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 (155689)	12/4/2002 5:09:08 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580034

Ted Re..Now, for the third time, there were several advantages to the land the Israelis got in the partition. There was more developed infrastructure with at least two good seaports. While Gaza isn't landlocked, there is no seaport. Israelis got most of the coast line, more of the land, the mountains in the north with their reservoirs of water, the major cities, and the climate is more temperate due to its proximity to the sea. The only jewel that the Palestinians can boast of is the water aquifers and now Israel wants them. How convenient that you left out Jerusalem and the surrounding cities of Hebron Bethalem, Jerrico and Nazareth, all important religious cities, which were under Palestine control. First, most of Jerusalem went to Israel and later, they got control of the rest. Secondly, while important religious cities, Hebron and the like are extremely small and would at best serve as tourist attractions if the country were stabile; otherwise their economic value is nil. They don't begin to approximate the value of the port cities of Yaffa and Haifa or a Tel Aviv. In addition, while the Zionists got the coastal cities of Tel Aviv and Hafia, and coastal plains, most of the Zionists area (my guess is 60%) was comprised of the Negev desert. Sorry but your estimating isn't good enough for me. According to the CIA, 17% of Israel's land is arable vs a negligible amount of the West Bank. While there is some arable land in Gaza, Gaza itself is so small, the arable land doesn't amount to much more than a couple of farms. cia.gov If given a choice, which would you take, the desert or the mountains. While the Israelis got control of the 60% of the coast along the Medditeranian sea, Israel also got the least desirable land in the barren Negev desert. The mountains in the north.....which were given to Israel. Its the most verdant portion of Palestine with the largest fresh water lake in the region.....Lake Tiberius. The WB is mostly desert and rugged, barren prairie......not much can be done with it except grazing. While the Negev is desert, it abuts the Dead and Red Seas and Israel has developed resort areas. I understand Elat has over 40k people now.......a good size for a resort town. In addition the partition worked out so that the Israels, who are merchants and bankers got the seaports necessary for their livihood, while the Arab faction got the area necessary for farmers and tribesmen. BS........most of Palestine was rural back in the 1940s; the Palestinians were kicked off the land after Israel's independence. Before the 1940s Zionists systematically bought up the farms and ranches from the Brits and Turks who owned them. Again, the passive nature and poverty of the Palestinian only made their situation that much worse. They didn't stand a chance. So both should have been happy, except the Palestinians wouldn't concede to reality, and agree to any partition at all. They wouldn't agree to the partition that was proposed, and if you were less intent on winning this discussion, and more intent on being fair, you would agree with them. The split was no where close to being equitable. That is why in the datelines, you don't see a counter Arab league counter proposal for the partition. The arabs had no intention of ceeding one sq. mile, much less half of the mandate, no matter where it was located in the mandate. Their stubborness cost them. Their inclusion in the partition process was minor. Their concerns were given very little consideration. Here's an assessment of what went down as provided by the UN: domino.un.org!OpenDocument have read the history leading up to the Partition Plan. There were Zionists in London influencing the Brits. There were no Palestinians doing the same And that proves what??? That the palestinians were too stupid to understand politics and get their own lobbyinst to bribe someone. Cry me up a bowl of tears. Too stupid.....maybe; too poor....definitely. Your empathy is overwhelming. As evidence of Israelis distain, the Israelis immediately confiscated the property of the Palestinians who fled the war, refused to let them back into the country after the war, and continue to refuse to compensate them for the confiscated property <Nor did the Palestinians compensate the Israelis who left the Palestinian portion of the mandate to resettle in the Israeli portion. What is your point. What Israelis moved? What have you been smoking? The Palestinians had no real choice. The ones that did not run still are second class citizens in Israel and lack all the rights of Jewish Israelis. The palestinians did have a choice. they chose not to participate, and lost not just half, but all of their land by chosing the wrong friends. Sad but true. This is exactly the attitude which has gotten the US intertwined in a bad way in the Middle East. We have worked too hard to come down on the side of Israel. ted Enter symbols or keywords for search: QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top Terms of Use Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor.