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: Neocon who wrote (61975)	12/16/2002 8:11:52 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think the reason that you find my posts disingenuous is that you still have not grasped my thesis. You seem to think it is this: One has to look at the entire period, and doing so belies your thesis that it was the neocolonialist threat of a Jewish state that turned Arab opinion towards favoring Hitler and extreme anti- Jewish sentiment...... I can't imagine why you think that; I can't recall ever having said anything even remotely similar to this. My thesis was, as I've stated many times, this: The combination of Jewish immigration and the openly stated Zionist intent to achieve sovereignty made violent confrontation with the local population inevitable. That's all. Nothing there about favoring Hitler, you will note. Talking about the "origins of a pattern of violence" is of little interest unless you think the pattern is the archetype for the continued intercommunal violence down through history. I don't think that's the case at all. It's always worth examining the manner in which a conflict began. Initial patterns of violence are very often not "archetypes" for the manner in which conflicts develop. Obviously it is possible for an existing conflict to eventually be directed by influences quite different than those that actually created the conflict. That doesn't mean there is no point in examining the influences that initiated the conflict. If you were examining the causes of the Vietnam War, would you begin your analysis with the Tonkin Gulf incident? If you did, your analysis would be fundamentally flawed. It seems to me that you would rather begin the discussion with the rebellion of the late '30's, and conveniently omit the events that set the stage for that period, because the events from that point on suit your bias more readily than those that preceded them.