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: hmaly who wrote (155652)	12/4/2002 1:03:40 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579981

And they didn't like the offer. Do you think it was a fair offer? first of all, both Britian and the UN appointed commissions, and both recommended approximately the same partition, so why would I think I know better. Because two different entities made the same proposal does not mean it was a fair one. First, the Partition Plan was pushed onto the UN by the British at the last minute. Why would the UN start to make changes at that point? Secondly, there were considerable politics that went into that plan. The Zionists had better control of those politics than the Palestinians and actively participated in the crafting of the Plan. Secondly, why would you be so arrogant as to think you know better. My uncle told me that knowing which is the better deal is a sign of intelligence, not arrogance. <g> Thirdly, considering the weak hand the Palestinians had, the 56% to 44% partition was likely the best Britian could hope to get for the Palestinians. You make it sound like the British were accountable to a higher authority. To the contrary, they were the higher authority. They had the mandate to do what they wanted. It was your point, not mine. You contended that armed preparations and ethnic cleansing were minor issues. My contention was that they were not. I proved my contention by pointing out all the references. And we were talking about 1947, not 1948. To single out one year is to not get the full picture. The concept of ethnic cleansing was a major topic of conversation among the Zionists well before 1947. However, they really did not put their plan into effect until 1948. Wrong. I have contended that since the initial offer, there has not been an opportunity for the Palestinians to have their own state. Its been withheld by the Israelis. And you know that's true since you've been diligently following the history. Not true, there were negotiations and a agreement in 1993,(Clinton,Rabin, Arafat) whereby the PLO would take control of the West Bank and Gaza. They laid out the ground work but it was not followed. In 1996, Netanyahu from the Likud party was elected Prime Minister. He slowed the peace process laid out by Rabin and Arafat. Remember Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli who did not want Israel to give the West Bank back to the Palestinians. That turned out to be a defining moment in Israeli history. If Arafat could control the attacks on Israel, and recognize Israel as a state, then Israel would recognize the Palestinian state. Maybe........I am not so confident. It never happened. Arafat turned it down in the Barak, Clinton, Arafat negotiations. Also, anytime after 1949, Jordan,Egypt, and Syria; who captured the territory the Palestinians were to receive if they had accepted the partition; could have offered to transfer that land to the Palestinians for their state. So the Arab states are as much to blame as the Israelis. I agree......there is a lot of blame to go around. Never said they were....however, its the Israelis who unfairly hold all the cards. The Palestinians had every opportunity to be as prepared as the Zionists were, when the British pulled out. True......there is no question that the Zionists were more committed to statehood. Secondly, Palestine knew they didn't have the firepower, but still turned down the partition; presumably because the Palestinians believed that combined with the neighboring Arab states, They were sure to win, and in the end control all of the mandate. Its too bad their greed got the best of them, because not only did Israel get their share of the mandate, but the Palestinian's supposed friends grabbed their share, leaving the Palestinians with nothing. When Israeli statehood looked imminent, the neighboring Arab countries told the Palestinians to flee Palestine since the Arabs anticipated attacking and defeating the fledgling state of Israel. The Palestinians complied. As you suggested earlier, it looked like Israel would be easy pickings. The neighboring nations and the Palestinians were sadly mistaken. Israel turned out to have far more firepower than the surrounding nations. The Arabs were handily defeated. Clearly, the Palestinians sided with the wrong people but really, they did not have much choice in the matter. ted