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 (246895)	10/29/2007 9:35:39 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Sarman, I hope you know you jest. The situation in '48 was so much more complex than your simpleminded portrayal it is ridiculous. Did Jews commit some wrongs against Arabs in '48? Undoubtedly. Did Arabs commit some (I would say "many") wrongs against Jewish residents of the area in '48? Undoubtedly. It was neighboring Arab states that failed to recognize the UN mandated partition, and marshalled military forces against Israel, not the other way around. You and Chris can point to however many maps you wish, but the truth is those maps would look very different if they had accepted the partition as the best of a bad situation, and decided in '48 to try to get along with the Jews. But there were people in Egypt and Syria in particular for whom that wasn't acceptable. Certainly until Assad the Elder was dead, the maps in Syria of Syria included the place you call "Palestine" as part of its territory, as well as Jordan and Lebanon. Perhaps we should go back in time, and call all of the inhabitants of those lands "Syrians," make one country out of it, and then see what a wunnerful peace we'll have in the mideast. When you start banging the drums for the tens of millions of other refugees of the 20th century for their "right of return", then perhaps I'll be slightly more sympathetic. Then again, maybe not. You're simple minded rhetoric makes it difficult to feel any sympathy for your cause.

To: SARMAN who wrote (246895)	10/29/2007 10:33:39 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The Palestinian refugees should have the right to return to their land. If you think that really makes any sense, please tell me 1- What % of the original Pal refugees actually had land ownership stolen from them? For example, someone who rented a flat and ran away during the fighting didn't lose any land. What % of the original refugee population had land stolen? 2- What % of today's Pal refugees have even lived in the land today called Israel? Most of them weren't even alive when Israel came into formation, so how many of today's "Pal refugees" previously lived in the land now called Israel? Methinks the answer to both of these questions is a single digit percentage. If I'm correct in that assumption, doesn't the policy of "the Pal refugees should have the right to return to their land" not make any sense because......there's 4 million of them, almost none of which lost any land, and almost none of which have ever lived in the land now called Israel? Why in the world would a 40 year old Palestinian parent of 3 in the Gaza strip want to be at war with Isreal rather than peace inside of Gazastan in order to have the right to return somewhere he has never lived and where his ancestors owned nothing? That's your average Gazan. And that is a conscious invidual choice which he makes, not something that is forced on him like a transvestites predicament. It's totally ridiculous.