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: Neocon who wrote (156508)	1/18/2005 5:03:35 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That the turks conquered Palestine does not confer on zionists or anybody else the right of its conquest on a date so late as 1948 Jewish governance of the land ended in what, 6 AD or something ... jewish presence in significant numbers ended in what, mid second century or so There probably was some continuous jewish presence all the way through, but this is not useful to your argument as the majority converted to the christian and/or islamic faiths 'Second' - the vast majority of population was arab-speaking muslim for a very long time prior to the first Rothschild colonies landing in 1882, turks did not move there in great numbers, and so the right of self determination is conferred upon mostly arabs, so sorry but that's where one man one vote gets you 'Third' - 'Yishuv' was a term that jews in Jerusalem and a few other places applied to themselves, after they had been invited back in by the turkish sultan acting as califa in what, mid sixteenth century or so ... these people absolutely opposed zionist policy, knowing its inevitable consequences, as you well know, and i don't think they'd have liked the term being appropriated 'Fourth' - there was massive zionist inmigration and smuggling of arms going on, a great many terrorist incidents, clearly there was an attempt to take the country - it is far from irrational to flee from such events, for those unable or unwilling to combat them .... it was seen as fight or flight, or, in your version, to trust the invader not to hurt you, well good luck on that ... so some arab leaders suggested flight for non-combatants - so what, this does not aid your case for their dispossession .... and there were, unquestionably, many documented cases of ethnic cleansing at gunpoint, tens of thousands in Lydda and Ramle alone No i don't take the propaganda of either side as gospel, and it is an attempt at distortion for you to claim i do .... zionist actions can be readily condemned using solely zionist statements and zionist approved histories, when the independent observer applies a minimum of rudimentary logic from an human point of view Bottom line, zionists crossed the sea to set up a Whackenstaat on predominantly muslim lands, and now there's trouble, well quelle surprise, wtf else do you expect

To: Neocon who wrote (156508)	1/18/2005 9:49:13 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "Second, it was not Arab land, it was Turkish land, subsequently administered by the British under a League of Nations mandate." This is a rather shallow argument. One might as well argue that Italy or Germany are not Italian or German land, as most or all of their territories were controlled by other countries until quite recently. By the way, I just finished a fascinating book on Kossuth and the Hungarian revolution of 1848: www3.sympatico.ca My reason for mentioning it here is that one of the several major errors of the Hungarian nationalists was to piss off the other nationalities (Croats, Romanians, Slavs, etc.) within the borders of the traditional Hungarian territory. Their attitude towards certain of these national groups was that since they didn't have any historical claims to ruling a territory, they didn't deserve one now. With the passage of 150 years, all these various nationalities now have their own nation states, and the Hungarian arguments against granting them autonomy sound like simple nationalistic crapola. What I'm saying here is that your failure to appreciate Arab rights of nationhood (in regions where their power is dominant) is basically imitation legalistic crapola that is incompatible with the way this planet has been run for thousands of years. -- Carl