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: Dayuhan who wrote (9634)	4/18/2002 11:24:21 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It doesn't matter what the resident population of Palestine accepted or didn't. As I said, many of them were themselves immigrants, or their fathers were. What matters is what the sovereign authority established as rules for permitting immigration. No one in his right mind suggests tearing up legal consequences of laws enacted when a territory is not democratically governed, it would be a nightmare. The Arabs had not controlled the territory of Palestine for centuries, and never as "Palestinians". The British were no more a foreign occupying power than the Ottomans, and, in fact, were rather more benevolent. I have no intimate knowledge of the tenancy system, although my impression is that it was more common in the area for people to work their own land, but I may be mistaken. I cannot, therefore, intelligently comment on that point. The main thing is, however, that it was bought, not stolen........