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 (114295)	9/9/2003 8:58:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

If Pakistan had claimed the entire subcontinent for themselves (perhaps allowing the Hindus a tiny Bantustan in Southern India), and, over the course of the last 50 years, fought repeated wars to conquer all of it, and dispossessed the Hindus of vast amounts of territory where they used to be the majority, then the analogy would be accurate You must have a very peculiar geography in your head, to think that Israel is in any conceivable way analogous to an entire subcontinent. Israel - the whole 1947 Mandate of Palestine - is a tiny sliver of land that comprises about half of 1% of the Arab lands. The Arabs never regarded this small stretch of coastline as anything but a piece of Southern Syria - only Christians and Jews considered it a separate land. Pakistan was formed of territory where Muslims had been the majority population for centuries, so the analogy is false Pakistan used to have a very large population of Hindus too, millions of whom became refugees at partition. What, no "right of return" here?