31
   

THE WAR IN GAZA

 
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:09 am
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Foofie wrote:

I would like Palestineans to live where they are, and end the facade that they are a people. They are Arabs, just like the Arabs that invaded Egypt, and made Egypt an Arab state. In other words, Palestineans could become citizens of other neighbors, and still live where they are.

The English invaded North America -- that doesn't make me English. The Portuguese invaded and colonized Brazil -- those people are not Portuguese. Likewise the Arabs invaded North Africa (among other places) but those people are not ethnically Arabs. They share a language and a religion. If the native Americans asked for their land back as recompense for their years of suffering, would it be ok to ask that all of us here who are not native American go and live in one of the many many other Anglo nations?

Foofie Replies:
EGYPTIANS ARE ARABS. AND EGYPT WAS NOT ARAB, BEFORE THE EGYPTIANS INVADED, AND CONQUERED THE LAND. THE PALESTINEANS ARE ARABS AND COULD BE EGYPTIANS TOO, IF EGYPT WAS GIVEN POLITICAL HEGEMONY OVER GAZA.

Quote:
Unless I am totally wrong, these so-called Palestineans have not built up their areas for the last 60 years, other than some apartment buildings. Where is their economy? Where is their water-works, electric plants?

I think it would be highly unusual to see such developments under occupation. Do you seriously wonder why they don't have these things or are you being deliberately obtuse? Have you thought about it at all?

Foofie Replies:
THE OCCUPATION WAS FROM 1967. SO FROM 1948 TO 1967 NOT ONE WATER FACILITY, NOR ELECTRIC POWER PLANT COULD BE BUILT?

Quote:
I believe, the western nations have had to spoon feed them to move forward as a voting democracy.

A democracy requires a state.


Foofie Replies:
THEY ARE A DEMOCRACY. THEY DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED HAMAS AS THEIR GOVERNING AUTHORITY.
masterk17
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:12 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Foofie Said:
Unless I am totally wrong, these so-called Palestineans have not built up their areas for the last 60 years, other than some apartment buildings. Where is their economy? Where is their water-works, electric plants?


Are you ******* kidding us? They have no water. They have no real natural resources. No access to shipping through a port city. No industry. No financing or underlying infrastructure. What do you expect them to 'build up?' This is one of the dumbest and most insulting things you've ever written, Foofie; you're blaming the prisoners for not making the prison a nicer place on the inside, when it's your people who have starved and choked them off from the outside world.


Can I just add, that during this freedom thing that we are enjoying now, whats the problem in not building a country, imagine in on a smaller scale Foofie, if you left your home, and lived otherwise, but you still own the old one, but you just left it there, would that give me the right to access it and built it up ., justifying my occupation for it just because you left it, by the way Cycloptichorn, I totally agree with you.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:15 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Palestine is not, and never was, a country. There was the British Mandate, which the UN divided in two. Israel formed a legitimate and recognized country in the West. The Pals will not accept a country in the East, but is holding out for the entire territory. ...


This is perhaps the most oft-repeated and tiresome canard of Zionist rationalizers. Many political entities existed in Palestine through recorded history; ranging from Jewish, Cananite and other kingdoms to the Roman & Byzantine Empires and, after the fall of the latter, the Ottoman Empire. For centuries Palestine was governed as a Province of the Ottoman Empire and the Arab & Semitic peoples there, Moslem, Druz, and Christian, lived together in relative harmony. In 1914-1918 the British and the French overthrew the Ottoman Empire in an unjustified, aggressive war. Afterwards they divided the territory of the former Empire (outside of Anatolia) between them; France taking what is now Syria and Lebanon and (theoretically at least) Mosul, or the northern section of what is now Iraq. Britain took the rest, including Palestine (then known petroleum resources played a significant role in the division). In part to secure financial support, Britain promised the leaders of the European Zionist movement an eventual "homeland for Jews" in Palestine. At about the same time they also promised the Hashemite family (then rulers of Mecca & Medina) the rule of Palestine as an Arab kingdom. In due course they broke both promises - first to the Hashemites at Versailles, and later, after WWII, the Zionists.

In the aftermath of WWII, the combined effects of The Holocaust, the huge dislocation of peoples in Europe, and lingering European anti Semitism combined to make a mass movement out of what had once been a very small cadre of Zionists among European Jews. It is hard to fault the motivation and desperation of the European Jews who fled to Palestine, by the hundreds of thousands to create a new homeland for themselves. It is a great and ironic tragedy that the early Zionist leaders among them chose to pursue an exclusively (or predominantly) Jewish controlled state in the new homeland they sought, thereby inflicting on others in the Mideast what had been imposed on them in Europe. Systematic displacement of Palestinians from their former land and homes was the result, and it was often done by force and terror. The rest is the all-too-familiar history of war and murder we know too well.

The stunning Israeli victory in the 1967 War left them in military control of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights in Syria. While Israel ostensibly pursued a "Land for Peace" strategy with her defeated neighbors, it also embarked on yet another systematic displacement of Palestinians from their former homes and land in each of the occupied regions - it was clear from the start that Israel had no intention of ever relinquishing major areas of the West Bank. In now over 40 years of military occupation and rule, Israel has isolated the Palestinain population of the West Bank in separate cantonments that together now occupy less than half of the total area of the region. Israel thus has a stranglehold on the economic and social lives of the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, but accepts no responsibility whatever for their freedom and welfare. Israel promotes the fiction of Palestinian self-rule under conditions, imposed by them, that permit neither.

Now "outraged" by continuing Palestinian resistence, Israel inflicts total war on the population of Gaza.

While Israel attempts to snuff out the lives of Palestinians, Advocate pretends they also have no history.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:23 am
@georgeob1,
Excellent post, I agree 100%.

Cycloptichorn
masterk17
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:26 am
@FreeDuck,
Foofie wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I believe, the western nations have had to spoon feed them to move forward as a voting democracy.

Free Duck wrote:
Quote:

A democracy requires a state.


And the state consists of 3 elements: 1- People. 2- Ruling and 3- Region.

unfortunately for them, they can breed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Twisted Evil
Wake up Foofie please. Drunk
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:26 am
@Cycloptichorn,



The civilized world shows no mercy toward terrorist and their sympathizers.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:28 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

EGYPTIANS ARE ARABS. AND EGYPT WAS NOT ARAB, BEFORE THE EGYPTIANS INVADED, AND CONQUERED THE LAND. THE PALESTINEANS ARE ARABS AND COULD BE EGYPTIANS TOO, IF EGYPT WAS GIVEN POLITICAL HEGEMONY OVER GAZA.

So, the Egyptians were not Arabs, but then the Arabs invaded, so now they are all Arabs. What happened to all of the people who lived there who were not Arab? They are a mix, as with every other North African Arabic speaking country. They are not the same people as the Palestinians or the Jordanians, or the Syrians or anyone else.

That doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that the Egyptians could not still absorb the Gaza strip as their own territory and the people with it. But you realize what a huge undertaking that would be and that there are many refugee camps that would come with it. You are asking another country to take on huge population of poor and dispossessed people so that Israel can have their land. If this happens, then Israel should pay compensation for what it took.

Quote:

THE OCCUPATION WAS FROM 1967. SO FROM 1948 TO 1967 NOT ONE WATER FACILITY, NOR ELECTRIC POWER PLANT COULD BE BUILT?

What is your evidence that this is the case.

Quote:

THEY ARE A DEMOCRACY. THEY DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED HAMAS AS THEIR GOVERNING AUTHORITY.

Right, they have the power to choose their leaders, but if Israel does not like their choice they are crushed with a blockade, among other things. That's not democracy, that's servitude.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:34 am
More than likely, there will never be anything even remotely resembling peace over there. The conversation here is evidence of that.

The two state solution will never work; the one state solution will never work; the no state solution probably will never be given serious consideration.

These people will continue to slaughter each other from now 'til the end of time...unless one of them gets lucky and completely annihilates the other.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:40 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

These people will continue to slaughter each other from now 'til the end of time...unless one of them gets lucky and completely annihilates the other.

I really don't believe that's true. The people, for the most part, want peace. Many Israeli's are willing to give up land for that. Many, if not most, Palestinians are willing to accept the reality of Israel for that. If we/they stop letting the most extreme elements of their respective societies (minorities in both cases, I believe) make all of the decisions then you will see peace there. The US could do a lot to make it happen, not by being an impartial negotiator (we clearly are neither) but by refusing to continue enabling Israel to continue down its path to self-destruction. It could stage an intervention of sorts. No more weapons, no more money, until an honest effort is made to resolve the conflict.
Foofie
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:18 pm
@FreeDuck,
I choose not to argue; there is no room for agreement. Adios.
Foofie
 
  0  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:21 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Now "outraged" by continuing Palestinian resistence, Israel inflicts total war on the population of Gaza.



You know that the correct term is "outrage"? "Total war"?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 12:28 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

I choose not to argue; there is no room for agreement. Adios.

I know what you choose.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:07 pm
@FreeDuck,
I get your message, Duck.

It took a long time and much reflection to get as pessimistic as I am on the Middle East. My normal inclinations are extreme optimism…in my world, the darkest cloud has a silver lining.

The huge word in your post, as is so often the case, is the word “IF.”

Quote:
If we/they stop letting the most extreme elements of their respective societies (minorities in both cases, I believe) make all of the decisions then you will see peace there.


You know the old saying, “If the Queen had balls, she’d be King!”

It is almost axiomatic that “the extreme elements” rule the day…everywhere. Moderation, by its very nature, cannot compete. I don’t see the (even if they are) overwhelming majorities of moderates in either camp being able truly to rein in the (supposedly relatively few) extremists. And I am not so sure the majorities and minorities in these areas are as lopsided as you think.

Quote:
The US could do a lot to make it happen, not by being an impartial negotiator (we clearly are neither) but by refusing to continue enabling Israel to continue down its path to self-destruction. It could stage an intervention of sorts. No more weapons, no more money, until an honest effort is made to resolve the conflict.


This is, in my opinion, a non-starter, Duck. Can’t ever happen. The motivation for why the US acts the way it does on this issue is beyond repair. If it were truly a matter of principle at work here, I might concede the possibility…but we are not unfailing backers of Israel because of principle…not by a long stretch.

I’m an ex-bartender. One thing you learn early in bartending is that certain parties have to be separated. They cannot be allowed to mix…because NEVER is there a decent resolution. Mostly disputes in bars end up with one or both parties banned from the bar. It is the only solution that works.

Arabs and a state of Israel in the Middle East will never mix.

The “IF” is way, way, way too big.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
This is, in my opinion, a non-starter, Duck. Can’t ever happen. The motivation for why the US acts the way it does on this issue is beyond repair. If it were truly a matter of principle at work here, I might concede the possibility…but we are not unfailing backers of Israel because of principle…not by a long stretch.

I know. That's why I said "could". I don't really expect that to happen unless and until we are so hamstrung by our own problems that we are no longer able to provide Israel with the kind of support they need to continue on their present path. That possibility, btw, is way more likely than any sudden stand on principle.

Quote:
I’m an ex-bartender.

Me too.

Quote:
One thing you learn early in bartending is that certain parties have to be separated. They cannot be allowed to mix…because NEVER is there a decent resolution. Mostly disputes in bars end up with one or both parties banned from the bar. It is the only solution that works.

Hmm, well, I learned that men love to be verbally abused and that a circular bar is the most efficient for speed of service. But I won't argue.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Thank you again Cyclo for saving me the trouble of saying it. You have a better way with words anyway.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:42 pm
@georgeob1,
Amazing post georgeob! Just made my day Very Happy
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:44 pm
I happen to be an optimist, and there is one thing about current world events that makes me even more optimistic.

The World Economy is in a tailspin.

It is all about economics. This conflict... like all conflicts... will end when the two sides can no longer afford to keep fighting. Currently Israel is fighting because they think they will profit from it (i.e. gain uncontested control of the valuable land in the region). Some of the Palestinians are fighting because they are profitting... and some because they have nothing to lose.

A deep world-wide recession makes war more painful to the people who are currently pushing for it. After all, all of these bombs cost money... and war is not good for most businesses.

Many people who don't seem to care about schools or children or families being bombed or rocketed by one side or other. But not even the most hard-line zealot on either side can ignore the economic realities.

Let's hope the world economy keeps tanking - for the children's sake.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:45 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

These people will continue to slaughter each other from now 'til the end of time...unless one of them gets lucky and completely annihilates the other.

I really don't believe that's true. The people, for the most part, want peace. Many Israeli's are willing to give up land for that. Many, if not most, Palestinians are willing to accept the reality of Israel for that. If we/they stop letting the most extreme elements of their respective societies (minorities in both cases, I believe) make all of the decisions then you will see peace there. The US could do a lot to make it happen, not by being an impartial negotiator (we clearly are neither) but by refusing to continue enabling Israel to continue down its path to self-destruction. It could stage an intervention of sorts. No more weapons, no more money, until an honest effort is made to resolve the conflict.


This makes sense to me. From everything I've read and seen, the civilians on both sides are not the ones who have a problem with eachother, so this sounds like it could work.

<Waving to FreeDuck>
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:49 pm
Funny that ebrown and FreeDuck both came up with the "economic crisis" scenario.

Could be!

Could be!

Gotta cross our fingers, legs, and anything else that can be crossed without lottsa pain.

I just wish, for everyone's sake, that this thing would just stop.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Mon 12 Jan, 2009 01:54 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I just wish, for everyone's sake, that this thing would just stop.


Me too.

(Hiya, Montana!)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » THE WAR IN GAZA
  3. » Page 21
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 11:16:55