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: michael97123 who wrote (161155)	4/27/2005 4:22:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

UN in 1947 is a good place to start not end. If that partition had worked and Jews and Arabs had abided by the agreement, the world might be a better place today. Israel would be shrunk but at peace and Arabs in Palestine would be far better off. No refugees anywhere and so on. So Nadine and Marcos can argue until the world ends. Pre-1947 is interesting only from an historical standpoint. Until there is real de jure peace there will be only defacto on the ground and each time the Pals lose they will lose something tangible. I agree pre-1947 land boundaries are not highly relevant to any future settlement. If the Arabs did accept Israel and the UN 1947 plan, it probably would have been better overall and it certainly would have been better for the Palestinians, but I don't think it was ever particularly likely. Israel looked weak and the Arabs hated the idea of a non Islamic, non Arab, country in their midst. Tim