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: SARMAN who wrote (230029)	5/7/2007 11:04:08 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

Sarman, a LOT of the land in Israel was bought, fair and square. My guess is most of it, if not quite all of it. The part that wasn't bought was, I believe, pretty small and was abandoned by the inhabitants in the 1948 war of conquest by the Arabs and Umma during the a genocidal attempt to exterminate Jews. You are very easy to bait. Ottoman rulers owned the land which was rented by Palestinians [lots of it]. When the landlords sold the land, the locals had to move out. After living there for generations, they thought it belonged to them, not the landlord and not the new owners. Being impoverished due to lack of ability to do much of value and their propensity to breed a lot, they didn't have much in the way of opportunity to do something other than be a refugee. A comparable situation is in Fiji where Indian migrants had lived on land for a century, which was owned by the local yokels. When the lease was up, the locals didn't want to renew. So the Indians became refugees. No right of return. What's legal to do and what's sensible to do are two different things. Buying land from landlords which displaces poor people means they have nowhere to go. People who are cornered get violent [often enough]. Especially when they can turn it into an us/them situation with religious mania. Mqurice

To: SARMAN who wrote (230029)	5/7/2007 11:16:06 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<However, it does not change the fact that Israel was built on stolen land, like the US and the rest of world.> Until the beginning of last century, [give or take a century or so] conquest was the norm everywhere. Conquest, slavery, confiscation, hunter gathering, genocide, dominance hierarchies were normal human existence between countries. Within countries, things were much more settled and normally property was traded by then, not simply taken. The breeding rate made the conquest process essential. Now there is contraception. So yes, other than a few places, such as Pitcairn Island, and I think Norfolk Island, conquest was how all land was acquired at some stage. There are still attempts to do the same, such as China conquering Tibet, wanting to attack Taiwan. Indonesia attacking and annexing East Timor. Arabs wanting to attack Jews and confiscate Israel. Mexicans invading the USA and wanting to take over parts of it, which they no doubt argue is just returning stolen property. They seem to be succeeding. Some situations can be reversed, such as the USSR conquests of Lithuania etc. East Timor can be freed. Tibet could too. Taiwan can be left alone. But the USA can't be given back to the original inhabitants. There is too much comingling over centuries and the non-native Americans have nowhere to go. England can't be given back to the Romans or Neanderthals. Mqurice

To: SARMAN who wrote (230029)	5/7/2007 11:16:22 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So you not only challenge the existance of israel. Now you do the same with the US and other parts of the world. Who would decide on which lands are to be returned and which are OK to keep? What if some judge says the israelis belong in israel not because they of the UN mandate but because of right of return from 2000 years ago? I think maurice asked you this question too. "However, it does not change the fact that Israel was built on stolen land, like the US and the rest of world."