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 (102838)	6/25/2003 4:03:31 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Guys and Gals, As interesting as this has become, doesn't the UN Mandate in '47 make this all moot? I think we can all agree that creating an Israel today would not happen. Witness all the discussions concerning Kurdistan. The fact is it did happen and our generation is left to pick up the pieces of yet another European colonial nightmare. What can we do about Israel/Palestine today? I don't know - but returning to the '47 partition is not logical. It actually fits the far right of Israels position. They always claimed if they conceded the '67 borders, they would be asked to go back to the original mandate and pushed settlement to force a compromise. This whole discussion actually backs up their fears. The reality is that the radical Palestinians want to revist the '47 mandate and deconsitute Israel altogether. The best solution is a secular state absorbing both groups - becoming in effect a Greater Israel with consitutional rights for everyone. Imagine - no fence. How do we get there? We won't - short of an occupation force it will not happen - so a 2 state solution is the compromise. The road map is at least an attempt to get to that compromise and todays cease-fire is at least a start. John

To: Neocon who wrote (102838)	6/25/2003 4:15:07 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

'Attack and invasion are two different things.' Pretty hard to put on an invasion without an attack, Neo ... and they do have a way of stimulating attacks in reaction .... the association looks pretty valid to me 'the dispute is over who started it' As far as we know, it was the canaanites, they had the poor judgment to be occupying the land prior to the first invasion of which we have information ... could be more relevant to ask, who is intensifying it now, keeping it going for the last dozen or so decades .... who's got who walled up behind fences, who's rolling armoured D9s over whose houses, who's got the biggest stock of WMDs, details like this 'and who committed greater atrocities.' By body count? ... by weight of explosives used? .... number of bullets? ... what? 'Arab population settled in Palestine rather late in the game.' This can be taken as semantics built around a change in shelter and movement styles, combined with an arbitrary and self-serving definition of lateness .... yes arabs were tending to make a higher proportion of buildings from more lasting materials, and better constructed than before, but people all over the planet were doing that, it was a time of great change in those sorts of things .... the economics of construction with stone changed in relative values during the 1800s, this did not give the liechtensteiners the right to take land from the finns, either early or 'late' in the period One argument only makes work for you the whole 'let's take their land and pretend they never existed' line - might makes right .... and it will only work for you until demographics and/or Dame Fortune throw a wrench into its gears ... better to face reality of the facts, the living breathing facts behind that barbed wire ..... much later .... cheers