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: Dayuhan who wrote (120809)	12/2/2003 12:01:28 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

My position is that the seizure of sovereignty by one group on terms fundamentally unacceptable to the others made a peaceful resolution of the territorial conflict impossible. Again, you speak as if the Jews came in as a conquering army, instead of buying land from willing sellers at high prices. They didn't seize sovereignty - not until five Arab armies tried to kill them, much later - they worked on building a homeland. By 1947, Jews were one-third the population in the Mandate, after a twenty year period of large immigration of both Jews and Arabs. While we are talking about "seizure of sovereignty", I might note that the Mufti, having rejected Partition (which planned a Jewish state in areas of Jewish majority and an Arab state in areas of Arab majority) made a very serious attempt to seize sovereignty, upon terms wholly unacceptable to the Jews, i.e. their imminent demise. There was a solution available: the establishment of an independent secular state with equal representation for all With the Mufti???!!! What color is the sky on your planet? The Mufti was an ardent Nazi, and you lecture me on how a secular democratic state was unacceptable only to the Zionists? Realistically, it would not have been acceptable to anyone by the 1930s - the conflict was too well established by then – but it would have been plausible if the Zionists had adopted that position from the beginning Sure, all the local Arab states were so naturally inclined to democracy with equal rights for minorities </sarcasm>. There actually were movements among the Zionists seeking partners for this idea - but it quickly became apparent that the local Arab leaders would have none of it. Equality with dhimmis is contrary to the will of Allah. Once the Mufti consolidated his power in the 20s and 30s, that was the end of that idea. The only choice the Zionists had, the only choice here on Earth where the sky is blue, was to throw themselves under the protection of King Abdullah of Transjordan as protected dhimmis. That was his offer. Since he got assassinated a year or two later, it would not have been a wise choice at all. Unfortunately for the Zionists, they implemented their program at a time when acceptance of this sort of behaviour was no longer automatic. Can't see that such behavior has become rarer in the last hundred years -- but oops, I forgot, the Jews are always held to a higher standard. After all, the founding of the modern Turkish state also happened during the twentieth century. Ask the Armenians or the Greeks about how the Turks implemented their program. But does anyone suggest Turkey is an illegitimate country? How can you justify, in any historical or moral sense, the establishment of a Jewish State in a territory where most of the population is not Jewish and does not want to live in a Jewish State? The Partition expressly established the Jewish state in areas where Jews were a majority. But again I forget, for any Jews to have actually moved in, that was wicked colonialism. All the Arabs who moved in, that was okay. Tell me, exactly how much am I supposed to grieve that Jews got to have someplace of their own in 0.06% of the Middle East, restricting the Arabs to only the other 99.94%? They did need someplace very badly, and they built that place out of desert and swamp. Habitable empty land was not available anywhere on planet Earth. Are you an Arab, Steven? Because all your arguments boil down at bottom to "once Arab land, always Arab land." And that's an Arab argument.