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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (55831)	11/5/2002 1:40:25 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What is your point? You accused The Economist of being "unfriendly to Zionism" and then wrongly defined Zionism as respecting the right of Israel to exist. As you now know, Zionism is the idea that ALL Jewish people should come and live in Israel. You know it and I know it and so does everybody else that this means more occupation and more theft of Palestinian land for establishment of more Jewish colonies in their territory. >I was speaking of the country Israel that actually exists, not some hypothetical state that would exist after Israel has reconfigured itself to your demands Huh? Please explain. My "demands"??? >According to most definitions of "sovereign state" that I know, it is the state that controls who is allowed to immigrate to it. What does that have to do with... well... ANYTHING? The point is not who Israel ALLOWS to immigrate. They can invite all they want if they can find a place within the boundaries of Israel for the newcomers - in skyscrapers, in underground cities, whatever. But that is not going to happen, is it, Nadine? The more people come into Israel, the more settlements in Palestinian territories will be financed. So The Economist is not "friendly to Zionism"? More power to them. Is any unbiased source of media "friendly to Zionism"? Is ANYONE who is not Jewish "friendly to Zionism"?