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: Sam who wrote (198244)	8/20/2006 5:24:26 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Ottoman Empire was the political entity. "Palestine" wasn't a country... You are missing the entire point. No matter what you call the country, the people living there are the same. They are not being moved about. The Jews were moved in. Period. True, state boundaries may be an endless source of friction as well, especially if the state is undemocratic and controls multiple ethnic regions. If a given ethnic region lacks all or almost all effective control of their lives, they will likely cause problems (think Kurds in various states for example). When Jews came to the area in the late 19th and first quarter of the 20th C--before the Ottoman Empire was broken up--it was a non-event for the most part. People come, people leave. They had permission to come The same can be said about Hispanic migration into the USA. It is only when the existing dominant group wakes up to reality, that real opposition with all the nasty consequences shows up. In the case of Jewish immigration to Palestine, Jewish long term intentions had be well published starting back in the 1800's, so the Arabs had no excuse to be asleep at the wheel, other than stupidity.

To: Sam who wrote (198244)	8/20/2006 5:35:03 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

Yeah, I know, it was all the Jews' fault. They pull strings and the world jumps to their tune, lol. I don't think so. The Jews IMO had great motivation to seek a state of their own, I have no problem with that. It in no way changes the fact that they were the immigrants, and their state came at the expense of others. A very telling point is that the article you linked which referred to a population swap, Jews out of Arab lands into Israel, and Pals out of Israel going to Arab states, blatantly failed to note the most obvious differences 1) Jews were the immigrants, and more importantly, 2) Jews desperately WANTED more immigrants, hence GLADLY accepted all Jewish immigration. For the neighboring Arab states there is clearly NO such situation, and indeed the reverse is largely true (does Jordan WANT more Pals, LOL!). I assume the astute writer, and must readers with functional brains, understand that this is the case. To fail to state it renders the source pretty much useless IMO, as far as objectivity goes. The article simple becomes political spin.