Adam Shostack writes:  > Sam Zbib writes    >>I'm surprised that you don't consider the acquisition of land by    >>the Jews from arabs, for the purpose of establishing an exclusive    >>state, as a hostile action leading to war.  >	It was for the purpose of establishing a state, not an > exclusive state.  If the state was to be exclusive, it would not have > 400 000 arab citizens.  Could you please tell me what was the ethnic composition of  Israel right after it was formed.    > 	And no, I do not consider the purchase of land a hostile > action.  When someone wants to buy land, and someone else is willing > to sell it, at a mutually agreeable price, then that is commerce.  It > is not a hostile action leading to war.  No one in his right mind would sell his freedom and dignity. Palestinians are no exception. Perhaps you heard about anti-trust in the business world.  Since we are debating the legality of a commercial transaction, we must use the laws governing the guidelines and ethics of such transactions. Basic ANTI-TRUST law says that, while you can purchase IBM stocks for the purpose of investing, you can not acquire a large number of those shares with the intent or controlling IBM. You can do so only if you make your intentions CLEAR apriori . Clearly, the Jews who purchased properties from palastenians had some designs, they were not buying a dwelling or a real estate. They were establishing a bridgehead for the European Jews.  The palastenians sold their properties to the Jews in the old tradition of arab hospitality. Being a multi-ethnic / multi-religious society, accepting the jews as neighbours was no different, just another religion. Plus they paid fair market value, etc... They did not know they were victims of an international conspiracy. (I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, but this one is hard to dismiss).   >>As to whether the Jews wanted to live in peace, maybe. >>However they wanted and still want an exclusively Jewish >>state, where Jews are in control and Jews are the masters of >>the land.  Living in peace is meaningless unless it means >>living *WITH* someone else, as equal. For a native arab, this  >>does not leave many options.  >	Oh, you mean like both Jews and Arabs being citizens?  The >arabs who stayed are now citizens, with as much right to choose who >they vote for as the Jews.  Again Adam, the devil is in the details. I don't want to get on a tangent here but its the same reasonning that says its OK to return 100 deportes and leave the rest. Because 100 is a nice number that you can devide by 10, 100 and besides, it has an integer square root.  >>Those palestinians who stayed, actually stayed despite of what  >>happened, and their number was somewhat tolerated as a defenseless >>and ineffective minority. >>If I were wrong, you'd have Israel recall all the >>palestinian refugees (we're talking millions). After all, >>they are civilians.   >	Huh?  The people who left, did so voluntarily.  There is no >reason for Israel to let them in.  Do you actually believe this? My experience tells me that every palestinian I knew still keeps the key to his home, in Palestine. Besides they often refer to their exodus as an escape from hell (so to speak). I know none that agrees with you. Did you sample their opinions? I know you don't care, just being rethorical.   >>Israel gave citizenship to the remaining arabs because it >>had to maintain a democratic facade (to keep the western aid >>flowing).  >	Israel got no western aid in 1948, nor in 1949 or 50...It >still granted citizenship to those arabs who remained.  And how >is granting citizenship a facade?  Don't get me wrong. I beleive that Israel is democratic within the constraints of one dominant ethnic group (Jews). Israel probably had a few options after 1948: ethnic cleansing Serbian style, and deserve the wrath of the international community, or make the best out of a no win condition: show the world how good Israel is towards the 'bad' arabs. Personaly, I've never heard anything about the arab community in Isreal. Except that they're there.  So yes, they're there. But as a community with history and roots, its dead.  >>	Tell me something, Sam.  What makes land "arab?"  >How shall I explain, Its a contract between the man and the >land.  Control isn't it. The Ottomans ruled 400 years, and >then left with barely a trace.  The concept of Land identity >is somewhat foreign to the mobile and pragmatic West.  It is >partly the concept of 'le sol natal', native soil.  I know >that jews had previous history in the region, but none in >recent memory.  I'm talking everyday life not archeology.  >	Try again, you tell me what its isn't, but you fail to > establish what it is.  >	Also, Jews did have history in Israel for over a thousand >years.  There were lots of Jews slaughtered by Crusaders in Israel. >There was a thriving community in Gaza city from roughly 1200-1500. >Jews were a majority in Jerusalem from 1870 or so onwards.  Does that >make the land Jewish?   I stand corrected. I meant that the jewish culture was not predominant in Palestine in recent history. I have no problem with Jerusalem having a jewish character if it were predominantly Jewish. So there. what to make of the rest Palestine?   > Adam Shostack 				       adam@das.harvard.edu  --  Sam Zbib                                         Bell-Northern Research ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bitnet/Internet: zbib@bnr.ca                    VOICE:  (613) 763-5889                                                 FAX:    (613) 763-2626 Surface Mail: Stop 162, P.O.Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7