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 (246898)	10/29/2007 10:12:04 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"A country that did not exist" Sarman, A "country" is a political and legal fiction. Countries were essentially "created," in a legal sense, in 1648 by the Treaty of Westphalia, as a way of attempting to forge political order in Europe. If you wish to talk about "countries that did not exist" you would have to speak of "Palestine" as well. Indeed, as I wrote in the previous post, there were plenty of Arabs who didn't think that Palestine existed either, including Assad. Nor did "Lebanon" or "Jordan" (or Transjordan, as the area was known then). Indeed, if you accepted the pan-Arabist line of Egypt's Nasser back in the 50s, there was only one Arab "country." But of course, no one could ever figure out who would be in charge of it. The UN partition was, like the Treaty of Westphalia, an attempt to bring some political order to an area that was bitterly conflicted. It was Arabs who rejected that compromise first and foremost. Sarman, you are the one who doesn't know anything about political history. And either you don't know much about Arab political history of the mid 20th century, or you pretend you don't in order to project a "righteous" stance on this board.

To: SARMAN who wrote (246898)	10/29/2007 10:42:47 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 281500

Why should the Arabs accept a creation of a country that did not exist Because there was no country there, and the then rulers of the land (the Brits) were leaving. Arabs didn't have to accept anything when the people who live in that unclaimed land decide to join the nation-state system of the world. The Arabs could choose to fight the locals in the goal of setting up their Arab-style preferred nation. And......the Arabs lost. There was a fight, and the Arabs lost. They lost the fight. The other side won, the Arabs lost. So the question you should ask is why should the Arabs accept the idea that they fought a war with the people who wanted to create Israel, and lost?