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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (147194)	5/15/2002 7:33:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584760

the Palestinians had the greater claim because they lived there continuously.. 1 - Only a relatively small number of them have ancestors that have lived there continuosly from before the late 19th century let alone continuosly for thousands of years like you suggest. Tim, where did you read that? My understanding is that many of the Arabs are indigenous........that their families go way back. Now, there are some who are nomadic so they travel around the region, but others had farms, ranches and businesses in Palestine well before the Zionists showed up. - The "Native Americans" where here before us and we conquered part of what used to be Mexico by force should we give the US (or large chunks of it) back? First of all, the equivalent would be if Mexico attacked us and we took Cuba in retaliation. Syria did not own the WB. Taking the Golan Hts make sense as a form of punishment against Syria but the WB? As for the Native Americans, we have paid significant reparations for taking their land. And I believe we paid Mexico for TX as well. Sooooooo.......wouldn't you think it reasonable that the Palestinians get some kind of reparation for the land, businesses and property taken from them during the 1948 war? I know the US would not be allowed to get away with such an inequity.....why should Israel? Then Israel misrepresented the situation. At first, the WB was going to go back to the Palestinians intact. Then over time, things changed. >Huh? At first Israel planned for no Palestinian state ever. The "West Bank" was considered "Judea and Samaria" and was supposed to be eternally under Israeli control. Originally, back in the twenties and thirties, the WB was part of the land that was promised to the Palestinians. Then, right after the 60's war, Israel's intentions were to keep it under their control. However, later, apparently they had a change of heart and I think in the early 80's, they began to talk about returning the WB to the Palestinians. Now why do you think they had that change of heart? The settlements where mostly built during this period which really didn't end until less then a decade ago. Bull.......Sharon was Housing Minister in the early 90's; that's when many of the largest complexes were built in the settlements. He insisted on it. They/Sharon knew what they were doing. Then Israel talked about offering a Palestinian state that would have most of Gaza and maybe half of the West Bank (the idea was to close none of the Israeli settlements and to leave buffer zones around them and connections between them in Israel's hands). The Israeli offer at the last round of peace talks was a huge leap. It may still not be enough but they have kept offering more. They have not reduced there offerings, at least not until the latest period of violence. Clearly, it was not enough. That sure is stretching the law......I think they were referring to an invading army. Israel invaded the WB and took it in its war with Syria and Egypt. Not surprising........the Palestinians see the Israelis as an invading army. Jordan (with the help of Syria and Egypt) attacked Israel again and again and Israel took the west bank from Jordan. They didn't invade any Palestinian state and they have probably abused the Palestinians less then Jordan used to. It was mostly Syria and Egypt with the help of Jordan but whatever. Sorry, you're right; they took it from Jordan. There is no Palestinian state; so, of course, Israel has not invaded a Palestinian state. However, the WB is home to the Palestinians and the Israelis have invaded the WB on a number of occassions. There is little, if anything, analogous between bin Laden and the Palestinians. bin Laden sees himself as a world revolutionary. The Palestinians want their independence. The Palestinians number in the millions. There is a lot that is analogous between Al-Qaida and the PLO and Hammas. They are all bloodthirsty terrorists who strike mostly at civilians. As long as they are making terrorist attacks against innocent civilians any attack on them is justfied as long as it doesn't inflict too much colateral damage. I don't care if they want to solve world hunger and cure cancer it is their method that defines them not there motivation. I disagree.........by your definition, any revolutionary including the American colonists is a terrorist [and yes British royalist civilians were killed by the colonists in their bid for independence] when the death of innocent civilians is involved. That's why I think motivation plays a more important role. Also the Palestinian terrorists want more then independence, the majority of them want to destroy Israel. I know, I know, I know. Also even if the motivation was important, my hypothetical was if bin Laden did in your opinion have a legitimate grievence. What if some seperatist "Native American" group did something like what bin Laden did and said they would stop the violence if the US gave them 50,000 sq miles of land so that they could form there own independent country? Should we negotiate with them or capture, arrest or kill them? No, but bin Laden's issue is not one of land and property. His is about what is good and what is bad. He considers our society to be evil, parasitic, decadent and destructive. Having made that judgement, he will have us hang for it through terrorism. The evil stems from his motivation which is that we do not deserve to live because of our negative attributes. By making that judgement, he and his colleagues have set themselves above the rest of us.......and the evil flows from their arrogance. I think he is a very different animal from Arafat and most Palestinians. This is silly......which is better; having a good port already built, and then improving upon it, or building one from scratch? A lot of what is in Israel was built by from scratch by the Jesish settlers or later by Israeli citizens. Small ports without much infrastrcutre are common and only useful if you have nothing better. Besides to the extent that there was anything there before it was probably built by the Turks who ruled the area before the British, or by previous rulers before them. Also the two ports that you mentioned are only a tiny part of Israel's urban infrastrucutre. I wasn't focusing on ports but rather the whole infrastructure. To go back to my original premise, the existing infrastructure made Israel a much more attractive choice than the WB......nothing more. If the violence will continue during the negotiations and with almost any possible result from the negotiations then Israel has no incentive to negotiate. Then, most likely the suicide bombings will continue. Each side wants the other to act better first. That's why blood feuds are hard to resolve. Its not just a matter of wanting the other side to act better first (although I don't think it is reasonable to expect Israel to negotiate without at least a short term truce first). Its a matter of being able to deliver something if you do agree on it. If Arafat can not control the violence then any agreement with him is not worth the paper it is written on even if he was the most honest and honorable man on the earth (and of course he is far from that). That's right conditions have gotten worse. He once was able to control the violence but not any more. In spite of what many are saying, I think the average Palestinian gets more angry and desperate by the day. Israel gave up land to Egypt because Egypt credibly promised peace and they have delivered peace even if it is a rather cold one. No one with any power among the Palestinians has credibly promised Israel anything. Perhaps no one can credibly make such a promise. In any argument, there are two sides. For a long time, the US seem to only listen to the Israeli side. However, now, I think its in our best interest to listen to both sides.........and I mean really listen. I don't believe the Palestinian story has been well presented in this country.....and it needs to be. ted