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: Ilaine who wrote (17402)	1/30/2002 12:44:33 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Oh, for heaven's sake, I certainly am not arguing that there is a moral equivalence between a terrorist who deliberately kills civilians, and a soldier who tries to avoid killing civilians. But we all know that in wars, civilians get killed. Yes, just like Afghan civilians have been killed lately. It frankly didn't sound like you considered the difference major enough to affect your judgment of the parties. I still beg to differ. If, after World War II, the nations who were part of the UN, instead of voting to partition Palestine as a solution to the problem of all the Jews who were fleeing from Europe, voted to let them come to their countries as immigrants, no civilians would be accidentally killed by Israeli "warriors", because there would be no Israel. Do you think that the Israelis first showed up in 1948? Israel has always been the homeland of the Jews, and Jews have lived there constantly for thousands of years. Did you know that Jerusalem has had a Jewish plurality or majority since at least the eighteenth century? Most of the Israelis had been there for a generation or more -- which incidentally, is just as long as most of the Palestinian Arabs had been there. If all the European refugees had gone elsewhere, it would not have significantly altered events. The Holocaust just gave the nations of the worlds a brief guilty conscience about the Jews. an imperialist nation, which had little qualms about the use of force to achieve political goals, especially when the people on the other side were Wogs, and other people with brown skin. The difference is that the British had some qualms; the Wogs themselves generally had none. For example, the British stamped out slavery where they ruled in the 19th century; in Saudi Arabia, which was never colonized, chattel slavery ended in 1973. British rule in Palestine was a vast improvement over the Turkish rule that preceded it, which is a back-handed compliment as the Turkish rule stank. But the general judgement has swung from mindless approval of imperialism to mindless disapproval of it. Neither makes sense in my view.