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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (2746)	2/14/2004 1:21:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Its not glossing over history at all. The mandate is irrelevant to this specific point. It is? Yes totally irrelevant. Most countries that control land didn't have any international mandate when they took control. They where just powerful enough to take control. One they do take control they usually only lose it to someone who is powerful enough to take it from them. It's unusual for a country, esp. one that has little land and is surrounded by enemies and potential enemies to give up control of it. The mandate is what gave the Israelis control over the land and the ability to create a state, nothing else. It doesn't matter what gave them control over it. Once they have control few countries give it up. I said because it has more power if it comes down to a matter of power then Israel gets what it wants. Might makes right. That's exactly what you saying. Because they can do it, they will. That isn't might makes right. Might makes right would mean that because they have power that it is right for them to use it to get what they want. I am not arguing that. If Israel abuses the Palestinians it does not become right because Israel is more powerful. Tim