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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (107125)	8/4/2005 1:50:22 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I can only assume you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are reading in the Wikipedia article. It is about the bloodshed around one incident in 1929. You keep quoting from it like it discusses decades or something, and it does not. In the early history of the Zionist invasion into Palestine, we have the founding of Haganah and Irgun, the terrorist Zionist organizations, the Zionist terrorist bombing of the Kind David Hotel, the violent displacement of the Palestinian people, whose lands and property were confiscated, several large massacres in the refugee camps, and finally, in the 1960's, the formation of retaliatory Arab terrorist organizations. Most of the violence during this period is clearly perpetrated by the Zionists, not the Palestinians. So I do not understand why you are fixated on 1929. You definitely are defending Zionist bloodshed. It seems not to be a concern for you that the Zionists invaded settled Arab lands, and were the aggressors in this conflict. The Palestinians were already occupying those lands. Why should the Zionists have the right to use violence to defend themselves when they interjected themselves violently onto land they did now own? I only support the right of indigenous peoples like the Northern Irish and the Palestinians to defend themselves from oppressive interlopers. You defend the right of the oppressive invader, which on my moral scale is quite evil. And while you do so you seem to be trying to make me look like I am the one who supports terrorism. You do not see anything weird about that? I want Zionists to go to welcoming western democracies because I don't want people to experience having their land stolen, living in refugee camps, and being generally dispossessed. It isn't a question of who is better. It is a question of living a life without taking someone else's away. The indigenous populations of the Americas, Australia and New Zealand long ago lost their land and culture. A whole bunch of Jews moving in at this point will not further harm them. In my life I usually start with some sort of "do no harm" ideal. Active harm and hurt are still being done in Palestine and Northern Ireland. Those are places whose troubles we can still solve. Some troubles in other places were long ago, and we cannot do anything now to solve them. The Welsh and the Scots have hated the English for at least many hundreds of years, but currently are not suffering from discrimination at their hands. I am not quite sure why you don't understand my point on this subject--it seems really logical to me. I think you are tying the Zionist movement into Palestine too closely with the Holocaust, as many Zionists do when they try to link the two events to justify the mess in Israel. Zionism was in full swing by the late nineteenth century, long before Hitler came to power. I think the life of a Palestinian Arab has as much value as the life of a Jew, so I don't think it is fair that a Palestinian loses his life so that a Jew may live. I think this is a tragedy on every level. As I said before, I have no idea why there was so much hatred and prejudice directed at the Jews. Destroying Palestine seems like it is the Zionists treating other humans horrifically, the way the Jews were treated. I don't think that solves any problems at all.