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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (98088)	5/14/2003 1:07:25 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes. Because, outside of the U.S., just about every nation sees Israel as the aggressor, because of their colonization, a 19th Century method that is unacceptable in the 20th. I'm willing to accept the colonization that happened through 1948, and the 700,000 Arabs who lost their land and homes, because the Arab nations expelled an equal number of Jews, who also lost all their land and homes. The crimes were offsetting. But nothing beyond that. Just a few historical notes: Unlike every other "colonizer" on the planet, the Zionists a) were colonizing their own homeland, not foreign land b) came in with checkbooks, not armies and bought the land. If the Creek tried to buy back their ancient homelands in Georgia, would you call them "aggressive colonizers"? In 1948 a) the Arab countries launched the war and invaded Palestine b) the Arab war goal was to drive the Jews into the sea. The Jewish war goal was to avoid being driven into the sea. c) the Arab High Committee advised Arabs in Jewish populated areas to get out of the way. That, and general panic (the educated left before the start of the war) meant that at least two thirds of the those who fled never saw a Jewish solder. Aside from that, you're right, everything was equivalent.