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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (162114)	5/15/2005 4:22:26 PM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Certainly you are not and that makes you the biggest hypocrite of all.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (162114)	5/16/2005 12:00:00 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Names no but names of groups yes, i've typed them out for you before, and this is not the first time you've repeated the question with this same phoney naiveté ... but very well, there are a few minutes Groups present and living in relative peace with each other at the start of the 1917-20 period when zionist schemes and wholesale importing of immigrants began to disturb the peace, and destroy palestinians' hope of self-determination just as it became possible when the turks had been beaten off, these people could be considered indigenous, probably ... these people and their direct descendants Note that this would include some zionists, the early Rothschild colony type, many of whom definitely had exclusivist goals but did not have the numbers to do any damage, they'd be like the mormons in the US, relatively harmless So what did the british census of the early twenties give as proportions, well over eighty per cent muslim arab speakers, right ... and that was after significant zionist importation of personnel, far from 1917 proportions ... there were around ten per cent christians, a few per cent 'other', which included druze and others i forget ... there is an earlier census, maybe ottoman, can't recall it just now ... the british one didn't count many of the bedouins, who traditionally roamed the whole area including Palestine, so that skews the numbers Anyway, these people and their descendants could reasonably be considered to be indigenous .... people from other continents with only stories of ancestors living there thousands of years ago would not, that rather goes without saying, or it should ... using the 1917 date includes many descendants of the same ancestors, of course, people who started speaking arabic centuries ago .... on that point there is now DNA evidence coming out, also there has always been considerable linguistic evidence, little hints in the local language that indicate it was adopted by the residents, rather than just spoken by new invaders Then, such immigration as the indigenous approve would have the right to be naturalised palestinians ... completely up to the natives, the decision, though ... as Gandhi points out, 'They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs.' - Message 21270763