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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (1393)	12/31/2002 10:58:14 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15987

How does all of that, if accurate as presented by you, justify colonizing Palestine with foreigners who legally purchased a mere 6% of the land? How does it justify that Manhattan Island, now worth Billions, was bought from the Indians for a mere $24?? They could have held on to their land, but they didn't... It would be like the previous owner of your house and property (assuming you own one) coming back to you and ordering you to move out because you didn't have the right to buy his house from him... And btw, what justified the Ottoman Turks occupying the middle east for 400 years, acting as absentee landlords for property they obtained through conquest?? And what right did most of the Palestinians have, not being the original property owners (their Turk masters), to usurp and "squat" on the land that they didn't have any physical title or deed to?? And if they did own land most deeds, or "tapus", were held by the individual property owner and was thus, evidence of his right to own the property (or to sell it to a Jew).. carleton.ca Because they STILL don't have a proper property management system in many parts of the middle east. And they certainly didn't have much of one then.. It amounted to someone occupying the land because they were powerful enough to (or no one else wanted it) after the Turks fled. They those without proper Tapus were likely either ejected from their land by the British, or issued "squatter's rights", whereupon selling of the land would net an immediate windfall for them.. As for other land Israel possesses, much of that comes by right of defense and conquest (against attackers) from 1948 to present day.. And that's based upon long-standing international codes.. If your country attacks me and I occupy your land, I don't necessarily have to give it back.. To do so would only encourage more aggression... And the rest was granted to them (primarily the Negev) by the United Nations, or which 75% was uninhabited DESERT, not arable land (unless you count the transient bedouins) who generally don't care about property. jajz-ed.org.il And btw, the UN passed that 1947 partition act on a 2/3 vote. I believe it was a binding resolution also.. But the Arabs states neighboring Israel DEFIED the UN vote and attacked anyway.. Somewhere Len, you've been fed a tremendous portion of Arab hype and disinformation.. The Israelis aren't angels, but neither are they the demons you seem to make them out to be... Hawk