Different era of history Viking. Israel was created in the modern era of international cooperation to prevent global conflicts so the rules that have been adopted in order to prevent this must be equally applied to Saddam's Iraq and to Israel if they are to have the desired effect of preventing a 3rd World War.
PrintSmith wrote: Different era of history Viking. Israel was created in the modern era of international cooperation to prevent global conflicts so the rules that have been adopted in order to prevent this must be equally applied to Saddam's Iraq and to Israel if they are to have the desired effect of preventing a 3rd World War.
Fair enough. So when did the modern era of international cooperation start? Was there something signed? Or is it just a common knowledge thing? And I am asking seriously not sarcasticly. (sp?)
I suppose one could say that it started with the failed League of Nations after WWI and became a reality with the inception of the United Nations following WWII. After WWI and the reality of trench warfare and WWII and the reality of industrialized technology ruling the battlefields, the world was pretty much done with local bickering leading to global conflict and the creation of nuclear bombs really altered what the next global conflict would bring with it. The United Nations gave every nation a venue to air their complaints without starting a war and the Bretton Woods agreement pretty much ended the ability of a nation to drastically alter the value of their currency against other currencies and established the USD as the reserve currency of the globe. At the time, these two things were thought to be the principle cause of both world wars and these creations were hoped to address this.
The Viking wrote: So do we need to give back Texas and a good portion of the Western US to Mexico as it was theirs before 1848. Or what is the cut off? Just curious what you think the difference is.
That's a good question, especially when Americans living in what was Mexico tell Mexicans to "go back to Mexico." We paid for the land -- granted it was half the price of the original offer before the Mexican-American war started, but we bought it. Mexico lost 55% of its territory as a result.
President Ulysses S. Grant, who as a young army lieutenant had served in Mexico under General Taylor, recalled in his Memoirs, published in 1885, that:
"Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory."
Nah, if we did gave back that territory, then we'd have to give back the rest of the United States to the native Americans.
I was only suggesting Israel give back the Gaza Strip to avoid having to deal with it. Or do you think Israelis also have a "manifest destiny"? The West Bank and Golan Heights seem to not be a problem for Israel as much as the Gaza Strip is.
Wayne - they occupy the Gaza strip in the name of security.
There's more protest about the blockade than the occupation of the area. Frankly, most of the occupants of Gaza don't consider Gaza their home. Most of the people that now live in Gaza think their home should be in what is now Israel.
Fully two-thirds of the population of Gaza are either refugees from 1948 - or they descend from refugee.
They were evicted....
Israel refuses to accept their return, and most Arab countries refuse to "absorb" them into their population (it would be accepting Israel)
The people of Gaza have been homeless for over 60 years - caught in the middle of an endless political dispute. Some of them still want their home back. They still remember the days they lived there.
Take 1.5 million homeless people --- cut them off from the outside - and build walls around them in the name of security --- shoot them every time one of their kids runs at one of your soldiers with a sling shot. Demolish their homes with tanks and F16s - and then act totally surprised when they get angry at you. Refuse to allow paper over the border, and then marvel at the fact that their schools are inadequate.
That's been Israel's policy toward Gaza.
I don't think ceasing the occupation will help. I think economic and social development will help --- in maybe 30 years.....
I'm a Native American (a privledged one). I see a lot of similarities between what we see in Gaza and what we see with the reservation system.
I do not see the cessation of Israel as even a remote possibility. Nor do I see absorbing Palestinians as a likely outcome (both Lebanon and Jordan are wary of absorbing any more - I don't think Egypt is interested, either). The only solution I see is statehood and development.
400 million wouldn't be a bad start --- but that's only about 267 USD per person. Palestine needs a lot more than that to survive.
I know why they occupied the Gaza Strip, Bud. Their grand plan was to settle it with Israelis but that didn't quite work out. Now, it's pretty much back to the way it was before they occupied it. It's got its own government now. there are lots of tunnels going from Egypt into Gaza that are used to smuggle in all sorts of weapons and contraband. So they are just as insecure now as they were before they occupied it. There is no point in keeping it.
Mike Rosen had a guest on today who said Palestinians got more aid per capita than any other group. I would like to see the numbers but I have heard before that the press will spin stories to show the starving people of Gaza when they are actually pretty well off compared to most Arabs.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
bailey bud wrote: Wayne - they occupy the Gaza strip in the name of security.
There's more protest about the blockade than the occupation of the area. Frankly, most of the occupants of Gaza don't consider Gaza their home. Most of the people that now live in Gaza think their home should be in what is now Israel.
Fully two-thirds of the population of Gaza are either refugees from 1948 - or they descend from refugee.
They were evicted....
Israel refuses to accept their return, and most Arab countries refuse to "absorb" them into their population (it would be accepting Israel)
The people of Gaza have been homeless for over 60 years - caught in the middle of an endless political dispute. Some of them still want their home back. They still remember the days they lived there.
Take 1.5 million homeless people --- cut them off from the outside - and build walls around them in the name of security --- shoot them every time one of their kids runs at one of your soldiers with a sling shot. Demolish their homes with tanks and F16s - and then act totally surprised when they get angry at you. Refuse to allow paper over the border, and then marvel at the fact that their schools are inadequate.
That's been Israel's policy toward Gaza.
I don't think ceasing the occupation will help. I think economic and social development will help --- in maybe 30 years.....
I'm a Native American (a privledged one). I see a lot of similarities between what we see in Gaza and what we see with the reservation system.
I do not see the cessation of Israel as even a remote possibility. Nor do I see absorbing Palestinians as a likely outcome (both Lebanon and Jordan are wary of absorbing any more - I don't think Egypt is interested, either). The only solution I see is statehood and development.
400 million wouldn't be a bad start --- but that's only about 267 USD per person. Palestine needs a lot more than that to survive.
I thought the Palestinian refugees were told to leave in 1948 by the Arab states to avoid being caught up in the upcoming battle. The Arabs who stayed in Israel live in relative peace with the Jewish majority.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Aid to Israel ranks third in the world on the above source (only behind Iraq and Afghanistan). Aid to Israel is 25% higher than aid to Egypt --- and that's before we adjust for Egypt's population of 81 Million (more than 10 times Israel's)
Per capita aid to Israel is more than double that of Palestine.
To be fair - most of Israel's funding is military aid, and most of Palestine's support is economic and social development aid.
