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: marcos who wrote (102572)	6/24/2003 11:48:31 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Marcos, I wont get into the same old argument regarding the actual land of palestine. Zionism was an interesting theory, prior to the Holocaust. But it didnt get sea legs until during and after. The Jews had to go somewhere. No one would take them in en masse. Back to their european homes, if they existed at all, was deemed impossible. The arabs in many cases had been nazi supporters and so on. But they had to go somewhere. Now we are in year 2003, and we must settle this. 1967 borders are a good start. But thats where we were in 2000 and the Palestinians chose I2 instead. Now we can argue about what was offered but there is no question that the violence started with the Palestinians. They could have chosen civil disobedience. They could have targeted military only targets. They could have warned civilians when building were targeted but they did none of the above. Now back to the future and we hope that this time the terrorists can be weakened and the pal people can have a stake in the peace that perhaps will come. mike