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: sylvester80 who wrote (188164)	6/2/2006 9:46:39 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Too bad you don't see Israeli settlers the same serious way as they are more the problem with what's going on. Depends upon the settler. If they are ultra-orthodox, or militant Jews, and believe Judea and Samaria cannot be surrendered, then you're right. And Israel had better find a way to deal with them. But others, in particular the ones surrounding Jerusalem, often consist of people settling for completely secular reasons.. available land developments. Get them all off Palestinian Land and you might be surprised by the results. And what kind of silliness would lead you to believe that? The Palestinians have had NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES over the past 16 years to make peace with Israel. Any lack of a peace settlement in the period PRIOR to that can be ascribed to the fact that there WAS NOT SUCH THING AS PALESTINIAN LAND. After all, in 1948, the Arab "Palestinian" leadership at that time AGREED VOLUNTARILY to merge the Palestinian partition on the West Bank into the Kingdom of Jordan. And very few "Palestinians" seemed (or dared) to complain for over 20 years... So that land was JORDANIAN, not Palestinian. And before that, it was under the administrative jurisdiction of the British, WHO LIBERATED IT from the Ottoman Turks who had ruled it for hundreds of years.. And then the Jordanians FOOLISHLY chose to forfeit their right to retain control of the West Bank by attacking Israel from it in 1967. Even King Hussein acknowledged in his memoirs that listening to Egypt's Nasser was one of the biggest mistakes of his life.. Everything was hunky-dory.. and mostly everyone on the West Bank was happy to be a Jordanian.. and then suddenly they're being occupied by a foreign army because THEY AND THEIR KING decided to wage an unprovoked war AND LOST.... And the odds are pretty great that had Jordan not gone to war with Israel (or had won it), the West Bank and all of its residents would STILL BE Jordanian subjects. Just like the other 60-70% of the "Palestinians" being ruled by a foreign king. What would be the odds of an independent Palestinian state THEN?? Now where was I?? Oh yeah.. then King Hussein compounded the problem by renouncing all claim to the West Bank in 1989, because King Hussein didn't want Arafat's intransigence, or having to trade "land for peace", to be an obstacle to his finally arriving at a peace settlement between Israel and Jordan. So what does he do? He says he doesn't want the West Bank back.. SMART MAN!! And what about this?. What if King Hussein had arrived at a "land for peace" deal in the '70s, or had been a participant at Camp David?? Would there be a "palestinian state" then? Or would the West Bank have reverted to Jordanian control (and the problem of Palestinian statehood)?? Unlikely. Because if he has to grant autonomy to the West Bank, then he has to make concessions to all of the other "Palestinians" that are ruled by his Hashemite tribesmen from the Hijaz. So.. King Hussein throws the "hot potato" squarely into the hands of the Israelis, provides him a "rallying point" for his own Palestinian population, and now it seems that the onus is upon Israel to have to completely ignore its security concerns... And now they Palestinians have gone so far as to elect an Islamo-Fascist parliament and prime minister who's very party platform calls for the utter destruction of Israel.. Yeah... so pardon me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. They have never been a nation, and they have a history of subjugating themselves to foreign kings. They had their chance in 1948, but gave it up. In fact, they could have declared the Hashemites to be foreign occupiers, but they chose not to do so. (and don't get me wrong, I think the latest Jordanian King is a decent man, but he's still not a "Palestinian"). Maybe if someone could actually define what is, or is not, Palestinian land, that might be helpful.. Seems to me that Jordan is Palestinian land also... And just as occupied by foreigners and their military. Hawk