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 (187419)	5/25/2006 11:22:11 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You are badly confused. 20% of Israeli citizens are not Jewish. The difference is that Israel did not grant citizenship to all the Arabs in the territories. (BTW no Arab country except Jordan has granted citizenship to the Palestinians either.) There were NO black South African citizens under apartheid. BTW, just like in South Africa, Israel is trying to keep the best parts of the country for themselves. This is the standard Arab line. It is sublimely rich. The part of Israel with Jews in it is "better" not because it was better when they arrived - actually it was worse, desert and swamp mostly - it's only become "better" because they spent 80 years reclaiming the land and managing it with modern agricultural techniques.

To: neolib who wrote (187419)	5/26/2006 12:21:22 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 281500

Deleted - ignore. Thanks.

To: neolib who wrote (187419)	5/26/2006 2:54:33 AM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

Israel has control over millions of Arabs, but neither grants them citizenship, nor gives them their land back. A suggestion - fwd this comment of yours, to the GCC nations. I would be interested in the response, if u care to share it.

To: neolib who wrote (187419)	5/26/2006 9:59:35 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This is the same tactic that Israel is following, but with generally better world support. Israel has control over millions of Arabs, but neither grants them citizenship, nor gives them their land back. Their land?? Seems to me I recall that Jordan, with the agreement of the Palestinian leadership of the day, annexed the West Bank in 1948. Yet, few people called them "occupiers"... jcpa.org Then they got their butts kicked when they launched a war against the Israelis in 1967, despite Israel pleading with them NOT TO intervene in the conflict between Israel and Egypt. And they forfeited that territory as a result, and millions of Palestinians were forced into occupation because Jordan would not make peace. (which they finally did in 1994). Israel is trying to keep the best parts of the country for themselves. Best part?? West Bank?? Considering that most of the West Bank that wasn't already populated by Arabs was developed and populated by the Israelis, it seems to make sense that they are not going to just leave without appropriate compensation. The root of this problem is that the "Palestinians" willingly gave up their rights to statehood in 1948 in order to obtain protection/identity under the sovereignty of the Hashemites ruling Trans-Jordan. And then Jordan attacked Israel from that territory and lost it because of their aggression. Israel seemed perfectly willing to give most of it back to Jordan in exchange for peace (like they did with Egypt and Sinai) but the Hashemites were intransigent on the issue for over 30 years. Then they abandoned millions of these Jordanian citizens to occupation in 1989, knowing that the Intifada had eleminated all opportunity for them to reclaim that territory into their Kingdom. Thus, the "Palestinians" need to strike THEIR OWN PEACE AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL in order to end the occupation and find their place within the Mid-East order of things. And Israel has no real obligation to recognize any pre-1967 borders BECAUSE JORDAN GAVE UP ITS RIGHT TO THE WEST BANK. Thus, any final border alignment with the Palestinians has NO STANDING under UNSC 242, nor can Israel be compelled by a binding resolution to return territory to a "non-state" actor (the Palestinian Authority) when they were not an official belligerent in the 1967 war. Thus, Israel has every right to dole out its own arrangement, ON ITS TERMS, to deal with unoccupied territories in the West Bank if the Palestinians are intent on preserving a state of hostilities and uprising in areas outside of the Palestinian Authority: iris.org.il Btw, I see Abbas has called for Hamas to recognize a two-state solution and if Hamas doesn't change its platform, he'll put it forth as a non-binding referendum. I think that's a pretty smart idea. It's a chance for the Palestinian people to express any "second thoughts" about having elected Hamas to power. The bottom line.. the Palestinians need to quit screwing around and get serious about making peace. Because that wall the Israelis are putting up will become the equivalent of a psychological barrier to further Israeli concessions. Hawk