late-1980's -- Israel must ensure that no hostile force controls the mountain tops of Judea and Samaria. geocities.com

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2554)	8/4/2001 3:11:01 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 23908

Philip V of Macedonia assisted the Romans in defeating the Syrians in 190 BCE, but the Romans did not reward him with the lands he conquered. This fostered in Philip V a deep hate for Rome which Philip's son Perseus inherited. When his father died in 179 BCE, Perseus made plans for war and developed relationships with Rome's enemies. Eumenes II, King of Pergamon, made Rome aware of Perseus's plans and a Roman commission was sent in 172 BCE to demand that Perseus cease such activities and make concessions to Rome for his behavior. Perseus refused and Rome declared war. A Roman army landed in Greece in 171 BCE but failed to win significant victories until the Consul Aemilius Paullus took command. He defeated Perseus at the Battle of Pynda in 168 BCE. To prevent the rise of Macedonia ever again, the Romans divided this ancient kingdom of Alexander into four separate republics. Perseus and his two sons were brought to Rome as trophies of Aemilius Paullus's victory. romanrepublicancoins.com

To: Thomas M. who wrote (2554)	8/4/2001 3:13:37 PM
From: goldsnow	Respond to of 23908

The study of the Macedonian identity has given rise to far greater controversies and debates than that of most, if not all, other nationilisms in eastern Europe. This has been only in part due to the hazy past of the Slavic speaking population of Macedonia and to the lack of a continuous and separate state tradition, a trait they had in common with other "small" and "young," or so-called "non-historic," peoples in the area. Controversy has been due above all to the fact that, although it began in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, Macedonian nationalism did not enjoy international acceptance or legitimacy until the Second World War, much later than was the case with other similar national movements in eastern Europe.[1] Recent research has shown that Macedonian nationalism developed, generally speaking, similarly to that of neighboring Balkan peoples, and, in most respects, of other "small" and "young" peoples of eastern, as well as some of western, Europe. But Macedonian nationalism was belated, grew slowly and, at times, manifested confusing tendencies and orientations that were, for the most part, consequences of its protracted illegitimate status.[2] gate.net