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 (102989)	6/26/2003 1:04:57 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>It was not a 'land without a people'<< Last night I read the "Palestine" entry in my circa 1951 Encyclopedia Brittanica. One does get the understanding that the area was very backward and isolated. Not much happened there for several centuries. Periodically a conqueror would sweep through, e.g., Napoleon went through but kept going. T.E. Lawrence did a walking tour of the area, circa 1909, visiting crusader castles, for his honor's thesis for Oxford. He kept a diary but it doesn't appear to be available online. In my imagination, the region looked like what we see in David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia." One story buildings that appear to be made from mud, dirt roads, lots of desert, the occasional oasis. Which doesn't mean inhabited, just backward. I've seen similar places in Mexico.

To: marcos who wrote (102989)	6/26/2003 1:38:51 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I said that it was sparsely populated pretty much until the 20th century, which is the significant period addressed. I did not say that it was sparsely populated at the time of the major influx of Zionist pioneers. The question has to do with historical depth of occupation. In other words, if most of the population came into the territory towards the end of Ottoman rule and during the Mandate, the claim to an historic homeland is pretty weak. However, I have decided that the claim that the population increase was a matter of illegal immigration rather than natural increase is too speculative to put forward, so the issue is moot, anyway.......