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: RetiredNow who wrote (210998)	11/8/2004 3:19:06 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572460

The Jews BOUGHT most of the land on which they built Israel. So? Muslims can't buy land in Pennsylvania and then declare that land a new Muslim country. Owning property and declaring nationhood are not the same thing. The borders of Israel were agreed to legitimately by all the major powers after WWII, All of the Arab countries that were in the UN voted against the UN resolution to recognize the state of Israel (I think in 1947). So the neighboring countries objected to Israel from its beginning. France, USA, Russia, England and all the other major powers accepted Israel's ME borders, but they don't border Israel, do they? And they are not the source of the current problem, or even the subject of our discussion. If you put yourself in the Arab's situation, it is completely normal to object to a religious minority establishing a state based on their religion in your backyard. The Pennsylvania-Arab state analogy is far from perfect, but think how Americans wuold feel if half of Pennsylvania declared themselves an Egyptian-backed Muslim nation, smack in the middle of the USA? Americans would object. In fact, a better analogy would be supposed if China backed the American Indians campaign to build a separate, American Indian nation in Pennsylvania, and succeeded? And then the UN universally recognized them (say the US didn't have a veto power). Do you think most Americans would accept the idea of an American Indian state in the middle of the USA? The Islamic Arabs define themselves by their hatred of Israel. I would say most don't think there should be a Jewish country where Israel is today, but I doubt that is that is their defining characteristic. Another similarity would be Americans generally don't think Cuba should be communist and authoritarian (we think it should be capitalist and free). That view of Cuba doesn't "define" most of us. Arabs don't think historical Palestine should be a Jewish state called Israel. Americans don't think Cuba should be communist. It's not that different a view. 6 Islamic Arab countries attacked Israel to destroy it and deny their right to existence. Well that's what countries do when they object to their neighbors way of life or are afraid of their neighbord potential threat. That's what we are doing now in Iraq, will probably do soon in Iran, and then probably do in N Korea. Difference is, the Arabs (as usual) lost. Jews lived in Israel long before Arabs swept in and brutally cleansed the land of Jews and Christians alike. So did American Indians before we came in and put them on reservations. If you think being in a region 2000 years ago constitutes possession, and you in favor of giving the majority of the US back to the Indians? So NO, it makes no sense whatsoever that Arabs should deny Jews the right to exist on a barren parcel of desert which Jews purchased from Arabs with their hard earned money and which they have worked hard to build a thriving Democracy on. Yes it does. I'm not saying I agree with their objection, but I am saying it seems totally natural. If you were in their shoes, you probably would object as well. Or do you support the idea of an American Indian state being forcibly established in the middle of Pennsylvania with UN approval to give all the displaced American Indians a homeland?