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: Elmer Flugum who wrote (22185)	3/25/2002 5:11:28 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

the remainder was a freebie. Maybe because it was uninhabited??? Or had formerly been the landholdings of some Turkish Sultan?? But the Jews were prohibited in the years prior to 1948 from dislocating the local population. They had to purchase their property, which many of the Palestinians were only too happy to sell (so much for historic ties to the land), since they couldn't afford to develop the land, or they only recently obtained it from the dissolution of the estates of absentee Turkish landlords (or those who swore allegiance to the Turks). Thus, if the land was undeveloped, and un(under)inhabited, and the British were declaring they had the right to parcel it out as they saw fit to either Jew or Palestinian,.... .... and the fact that the UN partitioning of the remainder of the mandate essentially gave the Jews claim over that territory set aside within their partition, then it stands to reason that Israel should feel entitle to claim it. After all, the Palestinians are making the claim to the West Bank and Gaza based upon the Palestinian partition of 1947, which was so rudely occupied and annexed by Jordan. Perhaps when the Israelis stop occupying Arab lands, then there may be some adjuctment all round. Well.. maybe the Arabs should have thought about the consequences of their aggression before deciding to engage in a 40-50 state of hostilities with Israel. After all, Israel hasn't declared war on them (except in obvious pre-emptive self-defense), they have incessanted ranted about destroying Israel and acted upon those threats in several different wars. I know that if Mexico or Canada was threatening to destroy the US, harboring guerilla groups which were launching cross-border attacks, firing artillery into my towns, and blockading our ports, we'd be kicking their collective @sses, and feeling very smug about our right to do so. And if we occupied strategic ground to prevent either nation from using it as a staging ground for further attacks against us, that would be alright too. After all, they attacked us, not the other way around. Good point, maybe the Arab Jews left voluntarily and were not kicked out. It know it was a good point.. That's why I made it.. And it was a damn good point, if I do say so myself. Unfortunately, you have utterly failed to either substantiate your fallacious assertion, or provide even a passably acceptable counterpoint. And those Oriental (not Arab) Jews did not leave voluntarily. They were stripped up their possessions and sent on their way, in hopes of trying to disrupt the Israelis who would be forced to take care of them. Maybe they thought it was only "fitting" since so many Palestinians became refugees as a result of Arab wars upon Israel in 1948-49. But it wasn't like they were absorbing those Palestinian refugees themselves. They just used it as a convenient excuse to rid themselves of their Jewish elements. Palestine, there was no such place as Palestine, remember? It all depends on the time frame you're referring to. It was known as Palestine when the Crusaders came to destoy the Muslim "invaders", killing a fair amount of Jews while they were at it (a far greater percentage of Jews to total population died during the crusade than did muslims).... Just because it was occupied and ruled by the Turks doesn't mean that it still couldn't be referred to as Palestine. But the question is who has the right to proclaim being "Palestinian"?? Israelis who are born in the region could call THEMSELVES Palestinians, now couldn't they? Thus, should we consider only folks who can trace their lineage back 2,000 years be considered "palestinians"? Should we limit it to only those who can trace their lineage back to pre-muslim Arab times?? Or should we only go back 500 years when the Turks conquered the area? If so, then why not only go back 50 years? Or go back to when the Turkish Empire fell... I really have no idea what constitutes the Palestinian nationality... What is "unique" about being Palestinian? I can tell you what's unique about being Jewish, Kurd, Turkish, Albanian.. etc. But for the life of me, no one has every shown me what cultural ties bind the Palestinian people together as a nation. It all just seems to be a case of "our ancestors lived here at one time..." (no matter where or when they originated from somewhere else). Basically it's all a moot point. The Jews are there and they are going to stay there, minus being driven into the sea, and a nuclear holocaust ensue in retaliation. The Palestinians will get their state, but if they don't watch how they act with regard to their incessant threats and racist rants against the Jews, they will get their faces pounded in by the Iraelis. Just like the Canadians or Mexicans would get their faces pounded in were they conducting themselves in a similar manner on US borders. Hawk