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 (103009)	6/26/2003 2:43:43 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Under the Partition, most of the Arab land would have been reserved for Arabs, and vice versa. The land was not stolen. It has been established that the Arab Powers advised Palestinian Arabs to flee the prospective carnage when they marched on Israel after the declaration of Independence. It is alleged that some members of the Irgun took advantage of the situation to scare off some Arabs, but that was not the main cause of the refugee flow. In any case, repatriation was refused as a security measure, and, since the Arabs had rejected the Partition, Israel did not feel bound by it, but sought defensible borders. Jews in Arab lands were driven out. Israel took them in. That is what should have happened to the refugees, that is, the Arab Powers should have taken them in. Instead, they insisted upon leaving a running sore. At this point, I think that Israel ought to relax some of its criteria for taking Arab claims to court, since most people with claims do not have proper deeds. Instead, it ought to solicit US and European Union help to create a fund for the settlement of claims and dispose of as many as possible. After that, they should go either to the new Palestine, or emigrate elsewhere. I would be happy to have a binational solution, if it were practical, but it is not........