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: Lou Weed who wrote (129977)	4/24/2004 9:06:28 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: land ownership If memory serves, weak but still operative, native US Indians once did not claim ownership of any land- it was shared or used. Since there was no way to tax the land, being without owners, this aboriginal concept was soon soon replaced by European invaders so that proper tribute could be extracted and delivered to the new rulers, who might even be located on a different continent. So even if they did not want land, the Indians were forced into owning some land by creating reservations. Intially the land was not taxed, but crowding them into areas with inadequate resources meant huge profits by the owners of the Company stores. Which could then be taxed. And the vacated land could then be sold to the highest bidder or even give away and in either case taxes could be imposed on that land also. Which leads to a question for the Palestinians- do they really want all the land occupied by Israel and be forced to pay taxes on it when they cant even afford to live where they are now.? And where will they get any income when their present employers, the Israelis, are driven out.? These Pals are not thinking properly.! The last thing they want to happen and the thing they should fear the most, is that they will have to go to work (sob). At a job(sob). If they eliminate the Israelis. Sig

To: Lou Weed who wrote (129977)	4/24/2004 10:14:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The point was, that the land is currently stateless. All the international laws regarding occupation that get quoted up the wazoo have as their underlying assumption that the occupied territory was internationally recognized as belonging to State A until State B occupied it. Like Lebanon and Syria, for example. However, in the case of the West Bank and Gaza, there is no State A. That makes a difference, or would if the territories weren't currently held by the Joooooos. That's one reason, aside from US patronage, that UN Resolution 242 spoke of returning territories, but with borders to be settled by negotiation. Obviously if the resolution meant that Israel should give it all back, there would be no borders to negotiate, everything would go back to the status quo ante. So, the question remains, give it back to whom? In 1988 both the US and Israel had heartburn over giving it back to the PLO, the self-appointed, terrorist "representative" of the Palestinian people. Oslo and the creation of the PA was supposed to show us that Arafat had changed his spots. Hoo-ha.