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: Seeker of Truth who wrote (7277)	10/24/2001 11:39:02 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But it was pure colonialism of the UN to hand "British" (really Arab) territory over to Zionists, who didn't need to move to the Middle East. Malcolm, pardon me if I sound deprecatory about your "sense" of history, but IT WAS NOT THE BRITISH WHO FIRST INVITED THE JEWS TO COLONIZE PALESTINE, IT WAS THE OTTOMAN TURKS. The British only gained control over Palestine after defeating the Turks in WWI. In fact, if you want to discuss colonialism, you'd have to blame the Turks, who spent hundreds of years colonizing the middle east. Or how about the Crusaders who were bent upon defeating the Muslims and colonizing the Holy Land for the Christians? Or you could take it back even further and blame the Muslims, who colonized the mid-east all the way back in the late 7th century. The reality is that most of these modern nations did not exist AT ALL in 1918, the end of WWI. The British spent their blook and treasure throwing the Turks out (with both Arab and Jewish assistance), and they permitted Jewish emmigration there, because of the on-going anti-semitism that was prevalent in Europe. But how you can claim that a bunch of Arab tribes and mixed cultural elements were somehow more deserving of their own political states, than were the Jews, is just simple bias, plain and simple. Egypt didn't exist as a state until granted independence by the British... And it hadn't existed for over 3,000 years.... Yet here comes a buch of Arabs who bear very little resemblance to the religious traditions of ancient Egypt, and they are permitted to form a country. And the Brits, who had originally set aside all of the territory of Trans-Jordan (consisting of Israel, the West Bank, and present day Jordan) for Jewish settlement under terms of the British Mandate. But then they reneged and only permitted Jewish settlement WEST of the Jordan River. Furthermore, the British, in order to reward the Hashemite Arabs, who had lost out in their power play against the Saudis in controlling Saudi Arabia, were given Jordan and Iraq. What right did the British have in placing Arab rulers over Palestinian populations in Jordan?? Furthermore, Arab states have been even MORE active in preventing a Palestinian state than has been Israel. Jordan ANNEXED the west bank in 1948, something that Israel hasn't even done (although would be perfectly entitled to do since Jordan lost that territory after attacking Israel in 1967). 66% of the population of Jordan is Palestinian. But you don't see the Saudis or Egyptians pressing the Hashemites to give up power and turn that nation into a Palestinian state... In fact, King Hussein killed thousands of Arafat's PLO followers, and ejected them from the country, after he tried to overthrow the King. But as it stands right now, the West Bank is "no man's land". It's status has regressed back to the terms of the original British Mandate. And under those terms, there is nothing that prevents Jews from settling on the West Bank. In fact, it was the original INTENT of the British Mandate to permit Jewish settlement of these territories (since they would economically develop these lands in a manner similiar to how the US encouraged settlement with the Homestead Act). It's time for you and others to go back and revisit contemporary mid-east history. Hawk