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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SARMAN who wrote (15415)	6/4/2007 6:26:51 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

The problem was the mass migration of the European Jew. Some lands were bought but most of it was taken but force and some land was taking through genocide. That's ridiculous.. The British were VERY much in control over Palestine throughout 1948 and prevented the Jews from "taking" land. There were strict rules about Jewish immigrants having to purchase land, and if you recall, the British even attempted to prevent Jews from coming to Palestine in 1939, after a number of Arab revolts. "After Arab rioting in 1929, the Shaw Commission called for a re-examination of immigration policy and the establishment of a scientific inquiry into land usage and potential, the Hope-Simpson Commission. In 1936, the Arabs again staged a revolt in Palestine with stoppage of Jewish immigration as one of their principal demands. In response to the Arab unrest, the British Peel Commission recommended freezing immigration at 12,000 per year for five years and, now viewing Jewish-Arab cooperation as unworkable, also recommended partition. More Arab violence led to the White Paper of 1939 that made concessions to the Arabs on a wide range of issues. The British not only introduced severe restrictions on Jewish immigration (a total of 75,000 to be allowed over the next five years), and forbade land sales to Jews in most areas, but also put pressure on the German, Greek, Yugoslav, Bulgarian and Turkish Governments not to allow "illegal" immigrants into Palestine." In fact, they went so far as to sink a ship full of Jewish immigrants: The British resistence to immigration after 1939 was dramatically illustrated in 1941 by the loss of the ship named Struma with 760 Jewish passengers, a tragedy that was entirely caused by British authorities' unmitigated enforcement of their policy against the "illegal" Jewish immigrants fleeing from Hitler's war against them. palestinefacts.org Now remember Sarman, the Palestinians who lived there had not owned property unless they were functionaries in the Ottoman Empire. Because the Sultan owned EVERYTHING, as you correctly mention is the case in Saudi Arabia. Those people living on farms owned by the deposed Ottoman Pashas simply were given title to that land and the permission to dispose of it as they wished, with many of them being MORE than willing to sell to the Jews. If they didn't want the Jews there, they shouldn't have sold the land that had been GIVEN to them (the Palestinians) by the British occupiers as part of the "spoils" reallocation. And as I mentioned previously, the leader of the Palestinians, the Grand Mufti, was a Nazi collaborator who directly recruiting Bosnian Muslims to the SS for the purpose of exterminating Jews in Yugoslavia. Whereas, the Jews fought for the Allies. You do not need to look far, just look at the oppression that the Palestinian face every day. My friend, look at Gaza. There hasn't been a Jewish settler in Gaza for several years now and look what has become of them? Who's "oppressing" who? Now, maybe, you might be able to make a case for the West Bank, but you simply can't do that in the case of Gaza. Instead of peace and prosperity (they have a ton of natural gas just offshore), they're more focused upon shooting rockets into Israel and implementing Hamas' charter for destroying Israel, than they are about attracting investment capital and building a country (at least part of a country). The oppression the Palestinians are suffering is one of their own choice. They have chosen war and aggression, instead of taking the best deal they can get at the moment (2000 peace treaty proposal) and getting on with the business of becoming a respectable state worthy of being being supported. I agree there is a need to settle the Palestinian problem.. But then again, there's a need to solve the Kurdish problem as well.. That ethnic group, by far larger than the Palestinians (if even an ethnicity) is divided between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Do you think the world should support a Kurdish state? Hawk