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 (225441)	3/28/2007 4:26:54 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 281500

"or were displaced by Zionist ownership." What a POLITE way to describe theft!

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (225441)	3/28/2007 7:30:05 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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. As I pointed out before, the sum total of Palestine actually owned by Jews was on the order of 10% before 1948. So you can't revert to saying Israel was purchased and paid for. There is an additional problem with what you note above, that Arab's were often delighted to get high prices from Zionist. A significant fraction of the Arab population were not land owners. They could not afford to compete on price with the influx of money, yet they were born and raised there. I look at that problem carefully, since I have been to Costa Rica several times with the aim of buying land there, and I see the same problem. Ticos happy to sell to Gringos for mucho dinario, but other ticos who recycle the land via accommodative squatters rights. When my in-laws lived in Jamaica, they had a nearby elderly white neighbor who owned a beautiful farm/forest area which I thought was a stellar way to retire, and I spent some time looking for land there, but then one night he got murdered. There are hazards in being a rich foreigner, if you buy land in a country were most of the locals cannot afford to. One can protest that this should not be the case, but unfortunately, protesting does not change reality. I plan on retiring somewhere in the tropics, but I don't want a short retirement either. So what leads to peace and stability is of great interest to me. 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. An excellent example. Most of Europe is now, finally, back to having their own governments. Sure there were some significant population shifts in eastern europe, and europe has always had smaller pockets of ethnic groups lumped into bigger countries. Imagine instead if France & Britain were currently ruled by Germany.