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 (9650)	4/18/2002 6:28:36 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| 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. It doesn't matter to you. It mattered a bit to them. Do you think that getting expelled from your home is any less traumatic for an immigrant? 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. People who come unwillingly under the rule of a foreign power often look askance on the laws that are imposed on them by the outsiders. This is fairly natural. The attempt to settle a foreign population in a small piece of previously occupied land was a classic act of colonial hubris, not unlike the drawing of "national" borders to suit the whims of the occupying powers. Many of these short-sighted maneuvers are still having bloody repercussions in many parts of the world. The ineptness of colonization and the chaotic nature of decolonization are responsible for a great deal of misery. If you move a bunch of new people into a small area, the people who live there aren't going to like it. They are probably going to resist. This is no less true if the people are immigrants themselves, or the children of immigrants, and it is certainly no less true simply because you have assumed the mantle of sovereign authority. 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. You are mistaken. The dominant sellers were absentee landlords, often with large tracts of land. One single sale in 1920 included 22 villages with a combined population of 8000, all of whom were evicted. This was repeated many times. The main thing is, however, that it was bought, not stolen........ That may well be "the main thing" to you. The "main thing" to the displaced tenants was that they were thrown out of the homes they had lived in and the land they had worked, which were subsequently occupied by settlers introduced by a foreign power. The substance of "the main thing" depends a great deal on perspective.