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: Elroy who wrote (240253)	8/29/2007 9:59:46 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Its not as simple as you make it out to be but you are mostly right. And of course jews paid the price for israel getting the boot from countries like iraq where there were large jewish communities. In a way, israel existed for population transfer. No way to really say what the status of jews would have ended up being in the middle east including greater palestine, if israel didnt become a state or there wasnt large immigration to the area. Blame the brits for all of this---its easier to do than trying to figure out what would have been a fairer solution post WW2. Remember too, before there was israel there was WW2 with the arabs taking a definitively pro nazi position. Why was that because jews wanted to live in biblical israel again.

To: Elroy who wrote (240253)	8/29/2007 2:04:13 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

However, ME Muslims do hate Israelis for setting up a non-Muslim nation where lots of Muslims lived. You'd feel the same way if some foreign group established a non-American nation where you live. It's a natural reaction to being excluded. Elroy, it's not a "natural" reaction, it's a religious reaction. Because in reality, most Arabs are very far away from Israel, never meet Israelis or Palestinians, and don't give a damn about either, and wouldn't care if their leaders and imams didn't keep telling them for fifty years that's it all they SHOULD care about (and never mind local reforms). If you think of the KKK whipping up a race riot against a black town in the next county in the 1920s, you will get a better analogy. The KKK could whip up the race riot because it was an outrage on principle for blacks to settle in a "white man's land" except as Uncle Tom'ing servants and laborers. The whites they were talking to didn't need to have met the blacks in question, or been hurt by them in any way. Now, do you call that a "natural" reaction? I suppose it is if you are a KKK member.