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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (9605)	4/18/2002 9:16:32 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Who were the people that lived there when the Crusades went in? The ones that weren't Jews, I mean? There were always a lot of non-Jewish folk living in that area. Did they all suddenly move when the 'Palestinian Arabs' suddenly came in? Also, these days civilised nations do tend to accept 120+ years residence as sufficient claim (and note that this is still way more than most Jews). If it isn't, you'd better get out of Alaska... not to mention much of the mid-West. (And I suppose Texas goes back to Mexico after all...)

To: Neocon who wrote (9605)	4/18/2002 10:12:39 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

. Not only was there always a Jewish presence in Palestine In 1900 about 24,000 Jews, mostly elderly individuals whose lives revolved around religion, lived in Palestine, along with approximately 600,000 resident Arabs. it may be that elements of the Irgun, the more militant paramilitary organization among the Zionists, used the attack on Israel in '48 to despoil some villages Menachim Begin, in his book The Revolt, cites the massacre of 254 Arabs by the Irgun at Deir Yassin - which occurred on April 9, 1948, before the Arab attack - as the single most important factor in the flight of the Arabs. Of course Begin refers to the incident as "a crude atrocity story" despite the availability of several convincing non-Arab accounts and the report of the British police officers that interviewed the survivors - and found, incidentally, that "there is, however, no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed".. it is generally acknowledged that the main cause of Palestinian flight during that war was the advice of the Arab League to get out of the way while the Arab Powers drove the Jews into the sea. This "general acknowledgement" is the result of years of repetitive propaganda, and anyone that has the interest to read period sources can easily see that it is false. The Book of the Palmach, hardly a vehicle for Arab propagandists, has several detailed accounts of propaganda operations designed to induce Arab flight, and recounts their success with some glee. This makes sense, of course: why would the Israelis want the Arabs to stay? Joseph Weitz, a prominent Zionist, wrote this in 1940: Between ourselves it must be made clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country... we shall not achieve our goal of being an independent people with the Arabs in this small country. The only solution is a Palestine, at least a Western Palestine, without Arabs. While public pronouncements generally took a more diplomatic tack, I think that this was pretty much accepted wisdom, for fairly obvious reasons, among the Zionist leadership.

To: Neocon who wrote (9605)	4/18/2002 1:19:47 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I've heard it all before, Neo ... many times ... usually beg off the discussion pleading ignorance, in fact it is a recognition of the futility of said discussion, and the embarrassment for the species that futility represents ... closed minds + hatred = cycle of violence 'the Jews did not rob them of land' - what could i possibly say in response to this that hasn't been said a million times before - that methods though partly 'legal', even largely 'legal', added up to one people taking the land of another Which is not to say they can now give it all back, too much time has passed for that ... so Israel should be accorded a 'right to exist', no rational person doubts that .... however they must be stopped from continuing to take more, those 'settlements' must go, and i think the pre-1967 boundaries are the optimum compromise, with both sides protected from each other by a combination of solid fencing and a multi-national force of peacekeepers who would act as boundary police with an effective intelligence arm of their own, and probably should not include US troops, never mind that the israelis insist on them ... no - because the israelis insist on them ... find a bright indian to command, a dane, a chileno, somebody without old baggage And unite the Ariel 'n Yasir duo with that single nose ring, then sell the video rights ... there's a Michael Moore book in their story - Stupid Old Men