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: Hawkmoon who wrote (3342)	9/10/2001 6:00:32 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 23908

Disgrace in Durban The U.N. conference on racism was worse than just hot air. By Charles Krauthammer There are few museums as powerful as the Holocaust Museum in Washington, but it contains what appears to be a structural oddity. The exhibit fills three floors. The middle floor covers the Holocaust itself; the last, the rescue and aftermath. But the entire first floor, which can take hours to go through, consists of the prelude, the 1930s and the relentless Nazi campaign to delegitimize the very existence of Jews. Why is the prelude given as much space as the Holocaust itself? Because the prelude is so crucial. Unless the Jews had first been stripped of their very humanity, their extermination would not have been possible. Before the great crime comes the great lie. Which is why the U.N. Conference on Racism in Durban is so important. It has been wrongly dismissed by many as mere hot air, the usual Third-World-dictators-in-committee cavorting in their playpen of meaningless demagoguery. But that misses the point. This was a universal conference whose overriding objective was to brand one country and one people as uniquely, transcendently evil. The whole point was to rekindle the Arab campaign to delegitimize the planet's single Jewish state - and thus prepare the psychological and political ground for its extinction. theweeklystandard.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (3342)	9/10/2001 6:10:26 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Nadine... my point in bringing up that comparison is that we must consider the current borders to be sacrosanct, unless altered by mutually accepted agreement That's sensible enough, Hawk, but does not cover the case of prolonged border disputes, which are usually settled by war. We both know that if Israel had been any other country, it would have annexed the territories it took in 1967, thrown out anybody who gave them trouble, and the world would have shrugged, as it has countless other times and places. But of the course the rules are always different for Israel, for reasons both internal and external.