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: Bilow who wrote (156692)	1/20/2005 3:52:49 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: "... but of an ethnic identity built on repatriation to an ancient homeland ..." What's the point here? The Palestinian movement is built on repatriation to a modern homeland. Certainly modern is more important than ancient. There's a legal principle to the effect that after you abandon a land for a certain number of years, it can be taken by "adverse possession". In the US, the number of years required for adverse possession to kick in is far, far, far less than the nearly many hundreds or even thousands of years you're backdating the Jewish ownership of these regions. There is an interesting legal issue I see at work in the USA. I live in an agricultural area in the West, where water is an issue. Early treaties with the Indians, gave them substantial water rights. These were not enforced for most of the last century, but the tribes have gotten increasingly active with Salmon recovery efforts. So the farmers are being pinched wrt to water. The funny bit is this. The growers will argue that those "ancient" treaties don't reflect modern reality. Heck, you just can't take peoples income away from them to save some fish! On the other hand, the most valuable farm water rights are the oldest ones. Its the junior or more recent ones that get cut first in a shortage. So, if the right or treaty is for a whiteman, then older is better. If it is an old Indian right, well, heck its so old its out of date! We should negotiate a new one! Please note that the Indian water rights and the most valuable farm water rights actually date from the same time around here, 1860's or so. The same thing is argued in Israel. A 2000 year old heritage is used as an argument for the modern Jewish state. But then, wrt the West Bank settlements we are told that the realities of the last 40 years have change the facts on the ground. I.e. old or new is good for Jew, new or old is bad for Pals.

To: Bilow who wrote (156692)	1/20/2005 4:28:07 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

I did not say that the fixation on "Israel" constituted an entitlement, I said that it made the choice of settlement culturally significant, not arbitrary. The legalities lie elsewhere: in playing by the international rules of the time, in being willing to abide by the Partition, in the reasonableness of annexation in the face of the war of annihilation, and so forth. Similarly, I merely pointed out that the Zionists had real concerns about the position of European Jewry, borne out by the Holocaust, they were not arbitrarily looking for a homeland. Anyway, it is not 1947. We are already dragged in. The question now is, do we want to be responsible for another Holocaust for suddenly abandoning Israel?