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: tejek who wrote (177561)	11/5/2003 4:59:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572395

What do you think the WB or Gaza are Better then the Negev. As for the Jewels yes Israel got some of them but a number of the Jewels were so because they had made them in to Jewels either before the partition or after. More specifically a lot of the North and close to half the coastline went to the Palestinians. And what of the Palestinians who had lived there for over 2 millennium? The Palestinians were Arabs, I don't think the Arabs had lived there for over 2000 years. The Phoenicians, Jebusites, Amorites, Canaanites ect. where not Arabs and not the same people as the Palestinians. The Jews did live there 2000 years ago, but later they where mostly forced out by invading foreign powers. You might make your case better if you said "for over a millennia". 1900 is 47 years before Israel became a country. And 70 AD was when they left. Which is totally irrelevant to the specific point. Israelis had been in Israel/Palestine in large numbers for a couple of generations by the time of the partition (and in small numbers for longer than that). What does 70AD have to do with anything? I wasn't arguing that Israel had a right to the land because their descendants had it in biblical times. 70 AD, 700AD, or 7000BC, it doesn't matter, its not relevant to anything I said. As for TX, TX broke away from Mexico and formed a separate republic. We annexed them at least 2 decades later and tried to do they right thing by paying off Mexico. The Texans never paid off Mexico. I suppose if we annexed Israel we could pay off the Palestinians, but that isn't going to happen, and even if we did the Palestinians wouldn't accept the payoff. (Or really they would take it but there is no reason to think that they would accept peace with Israel because of it). And so because the Texans did it, the Israelis had the right to do the same and to keep dangling Palestinian independence on a stick for over 50 years? I'm not so much saying it is ok as I am saying it doesn't make sense to try and reverse it. People who have lived on and fought for the land for generations aren't going to give a huge chunk of it up unless they are defeated by a more powerful enemy. The West Bank (or at least most of it) and Gaza might be given up for peace, there mostly occupied by Palestinians anyway and are more of a headache for Israel then they are worth but a return to the 1947 plan borders is a total non-starter. You don't have a point. The amount of land owned was negligible to the point where its not worth mentioning. My point is simple. Your statement was false. Why do you think they expelled so many Palestinians? Most of the Palestinians that left where not expelled. They left to avoid getting caught up in the war, or because they thought they might get expelled, or because they didn't want to live under an Israeli government. There was no expulsion of hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinians. Insecure? Why do you think the Arab nations don't attack her? We've turned Israel into a regional superpower.....one where its gone to her head and she goes along the beach kicking sand in everyone's faces. The Arabs are attacking even if no nation-state is. Also even a regional super power would have a tough time defending such a narrow bit of territory. Sharon is the single biggest threat to peace in the region and he is our creation. Sharon, or even most of the Israelis that are more radical then him, wouldn't try to conquer another country or commit genocide against the enemies people. Sharon isn't exactly a saint, far from it, but he is also far from being the biggest threat to the peace in the area. Why we continue to support her unilaterally is beyond me. We will pay dearly for that stupidity. One good reason is that Israel is the only real democracy in the area (depending on exactly how you define the area) and they have the best human rights record in the ME (and that is even including their actions in the current conflict with the Palestinians). They are the country most like us, and most likely to agree with us in the ME. And if they ever become noticeably weaker then the Arabs they face the possibility of annihilation. The Arabs do not face such a risk at the hands of Israel. Tim