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 : Middle East Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (813)	2/7/2002 3:30:36 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6945

considering that the whole Mandate of Palestine (both east and west) was one country. Wrong. Article 25 of the British Mandate clearly sets Transjordan aside as a separate country, defining Palestine as west of the Jordan River. amichai.com This was clarified by the British government: <<< in 1922, the “Churchill” White Paper [32] redefined the interpretation of the Balfour Declaration in a sense less favourable to the Zionists. This statement explicitly rejected, without mentioning its author by name, a phrase which Weizmann had let “slip out” on several occasions to the effect that Palestine should become “as Jewish as England is English”. [33] The British Government bluntly makes the point that it was not contemplated “that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.” >>> marxists.de The Chuchill White Paper: yale.edu Tom

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (813)	2/7/2002 3:34:40 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6945

Iraq, where the whole community ran for their lives, leaving all their property behind This flight encouraged by Zionist terrorists bombing synagogues. mideastfacts.com Tom

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (813)	2/7/2002 3:36:32 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6945

"It's one thing to support Palestinian Arabs in their struggle against Zionism, but why do you think that Iraq should be allowed a veto over what happens in Palestine? Why should the creation of Israel -- at the time, tiny and completely non-threatening -- seem so intolerable to them, and why should you agree with them?" More importantly, why should the United States and Europeans, which are thousands of miles away support and finance and veto in the United Nations, by threatening trade sanctions against those who have voted against Israel and it's "racist" policies against a native population? Non-threatening? Surely, you jest? The Zionists had and have a plan and with the resources of the West and all that can be begged, borrowed or stolen from the West, through guilt-tripping and media saturation and spin, and I find it unacceptable. The Zionists wrote the book on blackmail. Who, even to the day, using Holocaust to wheedle the West? Now that "foreigners" have re-claimed others land, the "Right of Return" for Palestinians is destructive and cannot be accommodated. What would you consider the relocation of people who were not even under a real or imagined threat of persecution in Europe and America (1950-2002) and given a "Right of Return" in Arab Palestine? Of course, there are those who would want to frame that position as hatred or some other smoke screen. I do not support Iraq per se, but see the hypocrisy of the situations we support, yet restrict others from doing the same.