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 (198317)	8/20/2006 9:15:58 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

Look, some countries want to import people (the US for most of its history and Australia come immediately to mind), others want to export them, or find places to export them. Arguably, one of the reasons why Europe was pretty peaceful between 1815 and WWI (with only a few exceptions, mostly civil strife) was because they had places to export their unhappy people with frustrated ambitions. But as far as Israel importing people, yes Jews came to Israel. But at least get some historical perspective. You thought (or seemed to think) that the last article I pointed was biased, try this one: mideastweb.org It also has some links for further reading (not that I have followed any of them). You say on the one hand, "We are not debating (at least I'm not) the legitimacy of any state in the ME." and yet, on the other hand, you wrote in an earlier post, "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." The latter, especially when combined with some of your other comments (e.g., "To argue that the Ottoman Empire's splitting into Arab states is no more legitimate than the creation of Israel is nonsense. The Arab states population's were not imported from Brazil for example."), suggests that you believe Israel is not as legitimate a country as, say, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon. Yet they were all carved out of the Ottoman Empire, none of them were created from local plebescites, and none of them were ruled by majorities (well, Lebanon is a special case with a complicated political history--but Jordan and Syria aren't and weren't, though their rulers have certainly been as different as night and day). If you grant that Israel is a legitimate state (unlike some on this thread who insist it is a "criminal" state), with the right to self defense, then "who the immigrants were, who wanted MORE immigrants, and who did not want immigrants" isn't really relevant to anything. The only reason people want to make the undeniable fact of immigration relevant is that they want to deny the legitimacy of the two state solution to the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews in the area.