SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
Omar
Posts: 1552
Joined: August 27th, 2001, 12:17 pm

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 3rd, 2003, 11:26 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: MarsdenBut I think the over-riding determinant is still that there never would have been an Israel without British sponsorship of Zionism.I know so little of this very complicated history, but I remember reading how T E Lawrence was torn between his promises that he had made to his Arab friends, and his support for the Zionist movement. He knew that these were conflicting, and that something very wrong was bound to happen. Near the end, he said that he had betrayed the Arabs. Look, the British definitely promised the Zionists a land that didn't belong to them (neither to the British, nor to the Zionists). Following the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, this land was only under British "protection". An important factor of what happened next was the lessons learnt from the Armenian tragedy. The Turks slaughtered the Armenians earlier in the century. No one raised a finger. The Armenians were not "important" people. The Nazis were encouraged in their attempts to do the same to the Jewish people by the story of the Armenians. The Nazis had this idea that they could pull the same stunt on the Jewish people. In turn, the Zionists believed that they could do the same to the Palestinians. The Nazis were proved to be wrong. The jury is still out on the Zionists.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 2:07 am

Omar is not very original in comparing Israeli to Nazi. It is a cliche in Euro press and on this board. Why don't we do a comparison? Final solution was an ideology and mechanism of efficient, economical extermination of Jews. In a few years a very big nation with a lukewarm support of some other big nations killed 6 million of 11 million European Jews.Israel-Palestinian conflict continues for almost 60 years. There was never and there is no now ideology or organized mechanics for mass killing of Palestinians. Numbers differ, i'll use all estimates from above of Palestian losses. The largest by far number I've seen in 1948-1996 is 13,000 Palestinians. Add to that second intifada 650-1500 Palestinians and since then add 2000 Palestinians. These are the largest numbers, they also include various combatant losses, suicide bombers, palestinians killed by palestinians. Israeli have 1/3 of these numbers for palestinian casualties, and at most half of them civilians. Let's assume still 16,500 as total number of Palestinian casualties. Let's not even touch Israeli casualties. Palestinians who live in Israel, Gaza, etc are about 3 million people. We have about .5% killed during 60 years instead of >50% killed in less than six years. Percentagewise this is three orders of magnitude difference in the killing rate. Don't need a doctorate in theor physics to understand this is a bad comparison. Well, enough about israeli and palestinians. According to last estimates 3.3 million people died in Congo in last five years -- almost 10% of their population. About 2million died in Sudan in 83-89 war. Iran-Iraq war -- 1million iranians, about 300,000 iraqis. Afganistan -- over 1 million dead afgani, most of them civilians. By the way, these are also arabic, islamic countries. Mosambique -- 1 million people dead during 75-93. We are not talking about these millions dead, but several thousand palestinians constitute genocide. To put things into prospective, daddy Ased killed about 20 thousand of syrians putting down some unrest in syria in a course of a few days. Big deal, nobody even knows about it. Why? Let me tell you what i think. I just don't believe you guys give so much more crap about palestinians than about congolese, sudanese, iraqi, iranians, afgani, syrians, and the rest. The only conclusion i could make it is not about Palestinians. It must be then about the Jews.
 
User avatar
Omar
Posts: 1552
Joined: August 27th, 2001, 12:17 pm

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 4:13 am

The comparison was meant only in so far that in both cases an assumption was made that a small nation could be made to disappear. Your last statement to the effect that I'm anti-semitic is stupid. You are being absolutely stupid to label anyone critical of Zionist policy as anti-semitic. I have absolutely nothing against the Jewish people, or any other people for that matter. We are all equal as human beings. But then that's exactly the reason why I, and so many other people, are against Israeli policies.If anyone lacks originality, then it's exactly people like you, who so easily label other people as anti-semites.It's this narrow-mindedness, and lack of perspective that's getting all of us into so much trouble.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 4:42 am

hmm, Omar you repeated three times that you are not anti-semite and you seem very agitated. I never said or meant you were. As far as i could tell you are quite decent person, although prone to become carried away. What i said is that the problem is over-discussed, over-reported and over-blown by any imaginable measure. I tried to give a proof that it is not because the plight of Palestinians is unique in the modern world or even bad in comparison with other people involved in similar conflicts. In actual numbers it is quite insignificant compared to other conflicts and quite incomparable in any respect with what happenned with Jews in Nazi Germany. I repeat if it is not because of palestinians, the extreme light and attention this particular conflict attracts must be because of the jews. You called me stupid, narrow-minded and non-original. You must be really at a loss of arguments if you needed to say all three of those. At least i didn't see any argument where you would prove validity of your comparison between what Nazis and Zionist did. It seems to me you just repeated someone elses words without even troubling to think yourself, which you should.
 
User avatar
Omar
Posts: 1552
Joined: August 27th, 2001, 12:17 pm

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 4:54 am

Please don't patronize me. Go and read what you wrote again. Here it isQuote I just don't believe you guys give so much more crap about palestinians than about congolese, sudanese, iraqi, iranians, afgani, syrians, and the rest. The only conclusion i could make it is not about Palestinians. It must be then about the Jews. If this is not a hint towards what I took it to be, then what is? If I'm agitated it's because I know exactly what the words anti-semetic mean. Honestly, I think you use these insults around too lightly, or at least you have no clue what they stand for. You have to think a little bit. To throw around a line like "It must be about the Jews" is in very bad form.
Last edited by Omar on September 3rd, 2003, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 5:26 am

oh, dear. Omar, some may hate the Jews or love them, or feel whatever spectrum of other feelings to them. Anti-semitism was not my point specifically. Point was, the media gives so much attention to the conflict, it sells newspapers and cable not because the plight of palestinians is extreme in this world, could you just think about this simple statement? it is because a large number of people hates Jews, another large number likes them, and also because Israel is a relatively democratic country, any news about it is easy to validate and report. People and in particular people in this forum reflect this barrage of spotlight and talk about this conflict as if it is the only thing in the world and overblow it, like you quite frankly did. Could you relax about anti-semitism, if i accused you in something it was in another mindless repetition of the same stuff you read on this forum at no end.
 
User avatar
Omar
Posts: 1552
Joined: August 27th, 2001, 12:17 pm

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 10:02 am

It's no big deal, zerdna. I just wished to point out the silliness of your retort that whenever someone is critical of Israeli policy, then one must actually have something in mind "about the Jews", or that one is not thinking. Something that I've read repeatedly on this forum, and elsewhere. My personal safety is threatened by narrow minded assessments such as yours. What sort of thinking is that, when you so firmly believe that those who disagree with you are "not thinking"? I also care about the situation in Congo and in Sudan and in all the places you list. But since Sept 11, it's the middle east conflict, and only the middle east conflict, that is happily being fought in your neighbourhood, and quite soon, probably also in my mine. So I want to see everybody drop all these mindless, and cheap explanations of very delicate, and complicated issues.
Last edited by Omar on September 3rd, 2003, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 11:49 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaOmar is not very original in comparing Israeli to Nazi. It is a cliche in Euro press and on this board. Why don't we do a comparison? Final solution was an ideology and mechanism of efficient, economical extermination of Jews. In a few years a very big nation with a lukewarm support of some other big nations killed 6 million of 11 million European Jews.Israel-Palestinian conflict continues for almost 60 years. There was never and there is no now ideology or organized mechanics for mass killing of Palestinians. Numbers differ, i'll use all estimates from above of Palestian losses. The largest by far number I've seen in 1948-1996 is 13,000 Palestinians. Add to that second intifada 650-1500 Palestinians and since then add 2000 Palestinians. These are the largest numbers, they also include various combatant losses, suicide bombers, palestinians killed by palestinians. Israeli have 1/3 of these numbers for palestinian casualties, and at most half of them civilians. Let's assume still 16,500 as total number of Palestinian casualties. Let's not even touch Israeli casualties. Palestinians who live in Israel, Gaza, etc are about 3 million people. We have about .5% killed during 60 years instead of >50% killed in less than six years. Percentagewise this is three orders of magnitude difference in the killing rate. Don't need a doctorate in theor physics to understand this is a bad comparison. Well, enough about israeli and palestinians. According to last estimates 3.3 million people died in Congo in last five years -- almost 10% of their population. About 2million died in Sudan in 83-89 war. Iran-Iraq war -- 1million iranians, about 300,000 iraqis. Afganistan -- over 1 million dead afgani, most of them civilians. By the way, these are also arabic, islamic countries. Mosambique -- 1 million people dead during 75-93. We are not talking about these millions dead, but several thousand palestinians constitute genocide. To put things into prospective, daddy Ased killed about 20 thousand of syrians putting down some unrest in syria in a course of a few days. Big deal, nobody even knows about it. Why? Let me tell you what i think. I just don't believe you guys give so much more crap about palestinians than about congolese, sudanese, iraqi, iranians, afgani, syrians, and the rest. The only conclusion i could make it is not about Palestinians. It must be then about the Jews.I actually agree with most of what Zerdna writes. Where he goes wrong is with his conclusion that, "It must be then about the Jews." Probably for some people it is a matter of antisemitism, frankly. But Zerdna's logic is sloppy -- we have some data which he has categorized into "Jews involved" and "No Jews involved;" he has scaled it for degree of atrocity; and he has noted a concomitant variation in "Amount of attention paid" with the categories "Jews involved" and "No Jews involved." From this, he concludes, "It (the amount of attention paid) must be then about the Jews." Would anyone here subscribe to an investment strategy based on such crappy reasoning? Maybe we could identify that the hour from 2:30-3:30PM EST every fourth Thursday causes the S&P 500 index to go up by 1%.I would suggest that he look to another factor, namely "Degree by which the West underwrites the behavior." And with this, "Degree by which the West can control the behavior." Hopefully even Zerdna makes sure his own laundry is clean before criticizing his neighbors' clothes. If we look at these factors, it quickly becomes apparent that most of US foreign aid goes either directly to Israel or to Israel's neighbors on the condition that they remain at peace with Israel. The US could put an end to Israeli transgressions with a phonecall, if it could overcome domestic support for Israeli transgressions. The Congo, the Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, and the rest? Well, we already have a good idea what it would cost to end Iraqi and Afghani transgressions, and it's more than we're willing to devote to the problem even after committing ourselves to do something about it.What's really sad, though, is that virtually all arguments supporting Israel are this crappy. There's practically a cottage industry of coming up with new arguments to justify what Israel does and has done. I think the ethnic cleansing advocate Alan Dershowitz has recently joined the pursuit. If anyone ever comes up with an argument that's actually sound, that person should be declared the Messiah.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 12:26 pm

So why did they support Zionism, as in the Balfour Declaration?An artifact of WW I. Britain needed the support of some Zionists. "Support" is for me too strong a word. It went through some of the motions of this, but there was never a real policy to do it.I accept your scholarship on this matter, but these are selected statements. The actions seem far more muddled, implying a lack of clear consensus. they wanted an alien state created in the middle of the Arab world in order to keep a "Greater Arabia" from becoming a serious problem on down the road. Divide and conquer is a technique of Empire going back to the Romans. However, Israel cannot survive without a powerful patron willing to keep this "alien state" going, whatever the cost. Given the nature of policy making, it is really hard to see British interests being served by having to defend Israel. During this period the assumption had to be that the USA would not help, so it would have been awesomely expensive. Also, the most violent divisions in the ME were between different flavours of Islam, Jews just weren't much of an issue. If the Jewish settlers have even tried to act like civilised people, then Israel might today be a California in some confederation of ME states.They could have, for intance bought the land. This would not have been expensive, certainly a lot less than the subsequent wars.1940s Palestine was close to worthless, the Rothschilds could have swapped it for a tonne of gold.This view is consistent with the quotes you cite. There was a win-win scenario, there isn't now.Arab unity is as much a myth as European. The principle killers of both races have been their own race. Few Americans realise their incredible achievement in forging a diverse state with only one big war.if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.Frankly laughable. Even when one stops laughing, the historical context is my earlier post about Suez, and the routes to British posessions in in India and the Far East. Hence British, and to an extent European fears. Suez is now of much less significance, and trade with India is not critical to either side. There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources.Spacious because without good preparation most of it will kill you stone dead in an hour or two. It is not the "Empty Quarter" because they wish to preserve its ecosystem. They dominate the intersections of world routes.Past tense. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions.England invented soccer and tennis, we're as crap at them as Arabs are at civilisation. What someone did on land you happen to live on 2,000 years later is of no significance. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.I believe this to be the single most incorrect statement about Arabs that I have ever read.i think it is pretty accurate to say that Britain began strongly pro-Zionist,Pre WWII, the British establishment was pretty anti semitic, not as bad as the Europeans or Americans, but hardly pro anything that would help Jews. Maybe a few thought the idea of a homeland was a more humane path towards a final settlement of the Jewish quesiotn, but strongly pro Zionist ? No state anywhere was strongly pro Zionist. but even had there been no Zionist terrorism I think the British would have limped out of the place as quickly as they could. Yeah, maybe, hard to tell given that Egytian situation. However, there is a model to be followed in Greece, where Britain also had interests following WWII. The short version is that the economy simply couldn't support force against the threats from Communism, and America eventually started to help. We see modern Israel as an American client. However the early settlers were very much to the left of the spectrum. Given American interests in oil, if the US had seen a threat, it might have backed the Arabs when keeping the peace. The Russians although no friend of Jews, might have seen the chance to kick the British empire on its way down, and supplied help to the Zionists, thus ensuring the USA did not like them at all.In short, if the British had put up more of a fight and lasted longer, there is a good chance that we'd have Jewish suicide bombers fighting against an oppressive Palestinian state backed by the USA. If one looks at US/Israeli relations for the first 20 years of its existence, the idea that Israel was not inevitably a US ally looks pretty plausible.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 12:31 pm

thanks marsden. if i take the usual complementing adjectives out of your post, your statement is it is about US. I guess it is a part of it. I don't want to argue whether the phone call or stop of aid from US would have stopped this conflict -- i personally think it's pretty naive. If i remember correctly, US was not involved for a long time, it didnt stop this conflict or Arab-Israeli wars. However, I didn't make any projections or suggestions or offering on how to stop the conflict. I didn't advocate anything about Zionists or Israel which i don't know that much about. I didn't defend the treatment of Palestinians. The context of my argument was that 1) comparison between Nazi and Zionist/Israeli that is so often heard here, has no factual merit. 2) the conflict between israeli and palestinians is comparatively small in terms of a death toll and violence as far as modern conflicts go. My conclusion was that the reason for the extreme attention lies not in the extremity of the conflict, but elsewhere. It could be founded in pro/anti/americanism instead of a pro/anti/israeli sentiment, it is really immaterial for the argument.
 
User avatar
DominicConnor
Posts: 11684
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 12:35 pm

I accept Maelo's point about Bush being a combatant.What about my mum the bomb maker ? Was she a combatant ?What about civil servants ? In war transport links such as trains are critical, are train drivers combatants ?A lot of guarding, repair work and manufacture is done by civillians, who then is a valid target ?A friend of mine arranges for the British government to pay for nuclear submarines, tanks et al, is he a valid target ?My firm helps them do this are we ?In most large wars, the churches, mosques and synagogues help maintain morale to imporve the war effort, and of course some of their staff serve as chaplains.Feel free to give your answer, but mine is simply that if someone is contributing to the military effort, they are a valid target.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 12:53 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: OmarIt's no big deal, zerdna. I just wished to point out the silliness of your retort that whenever someone is critical of Israeli policy, then one must actually have something in mind "about the Jews", or that one is not thinking. Something that I've read repeatedly on this forum, and elsewhere. My personal safety is threatened by narrow minded assessments such as yours. What sort of thinking is that, when you so firmly believe that those who disagree with you are "not thinking"? I also care about the situation in Congo and in Sudan and in all the places you list. But since Sept 11, it's the middle east conflict, and only the middle east conflict, that is happily being fought in your neighbourhood, and quite soon, probably also in my mine. So I want to see everybody drop all these mindless, and cheap explanations of very delicate, and complicated issues.i didn't see your Nazi/Zionism comparison as a critique of Israeli policy -- i didn't see any policy discussion in your post. I said that you are not thinking because you are reluctant to talk of facts, are very emotional and repeat something that has been said for a million times with little attempt to prove it to yourself. Whole reason i passed on these words so many times and replied to you is that i know you must have had training of proving things to yourself. Indeed mideast is in my neighbourhood. However, connection between terror in US and palestine conflict is rather remote to me. Even if i take Bin Laden's words for real reasons, it's one of the number of items, other as important being US presence in Holy places, Iraq, etc. Moreover, the notion Israel=Nazi as well as extreme spotlight on mideast existed lindependently of the context Sep 11 and long before mideast came to my personal neighbourhood.
 
User avatar
LongTheta
Posts: 1504
Joined: August 3rd, 2003, 6:06 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 1:55 pm

I doubt if in discussions such as these, anyone really listens to anyone else.
Last edited by LongTheta on September 3rd, 2003, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Amin
Posts: 2502
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 5:23 pm

LongTheta, I agree with you that it seems stupid to me to discuss these thngs on a forum. Many people do not care and those who care already have a mindset which they do not want to dump. Such discussions really get very polarized very soon.Now I really respect Jews. In Us, I saw that they generally have great ethics in tems of hardwork and love of scholarship and I was truly impressed by that. But some simple things about Arab-Israeli conflict simply do not seem right. Here are some observations.Israel occupied most of the Arab territories in 1967 war and Israel started the war under the pre-emptive strike pretext. Israel was the aggressor. But nobody for decades cared about whether Israel should return the lands to their inhabitants. Most of it Israel considers its integral part. I do not see how it could be condoned by anyone with a sense of justice.While any jew has a right to return after several thousand years, Palestinians that were forcibly removed from their homes just thirty years ago apparently do not qualify for any right of return and Israel considers it something it won't even argue about. Zerdna, you have a great knowledge of history and religions. Would you like to tell our friends what happened in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? Trust me it was modern Nazis.But again as I know, even several Israelis do not support these policies.
 
User avatar
Marsden
Posts: 3829
Joined: August 20th, 2001, 5:42 pm

Question to Paul-Is Nazilike propaganda allowed in your forum??

September 4th, 2003, 5:26 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCSo why did they support Zionism, as in the Balfour Declaration?An artifact of WW I. Britain needed the support of some Zionists. "Support" is for me too strong a word. It went through some of the motions of this, but there was never a real policy to do it.I accept your scholarship on this matter, but these are selected statements. The actions seem far more muddled, implying a lack of clear consensus.I wouldn't characterize Britain's acceptance of the Palestine Mandate, including being "responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home," as being muddled regarding its support of Zionism.Quote they wanted an alien state created in the middle of the Arab world in order to keep a "Greater Arabia" from becoming a serious problem on down the road. Divide and conquer is a technique of Empire going back to the Romans. However, Israel cannot survive without a powerful patron willing to keep this "alien state" going, whatever the cost. Given the nature of policy making, it is really hard to see British interests being served by having to defend Israel. During this period the assumption had to be that the USA would not help, so it would have been awesomely expensive.Much as with the US in Iraq, I suspect that the Brits underestimated the difficulty of the effort. I agree that Israel cannot survive without a powerful patron, but the real question is, did Britain realize that this would be the case and that the task would be too great for Britain? There was certainly not a small amount of rhetoric to the effect that the locals would welcome the Zionists. Whether or not those spreading the rhetoric knew that it was not really the case is not as important as whether the Brits hearing it believed it to be the case, and I suspect that many of them did. Add to this an early form of Christian Zionism in Britain, and I think it likely that they could have talked themselves into thinking they could do it.QuoteAlso, the most violent divisions in the ME were between different flavours of Islam, Jews just weren't much of an issue. If the Jewish settlers have even tried to act like civilised people, then Israel might today be a California in some confederation of ME states.They could have, for intance bought the land. This would not have been expensive, certainly a lot less than the subsequent wars.1940s Palestine was close to worthless, the Rothschilds could have swapped it for a tonne of gold.This view is consistent with the quotes you cite. There was a win-win scenario, there isn't now.That's simply not true, Dominic. The earliest Zionist settlers did buy the land they settled on. And they even went so far as to compensate fellahin (peasants) who they were displacing from tenant farms. But the land prices skyrocketed, and they simply could not afford to buy very much more. The Rothschilds dropped a lot of coin on the situation, but there simply was not enough money to accomplish what you suggest, particularly when the locals started realizing what was going on and doing all they could to limit land sales to Zionists.QuoteArab unity is as much a myth as European. The principle killers of both races have been their own race. Few Americans realise their incredible achievement in forging a diverse state with only one big war.Again, the perception mattered more than the fact: what did the British think was the case?Quoteif, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.Frankly laughable. Even when one stops laughing, the historical context is my earlier post about Suez, and the routes to British posessions in in India and the Far East. Hence British, and to an extent European fears. Suez is now of much less significance, and trade with India is not critical to either side.Most of the rest of your comments need to look more at the perception -- as suggested in the now laughable comments -- than at the fact.QuoteWe see modern Israel as an American client. However the early settlers were very much to the left of the spectrum. Given American interests in oil, if the US had seen a threat, it might have backed the Arabs when keeping the peace. The Russians although no friend of Jews, might have seen the chance to kick the British empire on its way down, and supplied help to the Zionists, thus ensuring the USA did not like them at all.In short, if the British had put up more of a fight and lasted longer, there is a good chance that we'd have Jewish suicide bombers fighting against an oppressive Palestinian state backed by the USA. If one looks at US/Israeli relations for the first 20 years of its existence, the idea that Israel was not inevitably a US ally looks pretty plausible.The State Department in the US was from the very beginning anti-Israel. They pretty reasonably decided that it was better to keep on good terms with 100 million oil-controlling Arabs than with 10 million Jews. US support for Israel has always, always been a domestic rather than a foreign policy matter.
Last edited by Marsden on September 3rd, 2003, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On