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: SilentZ who wrote (185466)	3/24/2004 1:32:58 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572157

I believe in a neutral third party's historical accounting of the events that led the Palestinians into refugee camps. No where does it say that the Palestinians left their property so that the Zionists could have it. Which neutral third party? Even Benny Morris, who's a major source for those who say that Israel expelled the Palestinians, said recently that his research shows that much of the mass exodus of Palestinians happened because their own leaders told them to leave. That's probably right.......a war was coming. The Palestinians thought the Zionists would get massacred so they left expecting they could return after the fighting was over. That is not an unusual approach.....people often flee when a war is coming. However, Israel would not let the Palestinians come back into Israel after the war. Instead, the Israelis confiscated their property. Speaking of history, have you read some of the Zionist plans from the '30s re. the Palestinians. The Palestinians were considered a major problem.....they outnumbered Zionists two to one. By fleeing the war, the Palestinians played right into the hands of the Zionists and the Palestinian 'problem' was solved. And if you think I am being cynical, think again. No, it isn't. Its a negotiating point that the Israelis refuge to acknowledge. No one expects the Israelis to give Israel back to the Palestinians. It's a demographic time bomb. That's another problem and it exists whether there's right of return or not. So do we stay with the definition from the 70s, or do we evolve? Most of the Palestinian leadership still buys the original definition, so why should we think otherwise? I don't believe that and I don't think you do either. I am talking about before the 1948 war........about the UN partition. The Palestinian portion has never been acknowledged nor turned into a state. In fact, over the years, Israel has whittled away at it. That's what I was talking about. It was supposed to be a Palestinian state, but the Arabs, not the Zionists, declined it. The Arabs at the time, for the most part, didn't consider Palestinians a separate people. They thought that Palestine should be part of Syria. The Palestinians declined it because they did not think that the Zionists were entitled to 1/2 of Palestine. You might remember after all that they had farmed and ranched Palestine for nearly a millennium, and then unexpectantly, Zionist upstarts decide they want a piece of the action. I would not want to give up half my property either. ted