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: neolib who wrote (156579)	1/19/2005 11:12:19 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you define colonial as displaced persons with nowhere else to go, being dumped in the middle east by the powers that be who didnt want them in their own countries in large numbers? Those WW2 Jews were far from zionists. They were largely folks who couldnt get into the US. A distant cousin of mine who survived the camps, the russians and the arabs in the 1947 war appeared at my parents doorstep one day. He had finally gotten to America. So its not at all colonial or imperial it was survival which is the instinct of every man, woman and child on the planet. For the arabs it would have been a matter of being accepting, particularly after the UN put its seal of approval on the state of Israel. But the arabs acted as most peoples would have i guess and thus conflict. Mike

To: neolib who wrote (156579)	1/19/2005 12:05:07 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So, would a major migration of Jews into Brooklyn circa 1900 have been ludicrous? If the locals had objected to national immigration policy, would they have been justified in harassing the immigrants? Are you suggesting that locals make immigration policy for all nations? That Jews can only emigrate into already Jewish areas? What exactly are you suggesting? Israel cannot accept them as citizens, as things played out. But they will be citizens of Palestine, and some limited compensation may be negotiated. (They should have been absorbed by the Arab Powers.) So they are getting their citizenship, under the land for peace formula in play.

To: neolib who wrote (156579)	1/19/2005 12:10:46 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

It was colonial. It happened relatively recently, too late to be accepted No, many things are accepted, just so long as they are not done by Jews. Let me give you an example. As we know, after Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967, it started building towns on land that had been given back to the Jewish owners who were driven off in 1948, or land that was government owned. The BBC never fails to call the people living in these towns "Jewish settlers" and the towns, "settlements". I recently heard a BBC program on Cyprus. The BBC reporter went and interviewed the "inhabitants of Turkish Cyprus" about the election that was about to be held t here. Note: "inhabitants". Not "Turkish settlers" living in "settlements", but "inhabitants" living in "towns". The Turks, as I'm sure you know, invaded Cyprus in 1974 (unlike Israel, they had not been attacked) to overthrow a government which they feared might give the island to Greece. The Turks ethnically cleared half the island of Greeks. There was an exchange of populations as the Turkish Cypriots all moved North, and Turkey sent in their own colonists too. This extremely recent settlement is regarded as permanent by the EU, the UN and the rest of what is known as "the international community". So please do not give me this crapola about how Zionism is not allowed because there was, unbeknownst to Herzl, an 1899 expiration date on human migration. This flies in the face of the entire history of the 20th century.