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 : Palestine, facts and history -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (572)	6/27/2002 11:10:19 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 770

Thanks Lorne....one point of clarification, though.... By saying that Israel should retain the land that is "now part of the state of Israel", do you include the land that Israel conquered in 1967 (what the media refers to as "the occupied territories")? My impression is that the "occupied territories" include approximately 200,000 Israeli "settlers" (who moved to that land since 1967 despite international opposition) and some millions of Arabs (usually referred to as "Palestinians"). I don't want to get into an argument about what to call them -- the fact is, they are there, and if the matter is going to get resolved, there are really only 3 choices: (1) create some sort of state for them, more or less based on where they are presently located; (2) have them forcibly removed from where they are now and have them live someplace else (either as part of an existing state or in their own state); or (3) have them continue to live in territory that is part of or controlled by Israel. It is pretty clear that the Palestinians don't seem to want option 3. Option 2 has all sorts of problems too, and would be one of the largest forced relocations in human history in terms of sheer numbers of people. It might also create problems for the current occupants of whatever land was made available to the Palestinians for this purpose. That leaves Option 1, which is to create some sort of state for them where they are presently located. So my question is really driving at whether that is acceptable in general outline. One of the problems seems to be that on both sides of the issue, there are those who strongly believe that Option 1 is not fair or appropriate, and that instead either Option 2 or 3 above should be implemented, or an Option 4 (driving Israel into the sea) should be accomplished.