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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (225411)	3/28/2007 1:43:16 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The last sentence applies to every square inch of the former Ottoman empire, as far as I can see. In the same sense that a good portion of Africa, now controlled by the natives, was acquired from the former British Empire. But that is not a very good argument saying the original native inhabitants descendents should not own the land now. It is largely irrelevant who the former "owners" were of any territory, if the owners were not largely the inhabitants of the land. Consider that Germany had colonies in Africa, and lost them to the British, who then gave them back to the natives. Britain couldn't claim that the colonies they got from Germany should not revert to the natives, because Britain took than from Germany rather than taking them from the original natives. If Britain had sold or given their African empire to the Chinese, it would have been the Chinese getting their butts kicked out of Africa rather than English whites. Waving a land title in anyones face would not have changed that fact. As another interesting example you could consider land ownership in El Salvador and the civil war there. In that case there was not even the extreme religious or racial divide (although the poor were more Native American & less Spanish) however the skew of land ownership was even worse than in Rhodesia IIRC. Yet a civil war developed with much the same motivation and IMO, for much the same reasons (although lacking the nice clear racial motivation). In the end, a significant land reform also was put in place in El Salvador, with the added benefit that less corruption was involved in implementing it than happened with Mugabe. Furthermore, the map claimed to be of Mandatory Palestine, so the government controlled land was in the hands of the British Empire, not an Islamic interest at all. It went from the Ottoman empire which was Islamic, to British control. If, in your opinion, this means the inhabitants changed from Islamic to Christian, you would have a point. But what we saw from the rest of the colonial world, is that colonial ownership didn't change who the land reverted to, unless the colonial era significantly changed the demographics (think Guyana or much of the Caribbean) which also happened in Israel. What you need to consider is a graph showing % of population by ethnic/religious group from the late 1800's through the present, along with % of land ownership. I really don't even care, if during the Ottoman & British control, you divide the land by actual ownership title (Arabs & Jews for there owned portions which were small) and divide the national land by % of population, since in some sense ownership of that could be claimed as questionable by ethnic group. If you look at such a graph over the last century you will understand why there are problems in the region. In order to clearly understand the issue, suppose that over the next 50 years, the same sort of population/land ownership graph as happened in Israel from say about 1925-1975 were to occur in the USA with respect to Hispanic population and land ownership here. Assume also that the shift involved about the same degree of foreign intervention and armed conflict, and relocation of ethnic groups. (don't object that such foreign intervention and armed conflict is unreasonable given US military might). How do you think the current USA population would respond? What Rhodesia taught me is that I real must look at things from both sides of the coin, or the final solution is not likely to be lasting.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (225411)	3/28/2007 1:52:44 PM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Accept peace plan or face war, Israel told. mparent7777.blogspot.com >>The "lords of war" will decide Israel's future if it rejects a blueprint for peace crafted by the entire Arab world, Saudi Arabia's veteran foreign minister warned yesterday. As leaders began gathering in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, for today's summit of the Arab League, Prince Saud al-Faisal told The Daily Telegraph that the Middle East risks perpetual conflict if the peace plan fails. Under this Saudi-drafted proposal, every Arab country would formally recognise Israel in return for a withdrawal from all the land captured in the war of 1967. This would entail a Palestinian state embracing the entire West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital. Every Arab country will almost certainly endorse this blueprint when the Riyadh summit concludes tomorrow. Prince Saud said Israel should accept or reject this final offer. "What we have the power to do in the Arab world, we think we have done," he said. "So now it is up to the other side because if you want peace, it is not enough for one side only to want it. Both sides must want it equally." Speaking inside his whitewashed palace, surrounded by luxuriant lawns and manicured flower beds resembling a green oasis in the drabness of Riyadh, Prince Saud delivered an unequivocal warning to Israel. "If Israel refuses, that means it doesn't want peace and it places everything back into the hands of fate. They will be putting their future not in the hands of the peacemakers but in the hands of the lords of war," he said. Prince Saud dismissed any further diplomatic overtures towards Israel. "It has never been proven that reaching out to Israel achieves anything," he said. "Other Arab countries have recognised Israel and what has that achieved? "The largest Arab country, Egypt, recognised Israel and what was the result? Not one iota of change happened in the attitude of Israel towards peace." Israel has numerous reservations about the Arab peace plan - which was previously proposed at a summit in 2002. Israel fears any hint that Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homes in the event of a peace settlement.<<