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: Hawkmoon who wrote (7692)	10/26/2001 8:30:34 PM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<If you look back at the history of Palestine, especially the West Bank, after it was captured from the Turks, you'll find that the British intended to permit Jewish settlement in all of Trans-Jordan, the territory that included Israel, the West Bank, and present day Jordan.> that actuallly just adds fuel to the issue in that an imperial colonialist power Britain was arbitarily making the decisions--it is this aspect that that has opened up the charges that Israel was riding the coat-tails of British colonialism. I myself see only tragedy on all sides--the prime event of the Israel movement was the 2nd Exodus--and what fueled that exodus? A people FLEEING ABSOLUTE HORROR--the horror of Europe that had decided the only good jew is a dead jew. I ask where does the central/fundamental guilt stand,with Europe or with Palestine?--the answer,with europe,europe,europe,europe.Max

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7692)	10/26/2001 8:35:41 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hawkmoon, this statement isn't entirely correct (or at least, the British position had changed by 1922): If you look back at the history of Palestine, especially the West Bank, after it was captured from the Turks, you'll find that the British intended to permit Jewish settlement in all of Trans-Jordan, the territory that included Israel, the West Bank, and present day Jordan. The British White Paper of 1922 (the "Churchill White Paper") attempted to resolve the various contradictory promises of the British Foreign office including the wording of the Balfour declaration, which promised a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as opposed to a home encompassing all of Palestine. From the Introduction: Owing to Arab pressure and riots that had occurred in Palestine in 1920 and 1921, and perhaps as part of a plan that they had had in mind in formulating the original mandate, the British government decided to detach Palestine east of the Jordan river, constituting most of the area of Palestine, and form the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. The White Paper of 1922, known as the "Churchill White Paper," or "Command Paper" alludes somewhat obliquely to this change. It affirms the right of Jews to a homeland in Palestine, refers to a Zionist resolution of 1921 declaring willingness to build the country in cooperation with the Arabs and notes: When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. mideastweb.org Al P.S. The Transjordan was only east of the Jordan River.<g>

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (7692)	10/26/2001 9:55:09 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawk, Thanks for your very useful insights into the situation at the east end of the Mediterranean. You misunderstand my long term concern about the policies of Ariel Sharon if you think one Tom Friedman editorial is all it takes to get me to take a position on the matter. Rather, Friedman gave me an opening to get something on the table that has been bothering me for a very long time. That is to say that our often blind allegiance to Israel no matter what course it chooses to take is not a sensible one. I'm fully cognizant that Yasser Arafat has been a terrorist, condones terrorist acts and has been intransigent in negotiations towards peace. I'm no fan of him or of the Palestinians. But what I do find appalling about Sharon is his utter boldness in inciting his enemies. Recall that the present round of hostilities were fomented by Sharon's visit to some silly shrine or other that has only got significance to a bunch of lunatic religion addicts. And his policy of creating settlements in Palestian areas "like a pastrami" sandwich can be considered nothing but incitement to riot. So, I take the position that whole lot of the leadership on both sides are acting like spoiled brats and bullies, with nary a statesman to be found. OK? I just want the whole bunch of them to start acting like adults. I know that's asking too much, and I'm not holding my breath on this one. Re: Aren't we being a bit free with our demagoguery Raymond?? <GG> I believe the term of art is "loose". Thank you very much. Re: I'm afraid that, as much as we've agreed on other issues, you're a bit lost here... :0) I nonconcur, I'm found in Oregon. Far from the fray. Now on to something entirely more important...... Re: And btw, the reason Solar and Hydrogen are not be advanced as a solution for the nation's energy dependence is because neither the technology, nor the infrastructure, has been properly developed sufficiently to expedite the transition. But, sir, they are being advanced. I can't understand how you can claim they are not. The only reason they haven't already reached market level competitiveness is because there has been insufficient resources applied to solving the technical issues. You will recall that we solved the atomic power issue because it was couched in terms of national defense. The Federal government took the lead on this and only after the technology had developed a certain level of maturity did it get handed over to private utilities. Today, we see the opposite attitude in the present administration to these two promising new energy sources, primarily because the input into the current adminsistration comes from those who are paying for the government. That is the troglodyte energy industries that like the corner they have on the market and aren't keen on new competitive alternatives. If the Federal government had the will to do so, it could accelerate solar and hydrogen research by a dramatic level. But there is no will to do so among those who hold the purse strings. Re: I mean, face some facts here... If we move to a hydrogen economy, just who do you think will be the primary player in that industry? It will be the existing energy companies. Not necessarily. It depends on how de-centralized the system is. That is to say, it could end up being more of a manufacturing industry, with individual generation plants and utilization equipment sold to end users, and less of a process industry like the present petrochemical complexes. This de-centralization has to be worrisome to those who like to think that gas tanks are always going dry and customers are always dependent. The notion of a "roll your own" energy source is really anathema to the scheme that we're living with now. Re: And you know my feelings on wind power... nice... but too expensive and not a good way to power the nation when you have to worry about whether there is a breeze or not. You know, Hawk, you might want to revisit this one. On Science Friday today, in a discussion of wind power, a expert on the subject said that the latest iteration of plants is producing 1 Kwh of power at less than $0.04. This is competitive with just about any source of power other than established hydro. So, I'm not buying your debating point about wind generation being too expensive. That was true five years ago, but not today. As far as the lack of dependability of wind, I find that to also be a specious argument, in that everyone who is planning for wind generation knows that it can only be relied upon in a grid situation with adequate spinning reserve and peakers with disparate energy characteristics. When the wind dies down, open up the dams, or start burning the nat gas, the #2 or #6 fuel oil, or whatever. Coal and nuclear cannot be ramped up and down as readily, but there's no reason to think that ISOs or utility operators wouldn't be able to blend windpower into a grid's sources. Re: As for Joint Strike Fighter, Lockheed Martin got the contract. And they have made a production order, but only taken to the next step in pre-production. Thanks for the info. Oregon Public Broadcasting reported this evening that Boeing said it would mean a $1 Billion lower revenue level for the next fiscal year. On a base of $55 Billion. The company also said that it would mean that 3,000 design engineering jobs would not be created in the Seattle area. I'm still waiting to read about the fine print and see what DoD had to say about the sharing of the work. Lockheed will most likely be asked to sub some parts of the plane to Boeing. I'm still trying to figure out just what this JSF amounts to, other than welfare for the corporations. I can't think of any possible military justification, since the F-14D and F-16D are already a generation ahead of everything any of our "enemies" has up in the air. Maybe I'm just too practical about this. Salaams, Ray :)