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 (60868)	12/10/2002 3:56:11 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I have known you long enough on this thread to conclude where this discussion is heading: nowhere. As Steven has painstaking shown, the original political intent of the Zionists was to create a sovereign state for the Jews in Palestine. There were no contingency plans, from either the British or the Zionists, on the incorporation of the wishes of the extant Arab population (self-determination) whose forefathers tilled the lands for many, many generations and whose numbers outmatched the Palestinians Jews by at least a ratio of 8 to 1. The practical means for the establishment of a primarily Jewish State rested on the immigration practice and the purchase/transfer of land as a political tool for the creation of the Jewish State. You have made the contention that the Arab population reacted inappropriately, from the very beginning, with particular violence. And I say, nonsense, and cited a similar human reaction undertaken by the Zionists when the political winds changed direction following the British White papers of 1939. As you recall, the White Papers of 1939 was an attempt to allay political tension (see the findings of the Peel Commission Report) by implementing the following conditions: 1) disclaimer against the earlier pledge to establish a Jewish State 2) rejection of Arab claims that Palestine become an independent Arab State 3) termination of the Mandate by 1949 with the establishment of an independent Palestine in which both Palestinian Arabs and Jews would share responsibilities in the new government 4) end of immigration after the first 75,000 immigrants during the next five years 5) regulation of land transfer by the British Government When it became clear the British Government was reassessing its earlier interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist response was one of several moves including the use of terrorism (violence to achieve a political end--the creation of a Jewish State), illegal immigration, and the solicitation of support from the United States. So the Zionists' use of particular violence was no different, or any worse, than the Palestinian Arabs' reaction to a proposal of a Jewish State when the political odds were stacked against their favor. I find your hypothesis of Palestinian Arab violence any more inappropriate or disgusting than the Zionists' similar use for a political ideology rally quite silly. Now, you are free to post a response as I am sure you will but this will be my last post on this subject. I find the discussion of historical and religious text to impugn blame as the equivalence of mental, sexual, dilly-dallying.