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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (176872)	10/22/2003 11:55:32 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572108

Yes, that's what I meant when I said more land for Palestine. "More land for Palestine" could have been achieved by the destruction of Israel but the destruction of Israel was more of the end motive then a way to achieve more land for Israel. Its also quite possible that none of the land gained by the Arab countries in the process of destroying Israel would have been given to the Palestinians. Most likely the land would have been kept under the control of the Arab nations that conquered it. This is what did happen when the Arab armies conquered the West Bank and Gaza. They controlled those areas not some Palestinian organization, authority, or government. That's pure speculation......and even if the Arab nations kept it under their control, it would not have meant the dislocation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. However, their complaint that it wasn't defensible was the excuse but the reality is Israel wanted control over Jerusalem. Both where serious motives. Israel wanted Jerusalem but they also needed more then 13 miles. Try to defend a 13 mile wide strip of territory without going on the offence. Even if you are more powerful it is very hard. There is no place on that strip out of artillery and rocket range and I don't think its reasonable to expect a large portion of Israelis to dig in like the Japanese did at Iwo Jima. Well some parts of Israel are still no wider than 30-40 miles and the Zionists were sure happy with their share back in 1947 which was considerably greater than the Palestinian share. Yes, very true......the Jews couldn't buy land until after the Ottoman Empire collapsed during WW I. There where quite a number of Jews who lived there and even owned land before WWI. "The First Aliyah (1882 - 1903) jafi.org.il; The text for my ME course disagrees. According to that book, The Middle East [ninth edition], the Turks [of the Ottoman empire] were against Jews owning land in Palestine. In any case there wasn't a Palestinian nationalist cause until the 20th century either. Apparently, it was wrong to some degree......even so by 1895 the Jews owned only .5% of the land......a very small portion. cyberus.ca That hardly constitutes a huge amount and it agrees with my earlier statement that the Jews did not truly come into the picture until the 20th century. So here you are......farming and ranching the land for centuries and this group of people start to move in and within 50 years have taken over. Its called gentrification and psses people when fellow Americans do it.....imagine if they are foreigners of a different culture and religion. You would be pssed too. Yes, because the Zionists were buying up all the land and the buildings in the cities. That galvanized the Palestinians. There wasn't any sense of Palestine as a separate nation, they where just Arabs who happened to live in a certain area, until they where so galvanized. You tell that to people who live in an unincorporated part of a metro area. You think they don't have a sense of place even though they are unincorporated? If so, think again. Your argument is ridiculous. The Palestinians may not have had a country but they were well aware of what was home. No question they were unsophisticated but that doesn't mean you get to ride roughshod over someone. First the Jews chose to go to Palestine....no one forced them. And Palestine has been mostly Arab and Muslim since at least 700 AD. Some of them had been there all along. Less than 1%. And there was no other option on the table for them to have their own country. Palestine wasn't very heavily populated at the time. There was room for the waves of Jewish settlers and the Arabs. <?I> Yes, there was at least two other options........land in Africa and land in Argentina. They chose Palestine because it was the place of their origin before the Great Diaspora over a millennium ago. Secondly, like I said, they only started to own the land since 1920. The Palestinians had owned the land much earlier. Not true. They owned some of the land at least as far back as the late 1800s if not earlier. See above-----.5% of the land as of 1895. A very small amount. Thirdly, where is it written that when you get attacked by Syria, Egypt and Jordan, you penalize the Palestinians? They where also attacked by Palestinians. Many of those who didn't actually fight cooperated with the invading Arab armies. Israel was facing a threat to its existence. It would have been foolish to let Arabs control the areas that Israel had just conquered. Also the Arabs that stayed and did not fight Israel have their rights respected more then the people that live in Arab countries. I'm not just talking about Jews who live in Arab countries (who where for the most part abused) but even regular Arabs in the country they where born in. I am talking about denying the Palestinians their homeland that was recommended in the UN partition plan of 1947. I can understand that the Israelis had to be careful within their own borders but they turned into control freaks, trying to control the WB, Gaza, the Golan Hts, Jerusalem and even the Sinai for a while. You have said that you want Israel to go back to its border under the 47 plan. Israel would not only be giving up the West Bank, half of Jerusalem, and Gaza, it would be giving up a big chunk of land that is internationally recognized as part of Israel. Back to the 1947 plan would give them 56% of the land and actually they would have more......probably closer to 60% with Jerusalem. Its not likely that they will ever give up Jerusalem. Sixty % is more than fair. ted