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 (177621)	11/7/2003 5:42:31 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572512

And what about the Palestinians........their numbers were much larger than the Zionists even in 1948? The Jews left in 70 AD. The Palestinians had the land from 70 AD going forward. Who has more right to the land.......the long term resident or the interloper? Possession is 9/10s of the law. I don't think the Arabs had the land in 70, but even if it was more like 700AD its still well over 1,000 years that Arabs lived there. And yes they where the majority in 1948, partially because of restrictions placed on Jewish immigration. I don't think "possession is 9/10ths of the law", really supports your argument. Israel possesses a lot of the land now. Its seems your argument is more like "possession within 2 to 5 generations in the past is the law but current or ancient possession isn't". But Sharon doesn't want to give up even the WB and Gaza. New settlements are being started today even after Israel said they would not start anymore. Its a joke. Yes the hardliners in Israel like Sharon won't offer the Palestinians too much. Other groups would offer more but no one except the radical left fringe (and maybe not even them) would offer a return to the initial 1948 borders. Are we arguing semantics, or the substantive issues? If its semantics, find a thread concerned with the English language. Its not a matter of some semantic twist to your words, or some clever use of the English language. Your statement simply was false. If we where talking about the World Series and you said the Marlins won in 7, that would be a false statement. When I say "they won in 6", you might say "what does it matter they still won", but its not just a matter of semantics. Yes, they were expelled. This is obviously not an unbiased site but it also isn't a total fabrication - jafi.org.il There where cases where Arabs where expelled, and there where other cases where after losing battles with the Israelis the local Palestinians fled in fear, but as far as I can tell there was no mass expulsion. The Arabs that did remain where given citizenship and their rights where respected more then the rights of Arabs in any other nation in the area. Why do you not answer the question but instead attempt to divert to another issue? I am answering the question. Israel is attacked by Arabs, and if it ever became weaker (relative to the Arab states) it would be at risk of attack by the Arab states. Israel only has to lose one war for it to meet its end. Most of the cards are in his hands and he refuses to deal. You do the math. That doesn't make him the biggest threat to peace. It does mean that he isn't making a serious effort to establish peace. None of the above justify spending $3 billion per year We spend not to much less then that on Egypt. Just counting the reconstruction we will spend more in Iraq. We spend more billions in other countries. If you are against foreign aid or you think such aid should be slashed then you have a point (for those who agree that aid should be slashed). But $3bil is less then Americans spend per year on potato chips and less then half of what we spend on chocolate. In terms of government spending its less then 1% of our defense budget and about 1/5th of NASA's budget and maybe 1/7th or less of what we spend on agricultural subsidies that are a net loss to the US not a gain. Tim