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 (225440)	3/28/2007 4:12:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Not the nomadic middle easterners, and if you read up on their history, you will find that they often got the sort end of the stick on land deals in the ME. But we were not discussing the nomadic middle easterners, for centuries a rather small minority in the region of Palestine. We we discussing the Palestinian land owners and the fellahin, the tenant farmers, who sold land and/or were displaced by Zionist ownership. Also, those who sold were under no obligation to do so. They were generally delighted to get high prices for wasteland. The Brits cerainly never had any pro-sale policies. This doesn't apply at all to the Bedouin, who were not displaced. Zionist-Bedouin relations were actually pretty good and have remained so. Bedouin quite often volunteer for the IDF, while other Arab Israelis do not. So basically you think the USA would simply accept, within a pretty short time span, the results of such a change? Look how long it took us to normalise relations with Vietnam, which was very far from actually taking some of the USA soil. Look at Europe pre WWII and post WWII. That was a short period of time. Lots of people wound up with governments they didn't like, they were occasional rebellions, but neither side of the Iron Curtain said, we can have no development in our own country until we conquer the other side.