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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (120546)	11/27/2003 1:29:23 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

Nadine, the problem people have with Jews in Israel is linked to the same reason Eurocentric people have a problem with America. The Jews in Israel have been successful. They are patriotic and nationalistic. (oh, that nasty word nationalistic). That's the main reason for the bitterness, unbalanced criticism, and outright hatred of the Jewish people in Israel. The more successful Israel becomes economically, the more this bitterness, criticism and hatred will become. The same thing can be said of America. What often gets underlooked in these discussions is the Jewish people are proud of the country they've built. They should be.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (120546)	11/30/2003 3:49:17 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You always speak as if not only was the attachment of Jews to Israel farcical, but as if there were no Jews in Israel, when Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority or plurality since the Eighteenth Century at least, in modern times. I did not say the attachment was farcical, I said that it was not sufficient to support a territorial claim, and that it was only considered sufficient because of the sympathy British Christians has for Judaism. Jerusalem is a very small part of the area in question. The figure I have for 1882, as good a date as any for the start of Zionist-inspired immigration, is 25,000 Jews and roughly 4-500,000 Arabs. As for the land being "somebody else's home", it was the Turks who ruled, or rather misruled the land, whose capital was in Damascus. The local people never had sovereignty. Whether or not the local people had sovereignty is completely irrelevant. There was a local population, and that population did not want to live in a Jewish State – not hard to understand, since they weren’t Jewish. When a group of colonists tried to seize sovereignty, this population fought against them. The Zionists didn’t have sovereignty at that time either. Why should their claim to establish a State in that territory on their terms have been considered superior to the claim to self-determination of the existing population? Shouldn't the desires of the existing population have had some place in the mixture?