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: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (15436)	6/6/2007 9:37:49 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

Sarman, You are not serious, are you? The Hashemites are merely a bunch of royals --it's a royal family, that is, there weren't millions of them poised to grab the land of, and expell the natives of Jordan, Syria,... Objectively speaking, I don't see any difference. The British took a group of Arabs, the Hashemites of "Lawrence of Arabia" lore from Mecca/Medina (Hijaz), and gave them control over a piece of conquered and OCCUPIED Ottoman territory called Trans-Jordan. The British/French, as victors over an aggressor (the Ottomans) had EVERY RIGHT to dispose of those conquered territories as they saw fit. If they opted to give territory to those rebellious elements who assisted them in defeating the Ottomans, then that was their right. After all, none of these current countries in the Mid-East would exist if the Ottomans had not been defeated and their empire dismembered and broken up into various NEW nation/states. Being "installed" by the British over the territory of Trans-Jordan, gave the Hashemites an entire geographical territory and made millions of local inhabitants subjects of their rule. The Hashemites had no local ties to Palestine, except being the historical heirs to the Caliphate of 1000 years ago. So why couldn't the Jews be permitted to re-establish their "Kingdom" as well? After all, there hadn't been any ruling power in Palestine, other than the Ottomans, for 500 years. So where's the logic that suddenly all of these Arab countries have a "right" to dictatorial/monarchical rule, but the Jews don't? If the Hashemites were able to "import" their entire clan to Jordan, then why couldn't the Sephardic Jews import European Jews to Palestine? Do you see the correlation I'm trying to make? The Allies defeated the Ottomans in a defensive war which gave them the right to dispose of conquered territory as they saw fit. The Israelis defeated the Jordanians (and Egyptians, Syrians) in a Defensive war and offered to return the conquered territory in exchange for peace. Egypt made peace, and the Sinai was returned to them. The Hashemites opted to renounce their claims to the West Bank, and later made peace in 1994. When they renounced their claims, the West Bank defaulted back to "disputed territory" that previously belonged to the conquered Ottomans (who no longer have a right to it). And any UNINHABITED territory could be settled. You see, I don't see any difference between subjugating the Palestinian people to the rule of a foreign Arab tribe and Jewish rule. But this wasn't what actually occurred. The Hashemite rule was a "fait accompli" that the Palestinian people had no control over. They were installed, and propped up, by the British (same thing in Iraq). However, the Jews who were permitted to immigrate to Palestine were restricted to purchasing land from the local people to build the "Yishuv". The British, being VERY conscious of Arab sentiments, never seized the land of the locals just to give it to the Jews. They permitted Jews to purchase land from the locals (who had dubious title to it in the first place) OR TO settle UNINHABITED LAND. Recall, all of the uninhabited land in the West Bank fell to the control of the Hashemites ROYAL FAMILY in 1948 when they annexed the West Bank and occupied it for 30 years. It is THIS FACT that has provided Israel the legal basis to build settlements in that uninhabited land: Settlements and Land The vast majority of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were built on uninhabited land and have not displaced any Arabs. Jews who have established settlements have worked the land and are therefore entitled to the benefits of their labour. Much of the land was previously left to waste and deemed infertile. The West Bank and Gaza strip are disputed land and therefore not governed by Israeli law. The Ottoman land laws apply to these areas. Ottoman law states that if the land is uninhabited for over three years it may be purchased. "The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalant in every way to the right of the local population to live there" - Professor Eugene Rostow (former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs). betar.co.uk Sarman, I know this whole issue is emotional.. But I prefer to back my commentary with facts. And the facts are that when Jordan abdicated all claim to the West Bank, it returned to its previous pre-1948 disputed status. And all UNINHABITED LAND that Jordan has previously claim to directly control fell to the control of Israel. Hawk