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 : GENEVA ACCORD -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51)	12/6/2003 5:50:53 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 190

Oh right - bulldozing peoples' homes and orchards, imprisoning them, shooting their children, training machine guns on them from hilltop 'settlements', confiscating their water sources and walling them up with zionist-only roads and an apartheid fence deep inside their lands is not adequate for your definition of the term 'terrorism' Check. 'The didn't invade, they bought land - there was no willing seller of the right to impose a jewish regime on the muslim indigenous ..... not that some turk wouldn't have gladly accepted the cheque, but that he had no standing to vend such a total right of domination People buy and sell land all the time, its purchase does not entail the right to dictate to adjacent neighbours who have not sold, nor the right to run them off so their lands can be 'purchased' in some never-ending stream of colonisation It's always the same with you, Nadine, you are just so completely partisan on this issue, the zionists are all saintly and the muslims so inherently evil, in your gospel according to Likudity .... 'the Arabs invaded', lol, i'll never forget how you typed that once ..... same old thing though, you hammer away at your evil-arab good-jew thing, and i end up responding to that in place of an approach more even-handed ..... but luckily, i have to go out now, so have at it ..... cheers

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51)	12/7/2003 9:50:32 AM
From: John Soileau	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 190

<<The didn't invade, they bought land at high prices from willing sellers. Might I point out that the Arabs did not control the land, the Turks did>> Nadine, Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it was as simple as "they sold us their land for a high price". You are right that there was a good deal of land buying by incoming Jewish settlers, and I'm sure many Arab owners were willing sellers. But that was in the early land-rush years, as the Jewish population built up by immigration, prior to the declaration of Israeli independence. Land confiscation is also part of the story. A well-researched history I read a while ago informs that under the Turks there were not organized, written land ownership records. Instead, those actually living on the land (in cases for hundreds of years) were simply accorded the right to continue living there. Once the State of Israel was created, Israel decreed that what had been the dominion of the Turks would now be the State of Israel's to parcel out, and it commenced doing so, to Jewish settlers of course. The Turks' failure to maintain formal land records was used to facilitate substitution of ownership from Arab to Jew, without compensation. That's a rock in the shoe for the Palestinians. <<those same lands had been Jewish long before they were Muslim>> Of course the lands couldn't have been "Muslim" before Mohammed was born! Equally, they couldn't have been "Jewish" before the formation of Judaism. Going back thousands of years, there were only non-Jewish residents there; then there was an invasion of the lands by Jewish tribes; then the lands were taken over and majority occupied for over a thousand years by non-Jewish residents; and most recently, the eastern portion has been taken over and majority occupied by Jews. I've never understood the "I was there first" argument by either side. When was first? John