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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (797192)	7/26/2014 12:50:26 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1582491

So, as far as male lineage goes, the genetic story is very clear. Palestinians and Jews are virtually indistinguishable.

To: combjelly who wrote (797192)	7/26/2014 1:00:12 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1582491

>> Actions count. Words not so much. They do. But ultimately, there are two concepts of who "owns" a piece of ground -- the one that the world generally uses is "might makes right" -- the more powerful entity, the one who conquers the other, gets the land. For as far back as history goes, that has been the measuring stick. Right or wrong, that's been it. If you beat the other guy you get the land. The other way is to look at it is a moral or righteous entitlement. Who has the moral attachment to a piece of land. If a conqueror takes a piece of land, for example, and builds it into a thriving society that's one thing. If the same conquest results in the land decaying and becoming a wasteland, that is something else. If a conqueror forms meaningful attachment to the land over time, that's one thing, while conquering the land only to allow it to waste away is something else. Under both of these criteria, the Jews own the land. I really don't know of any other criteria so it is difficult to understand the Arab/Palestinian argument. While the Arabs have been the conqueror in the past, right now -- today -- the Jews are the conquerors. And there is really no way to conclude that Arabs have formed any real attachment to the land; they never turned it in to anything. In fact, it was rotting away when the Jews took it over. I just don't get the basis of the argument.