Who is at fault for the trouble in Gaza
 

Now that the Palestinians have had their own state now for a few years (Gaza) and things don't appear to be going very well, who is at fault?

evolution takes time.
Rika

When are the Israeli's going to leave all of the Palestinian's land?

Wow

see them as 2 steps away from a wood club,
let them kill each other.
no loss
Rika

They're not going to.

Yes, they are. It's only a matter of when.

One thing is certain, the US government will be forced to stop giving the Israeli's a 4 billion dollar grant every year to facilitate their theft of the lands belonging to other people.

****ting in your own yard ,is not rewarded by letting you **** in my yard.
you could give them Tahiti, and they would f@ck that up..
Rika

Read about the Camp David Accords of 1978. You might learn something.

$4billion is $4bil too much to give to any foreign country.
But then again we're spend somethign close to that every day(week?) in Iwreck.

Religeon be damned. The problem is develope-able/agriculture-able land, and water. Palestinians breed like bunnys and space is running out and Israel has to import to keep up. This would also be a problem if it truelly because a numerically-representative regional democracy.

Israelis currently do everything to impeed the Arabs economy(land confiscation, restrictions, checkpoints etc..), and Arabs currently take every progressive liberty to wreck violence and shoot themselves in the foot. I think it was "goto 10" in Basic.

Eye for an eye makes the world blind. They are both foreign countries.

I don't know where you got that idea from, sounds like AIPAC propaganda.

Every time the Palestinians build infrastructure, the Israeli's bomb it, then cut off the water into both Gaza and in some areas of the West Bank. The Israeli's continue to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank, and to hold Palestinian land within what is now shown as Israel.

The Israeli's have broken far more UN resolutions than any other mideast country.

If the Arabs laid down their weapons today, there would be peace tomorrow. If the Israelis laid down their weapons today, there would be no Jews left alive in the Middle East.

That's pure Israel Lobby agitprop, and nothing else.

The Israeli's must returned all stolen lands, then there might be peace.

And who stole the land from the Jews in the first place?

No one, unless you want to go back to the Roman times. Even that is tenuous because most of the european Jews that moved to Palestine haven't a single drop of Semitic blood running in their veins.

That most of the Jews that moved to Palestine, came from europe and haven't a single legitimate claim to the land in the mideast, just like I don't have a claim to any of it.

The claims by europeans who happen to be Jews to the land would of course establish a Christian claim to the land, and I suppose I should assert a claim on it too. That would be theft, just as the Israeli's are perpetrating today.

On the other hand, it is to the advantage of the Middle Eastern Muslim states to keep the situation at a low roiling boil. Had the "displaced" peoples been welcomed into other ME countries, there would have been no long term problem, especially after three generations. Look up the policies of the other countries. They would rather keep the Palestines where they are rather than incorporate them into other middle east nations. It keeps the conflict alive.

What civilization does not have somewhere in its history, the fact they took lands from others? Not defending or accusing, just pointing out that the one thing we can depend on geopolitically is continual change.

Using that rationale, I and 100,000 others of documented Scottish decent, should smuggle guns and ourselves into Scotland, get backing of some large and powerful country in the UN, and take back all the lands taken from us by the English 500 years ago.

Do I really need to tell you that the above isn't rational, but taking back land from which your father was evicted 60 years ago, or less, is legitimate?

And just who did the Scots take it from in the first place? And who did the forerunners of the Scots get it from?

It is an unending drama, pat....I never ends. Every beginning is the end of something else. Let's keep it Civil and logical, huh?

Doesn't Israel/Palistine really belong to the Caenanite's, or whoever was there before them?

Let's not forget we are all living on American Indian tribal lands, fresh from less than 200 years ago.

John..

How easily we forget when we have an axe to grind!!!

<G>

FREE THE INDIANAPOLIS FIVE HUNDRED!!

Yes, we all know that the Palestinians practice a religion of Peace and Love. I'm sure that if Israel disarmed, the peace-loving Palestinians would also put down their weapons....and stop strapping bombs to their children so they can blow themselves up in crowded Israeli shopping malls.

Pat, you're so insighful. :rolleyes:

Some of the land wasn't being used by anyone, and some of the land was purchased from the previous owners fair and square. Most of the land in South Carolina was acquired that way at first, or by aiding one tribe to conquer another tribe. That was pretty common in the 17th century colonization period.

Since far more Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli's, I'd say that there's enough "murder for religion" for both sides. There is no indication that the Israeli's want peace with the Palestinians using the lawful borders of Israel as drawn up in 1948.

Quote:

I'm sure that if Israel disarmed, the peace-loving Palestinians would also put down their weapons....and stop strapping bombs to their children so they can blow themselves up in crowded Israeli shopping malls. Pat, you're so insighful. :rolleyes:

Since you have nothing with which to support your implied point, the above statement is utterly meaningless. The Israeli's are no better than the Palestinians in the conflict.

Let the above statement stand alone as a testament to the writer's absurd ignorance.

Prove it big boy.

In order to do that, you'll have to show how the europeans who immigrated to Palestine from the mid to late 19th century acquired the land on which to establish their settlements, and how they acquired the land from the British after 1918, and then how they acquired the land from 1948 on to today, and how they did all that legitimately.

I always thought they sold it for a really, really good price and then moved to Lithuania.

For the first time ever, I actually think fastpat is right. That's scary.

As I see it, a group of people lived in a place, some of them for generations, and after WWII, a bunch of other countries, came in through the people who had lived there for years off of their land and gave that land to the Jews. The people who had lived there for many years were then given some crap land. I suspect that if the rest of the world ganged up and did the same with Texas, or Alaska, or Florida, or California, that the rest of America would probably fight until we won which is what the Palestinians are doing.

Well, it was British land before they gave up the Mandate (approved by the League of Nations in 1922) in 1947 and passed it on to the UN. "Palestinians" weren't thrown off the land -- they left in order to allow the Arab armies to kick the brand-new Israelis off the land. Oops. Didn't quite work. The descendants of those that didn't leave are still Israeli citizens.

In 1947, the population breakdown in "Palestine" was roughly:

630,000 Jews
143,000 Christians
1.181 million Muslims

Are you for real? Do you watch the news? Any news? When was the last time an Israeli committed a suicide bombing in a public venue full of Palestinian civilians? Maybe a public school bus, or restaurant? Just when I start thinking you actually have a teaspoon of common sense, you prove me wrong.

You're getting very predictable my friend. When backed into a corner of common sense, you predictably spout a meaningless statement like the one above. Stick to Medical advice...you seem to have some knowledge in that arena at least.

That's not what happened either. See references to the Stern Gang, looking specifically at Avraham Stern, the Irgun, and others of the Zionist movement. Real ethnic cleansing.

The Israeli's did exactly that when they didn't have weapons provided by the US government, see the King David Hotel bombing for the best known example, there were many others. Now they use Apache helicopter to murder Palestinians.

pat....

Are you always correct or does it just seem that way? Do you ever agree with anyone except yourself?

Seems to me that there are more problems in this world that any single nation or group of nations will ever resolve. The matter of who owns what has been played over and over since before recorded history. Egypt. Mesopotamia, Persia, Roman Empire, Germania, etc. etc. etc.. Get over it. Winners occupy territory lost by others. As to the "honerable purchase of land" from native Americans, let us (a) remember the difference in understanding between the sellers and the buyers and (b) come out west and discuss this with the Navajo, the Zuni, the Hopi, the Apache, all of whom fought to preserve their land and were either relocated or relegated to other locations in the country against their will.

Others have points of view that are at least as valid as yours.

That being said, the U.N. and the White House could profit from your advice. Why not volunteer? Simply sharing it with us will not solve the myrad problems!!

Bob, keep in mind that I'm not advocating any overt action by anyone here. What I am demanding, because some of what you say is correct, is a cessation of action by the US government underwriting any side in the mideast conflicts. The area, rightly called Chaostan by author and financial advisor, Richard Maybury, will never been completely settled and calm. We Americans need to ensure that we stay out of the problems there.

Hey...

I agree it would be nice if all of these foljs would just sing Kumbya and realize their common background, but it ain't gonna happen. Isolationism didn't work in the first part of the twentieth century, nor fif it work after(during) the Great epression. The world is so damn small now that we are less than 35 minuts from anyone anywhgere "reaching out and touching someone" with a thermonuclear device.

My argument is that we are going at it in a ham handed way; no finesse, no guile, just a real bad case of pr!ck waving, which always results in escalation.

But, having said that, the world ain't perfect, and there will always be strife somewhere. The basic idea is to keep one's head down, but be prepared to intervene whan and only when absolutely necessary, and do it with overwhelming force.

Bob, is your keyboard scrogged, or is this the after happy hour posting? :)

That's a partial truth. The "Palestinian" exodus was a combination of voluntary and involuntary. Read all about it on Wikipedia .

It is curious that you revere the death squads and suicide bombers of Iraq, referring to them as "freedom fighters". But you refer to Irgun and Lehi as "ethnic cleansers". Oh yea. They're Jewish.

I don't revere any of them. I list them to show that US government involvement is wrong, wrongheaded, and completely unnecessary.

It might be worth mentioning the underlying motivations for the "voluntary" exodus of the Palestineans.

No intervention. Non-interventionism isn't isolationism of any kind.

Jim

My keyboard is wierd and sometimes has a mind of its own. I have had it checked and it did the sam to the tech. I have to slow down when I type and that drives me nuts since then I think faster than I type!!

pat: Respectfully: In what essential ways do non-intervention and isolationism differ?