No shit? Thats your argument? That I stated WWII instead of I? After WWII Hitler had killed of a lot of Jews, so they obviously needed to make a quick decision.

My friend,you made a misleading summary about the origin of the State of Israel tracing it to post WWII decisions by Britain and France.Stop trying to obfuscate issues.

It was known as the British Mandate of Palestine. It was supposed to be a joint Jewish/Palestinian state. The Arab league rejected the deal but Israel declared Her independence anyway.

See how you are tieing yourself in a knot.4Him already pointed things out for you.There was no Palestinian state in 1948 or ever.If you are pointing at the British Mandate of Palestine as your Palestinian state,you must be having a laugh.

As for the Arabs rejecting a deal,therein lies the answer to the root of the problem.Since when did the consent of any particular people,in this case the Arabs,become a pre-condition for the creation of a state?

This is how Africans deceive themselves.You are asking for Arab consent,in our continent,did the colonial masters ever seek our consent in manufacturing nation states?

We just saw what happened in Kosovo,nobody sought the Serbs permission to carve out from their land,what historically has been their cultural and religious home.

All this is in many way besides the point.The creation of the state of Israel was approved by the UN,it wasn't open for the Arabs to reject it.At no point in history has it been open to any particular people to reject as they please,what is mandated by law.

Again, No shit? What does this have to do with this argument anyways? You do know Arabs are Semitic peoples right?

You raised the point that "the jihad foundation has flourished there ever since." Jihad has been 'flourishing' in that part of the world for centuries,indeed,it was jihad that brought the Arabs to what we refer to as Palestine in the first place.

As for the Arabs being Semitic,what has that to do with anything.Are Tigrinyans in Ethiopia also entitled to "Palestine" as much as the Jews because they are Semitic?

There's indigenous Gypsies in more than 5 Eastern European Countries, What's your point, that the UN can just carve out a state for them without approval from the neighboring Nations and They can just declare independence without their approval and the west would accept it? C'mon dude. Listen I'm not against Israel's right to exist, but a deal should have been reached with the Palestinian Arabs/Palestinians who were the majority ethnic group living there before Independence was declared.

Never mind that the Gypsies are mostly Romani people who migrated from India,you are ahistorical in your approach.

As for the UN simply carving out land without the permission of neighboring nations,which neighboring nation are you refering to?As Bawomolo asked you,where our neighbors asked before carving out Nigeria?That part of the world was at that point colonial territory,just like nobody's permission was ever sought in creating nation states in the African colonial territories,same applied there.

A deal was reached and approved by the UN.Its not open to one group of people to simply say,we reject the decision of the international community under the auspices of the UN and we are going to obstruct it no matter what.

Ironically,today many Arabs are willing to accept much lesser land than they were originally offered.Unlike the Kurds,Berbers,Nubians et al whom the Arabs have historically bashed to submission,the Jews proved a more obstinate neighbor.

JayFK:

You have to understand that this Israel situation is a very unique situation
No piece of Land has been fought over that much. The British, French(Christians), Jews and of course M'uslims have all fought over it.

The question we should be trying to understand is what is it about a tiny patch of desert that some would sacrifice their own children for? Is there oil there? No.
Is there water? No.

What really is there? Why would mus'lims in Nigeria, Iran, Egypt, Somalia be so virulent about destroying the Jews? Do you still think  its all about land?

JayFK:

so I'm trying to establish a line of reasoning here.
Jews were a minority in the British Mandate of Palestine about 1/3 of the population.

This is an oft quoted lie.
When you talk about the British Mandate of Palestine you erroneously also include Jordan. Now when you take jordan (which makes up 85% of the original mandate and is 95% arab) out of the equation then Jews were by far the majority population in what is now Israel.

JayFK:

Only thing here is, a lot of Jews do not call the Land of Israel home, since their great grandparents have since been living on European lands.

that is again not true. Ever heard the phrase . . . "this time next yr in Jerusalem"?

JayFK:

Now historically thats maybe 2 or 3 Millennia ago and according to the bible, the Jews conquered the Lands and settled there. Now more recently, more than half a millennium ago, Arabs conquered the Lands and have settled there. So who really lays claim to the Land? The conquered or the conqueror?

That again is NOT TRUE. Arabs conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD but were kicked out in 1099 AD by the crusaders.
Dont confuse issues . . . the Turks are mus'lim but NOT arabs.

Here is an excerpt from Karl Marx's article that appeared in the New York Tribune in 1854 - the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course . . .

- Note here that the 4000 mus'lims here does not equte to 4000 arabs which means as at 1854 there were less than 4000 arabs in the entire city of Jerusalem.

JayFK:

I think a similar situation would be South Africa where Europeans have made their home for maybe the last 4/5 generations? Can Africans just all of sudden establish an all black country, relocate them to another part of the country and become Independent from them? Do they really have that right?

See above, no one relocated the arabs . . . they were never there in the first place.

JayFK:

I agree with you there though, this isn't about Land at all it is solely religious, it is basically about who lays claim to Jerusalem. Great One's don't care at all about the Palestinians they just see Palestinians as their proxy to Jerusalem because of their faith.

At least your eyes are begining to open to the REAL truth.

JayFK:

so I'm trying to establish a line of reasoning here.

We have come round to go around in a circle again. Same old thing being spouted. When Israel pulled out of Gaza, who has been firing rockets at Sderot almost 24/7 for the past 3 years with no reaction from Israel?

When Israel and the West Bank were talking peace recently, who went and began launching rockets at Israel's large border city in order to provoke a reaction so that the peace talks collapse? Who has a constitution sworn to the destruction of Israel? Who has sworn never to have peace with Israel? Who was celebrating and handing out free sweets at the news of the death of 8 Jews?

Carry on trying to establish a line of reasoning. It is clear who doesn't want peace.

JayFK is conflating the Mandate of Palestine with what we now know as Palestine.The two are different.

4Him:


Here is an excerpt from Karl Marx's article that appeared in the New York Tribune in 1854 - the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course . . .

- Note here that the 4000 mus'lims here does not equte to 4000 arabs which means as at 1854 there were less than 4000 arabs in the entire city of Jerusalem.

@4Him,
Karl Marx's quote was restricted to Jerusalem and not the entire region of Palestine in 1854! Or are you trying to assert that the population distribution of Jerusalem mirrored that of the entire region of Palestine in 1854? Using city statistics as an indication of regional statistics doesn't make much sense.


@JayFK, was right when he pointed out that the Jews were a minority in Palestine. As a matter of fact, the Jews were a minority in every region/nation/country they resided in before the 1948 creation of the state of Israel.

4 Play:

My friend,you made a misleading summary about the origin of the State of Israel tracing it to post WWII decisions by Britain and France.Stop trying to obfuscate issues.
See how you are tieing yourself in a knot.4Him already pointed things out for you.There was no Palestinian state in 1948 or ever.If you are pointing at the British Mandate of Palestine as your Palestinian state,you must be having a laugh.

As for the Arabs rejecting a deal,therein lies the answer to the root of the problem.Since when did the consent of any particular people,in this case the Arabs,become a pre-condition for the creation of a state?

This is how Africans deceive themselves.You are asking for Arab consent,in our continent,did the colonial masters ever seek our consent in manufacturing nation states?

We just saw what happened in Kosovo,nobody sought the Serbs permission to carve out from their land,what historically has been their cultural and religious home.

All this is in many way besides the point.The creation of the state of Israel was approved by the UN,it wasn't open for the Arabs to reject it.At no point in history has it been open to any particular people to reject as they please,what is mandated by law.

You raised the point that "the jihad foundation has flourished there ever since." Jihad has been 'flourishing' in that part of the world for centuries,indeed,it was jihad that brought the Arabs to what we refer to as Palestine in the first place.

As for the Arabs being Semitic,what has that to do with anything.Are Tigrinyans in Ethiopia also entitled to "Palestine" as much as the Jews because they are Semitic?

Never mind that the Gypsies are mostly Romani people who migrated from India,you are ahistorical in your approach.

As for the UN simply carving out land without the permission of neighboring nations,which neighboring nation are you refering to?As Bawomolo asked you,where our neighbors asked before carving out Nigeria?That part of the world was at that point colonial territory,just like nobody's permission was ever sought in creating nation states in the African colonial territories,same applied there.

A deal was reached and approved by the UN.Its not open to one group of people to simply say,we reject the decision of the international community under the auspices of the UN and we are going to obstruct it no matter what.

Ironically,today many Arabs are willing to accept much lesser land than they were originally offered.Unlike the Kurds,Berbers,Nubians et al whom the Arabs have historically bashed to submission,the Jews proved a more obstinate neighbor.

@4 Play,

This you new-found admiration and respect of international law possess you is an about-face much welcomed. Though I'm a bit surprised because you've shown much disdain towards international law, particularly when the law does not suit your interests.

Seeing that you now respect international law, can you tell me why you support Israel's refusal to obey UN resolution 242, a piece of international law?

RichyBlacK:

@4 Play,

This you new-found admiration and respect of international law possess you is an about-face much welcomed. Though I'm a bit surprised because you've shown much disdain towards international law, particularly when the law does not suit your interests.

Seeing that you now respect international law, can you tell me why you support Israel's refusal to obey UN resolution 242, a piece of international law?

Look at this hypocrite.For someone who doesn't care about Iran's disobedience of 2 Cap 7 Resolutions,he is bringing up a Cap 6 Resolution that places no unilateral obligations on Israel.

RichyBlacK:

@4Him,
Karl Marx's quote was restricted to Jerusalem and not the entire region of Palestine in 1854! Or are you trying to assert that the population distribution of Jerusalem mirrored that of the entire region of Palestine in 1854? Using city statistics as an indication of regional statistics doesn't make much sense.

Mr do you need glasses? I will reproduce the very statement that you quoted, note the words in highlights:

Here is an excerpt from Karl Marx's article that appeared in the New York Tribune in 1854 - the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course . . .

- Note here that the 4000 mus'lims here does not equte to 4000 arabs which means as at 1854 there were less than 4000 arabs in the entire city of Jerusalem.

Now mr . . . where did you see me use the city statistics to refer to the entire region?

RichyBlacK:

@JayFK, was right when he pointed out that the Jews were a minority in Palestine. As a matter of fact, the Jews were a minority in every region/nation/country they resided in before the 1948 creation of the state of Israel.

You seem to have a problem with rational reasoning . . . Jordan comprises 85% of the original British Palestinian Mandate and has a population that is 95% Arab.
You may have a point when you say that Arabs were probably in the majority (there were only about 141,000 muslims - arabs and turks in the entire Palestine as at 1882) . . . prior to 1922 when Jordan was finally carved out.
To claim that Arabs WERE STILL in the majority in what finally became Israel is to be CRIMINALLY DECEPTIVE.

@topic,

I sympathize with the people of Israel who have to suffer the consequences of the actions of its government.

I have no iota of sympathy for the government of Israel. It's evil policies has only created more problems for everyone in the region.

I sympathize with the Palestinian people for all they've been true both in the hands of the IDF (a terrorist organization) and the Arab allies of the West, mainly Saudi Arabia and Egypt. These Arab governments are tools of the West and only put up a show to make it seem like they give a damn.

I sympathize with the legitimate, democratically elected government of the people of Palestine - Hamas. The West in their infinity hypocrisy refused to recognize Hamas even though Hamas came into power by a democratic process - the people of Palestine voted in Hamas.

RichyBlacK:

I sympathize with the legitimate, democratically elected government of the people of Palestine - Hamas. The West in their infinity hypocrisy refused to recognize Hamas even though Hamas came into power by a democratic process - the people of Palestine voted in Hamas.

hahahaha what a ridiculous man this RichyBlack is turning out to be. Are you a joke?
Hitler was a "legitimate, democratically elected" president of the people of Germany in 1938-1945 . . . cared to sympathise with him and the German people during WWII?

A "democratically elected government" whose sole purpose is the anihilation of an entire race has no basis crying for recognition from the very people they have sworn NEVER to sit at a table with.

RichyBlacK:

@topic,

I sympathize with the people of Israel who have to suffer the consequences of the actions of its government.

Is it an offence for a government to militarily protect the very people who voted them into power?

4Him:

Mr do you need glasses? I will reproduce the very statement that you quoted, note the words in highlights:

Here is an excerpt from Karl Marx's article that appeared in the New York Tribune in 1854 - the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans and 8,000 Jews. The Mussulmans, forming about a fourth part of the whole, and consisting of Turks, Arabs and Moors, are, of course . . .

- Note here that the 4000 mus'lims here does not equte to 4000 arabs which means as at 1854 there were less than 4000 arabs in the entire city of Jerusalem.

Now mr . . . where did you see me use the city statistics to refer to the entire region?

You seem to have a problem with rational reasoning . . . Jordan comprises 85% of the original British Palestinian Mandate and has a population that is 95% Arab.
You may have a point when you say that Arabs were probably in the majority (there were only about 141,000 Mu'slims - arabs and turks in the entire Palestine as at 1882) . . . prior to 1922 when Jordan was finally carved out.
To claim that Arabs WERE STILL in the majority in what finally became Israel is to be CRIMINALLY DECEPTIVE.

That's what I'm trying to tell you. There is no way that the population of the entire region of Palestine in 1854 was a mere "15,500 souls". That figure and the accompanying demographics outlined by Karl Marx was most likely for the city of Jerusalem and not the entire region. But JayFK (and now you) were discussing the region and not the city.

RichyBlacK:

That's what I'm trying to tell you. There is no way that the population of the entire region of Palestine in 1854 was a mere "15,500 souls". That figure and the accompanying demographics outlined by Karl Marx was most likely for the city of Jerusalem and not the entire region. But JayFK (and now you) were discussing the region and not the city.

I clearly outlined the fact that i was refering specifically to Jerusalem in that piece. See my first response to you above.
We dont have reliable census figures for the entire region but at least we have that for Jerusalem.

The Ottoman census figures say there were no more than 141,000 mus'lims (including Turks and Arabs) as at 1882 in the entire mandate of Palestine.

4Him:

hahahaha what a ridiculous man this RichyBlack is turning out to be. Are you a joke?
Hitler was a "legitimate, democratically elected" president of the people of Germany in 1938-1945 . . . cared to sympathise with him and the German people during WWII?

A "democratically elected government" whose sole purpose is the anihilation of an entire race has no basis crying for recognition from the very people they have sworn NEVER to sit at a table with.

You should first compare George W. Bush to Hitler before comparing Hamas. Why should Hamas recognize the state of Israel when Israel does not recognize it?

RichyBlacK:

You should first compare George W. Bush to Hitler before comparing Hamas. Why should Hamas recognize the state of Israel when Israel does not recognize it?

1. Comparing Bush to Hitler? Are you well?

2. Ah now we start to play musical chairs with facts eh? Why and on what grounds do you expect Israel to recognize an organization whose very charter calls for their destruction?
Would you advocate that Nigeria recognize MEND as a legitimate political party?

RichyBlacK:

You should first compare George W. Bush to Hitler before comparing Hamas. Why should Hamas recognize the state of Israel when Israel does not recognize it?

What a mangled comparison.If Hamas didn't recognise say Likud or the Labor party,that would be the equivalent of Israel not recognising Hamas.Hamas is a Palestinian organisation not the Palestinian state.

Further,don't cry more than the bereaved.Hamas has never for one moment hinged their non-recognition of the right of Israel to exist on grounds of Israel's failure to recognise it.It hinges its policy totally on theological grounds-that you can't have an infidel state on M'uslim land-hence raising Israel's non-recognition of Hamas is a red herring.

Israel has to shift its policy from that of a country under siege to one willing to make friends in the region. Without a honest attempt to make friends in the region, real friends, the siege mentality will persist in Israel and that will surely and always hamper its growth.

also, listening to hard-line neocons, Republicans and fundamental Christians in the US will not help Israel in the long run. Israel has to learn to become more friendly and shun its racist, bigoted and Apartheid policies. This is the sure way of winning true friends, one Arab at a time. America on its part has to push for true democracy in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and stop hugging dictators and oppressors.

Furthermore, the age of using nuclear bombs to settle scores was brief and it's already over - Israel was late . Those 200 or so nuclear war heads Israel possess will become useless and rust to nothingness in a decade.

4Him:

1. Comparing Bush to Hitler? Are you well?

2. Ah now we start to play musical chairs with facts eh? Why and on what grounds do you expect Israel to recognize an organization whose very charter calls for their destruction?
Would you advocate that Nigeria recognize MEND as a legitimate political party?

Many people have made that comparison (Hitler-Bush) and I won't claim to the first.

Why is what is written in their charter more important than what they can potentially do if Israel is willing to extend a hand of friendship to a legitimately elected party? We've been on this path before and we agreed that the possibility of human actions is far greater than what is written in a book. You recall? Don't go down this path of "what is written", you'll just be entering a cul de sac.

RichyBlacK:

Israel has to shift its policy from that of a country under siege to one willing to make friends in the region. Without a honest attempt to make friends in the region, real friends, the siege mentality will persist in Israel and that will surely and always hamper its growth.

look Richie . . . lets be honest, there was no Israel in 1948 when the Arabs refused to accept the 2-state solution in favour of destroying the budding Jewish state. How else do you want them to make friends with those who went to Khartoum and returned with the 3 No's?

RichyBlacK:

also, listening to hard-line neocons, Republicans and fundamental Christians in the US will not help Israel in the long run. Israel has to learn to become more friendly and shun its racist, bigoted and Apartheid policies. This is the sure way of winning true friends, one Arab at a time. America on its part has to push for true democracy in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and stop hugging dictators and oppressors.

Pls mention these racist, bigoted and apartheid policies?
Have you read Hamas constitution? Ever read the PLO's charter?
Arabs have more rights in Israel than in Gaza and the WestBank . . . how is Israel that has a 20% Arab population who have equal rights under the law as any Jewish citizen racist?
The same Israel gave outright citizenship to about 300 refugees from Darfur without conditions . . . even Sudan cannot guarantee the safety of its own citizens while Egypt turns away these same refugees . . .
On what grounds do you accuse Israel of being partisan?

RichyBlacK:

Furthermore, the age of using nuclear bombs to settle scores was brief and it's already over - Israel was late . Those 200 or so nuclear war heads Israel possess will become useless and rust to nothingness in a decade.

What is the significance of this? Without those nuclear weapons as detterent Iran and Iraq would have bombed Israel out of existence. I dont hear u crying about the nuclear weapons in the possession of Pakistan and India . . . infact i remember you claiming that the Iranians had a right to develop nuclear weapons.

Why are those possessed by Israel a problem to you?

RichyBlacK:

Many people have made that comparison (Hitler-Bush) and I won't claim to the first.

That others have made this misguided assertion is not proof that it is right.

RichyBlacK:

Why is what is written in their charter more important than what they can potentially do if Israel is willing to extend a hand of friendship to a legitimately elected party? We've been on this path before and we agreed that the possibility of human actions is far greater than what is written in a book. You recall? Don't go down this path of "what is written", you'll just be entering a cul de sac.

Bros, be honest . . . we can't just wish away a declaration of intent in favour of "what they can potentially do". These people show us what they can potentially do anytime they send suicide bombers into cafes and let loose gunmen in libraries of seminaries.
I ask again . . .  how do u want Israel to extend a hand of fellowship to thsoe who are more preoccupied with sending 50 rockets a day into Sderot and Ashkelon?

You ask us to ignore "what is written" and then turn around to use deliberately twisted quotes made in 1938 by dead men as proof that the Israel of today simply wants to blow the citizens of Gaza to smitherens . . . care to also ignore what is "quoted"?

4Him:


What is the significance of this? Without those nuclear weapons as detterent Iran and Iraq would have bombed Israel out of existence. I don't hear u crying about the nuclear weapons in the possession of Pakistan and India . . . infact i remember you claiming that the Iranians had a right to develop nuclear weapons.

Why are those possessed by Israel a problem to you?

That in bold is not true. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and hence is not supposed to develop nuclear weapons. What I've said consistently is that Iran has every right in this universe to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

4Him:

Bros, be honest . . . we can't just wish away a declaration of intent in favour of "what they can potentially do".

Its not just a mere declaration of intent but a policy position that has been put in practice by Hamas since its inception.For instance,during and after the Oslo Accords' adoption,Hamas intensified their terror campaign in order to sink the deal.

Its not a negotiating position nor some mere rhetorical declaration but something which is a product of a particular interpretation of their religion.It is this intransigent position that many rabid Israel haters seek to wish away as not really important. I wonder if they will be saying that if the ruling Israeli party had in its constitution,a declaration that the Palestinians had no right to statehood.

4Him:

You ask us to ignore "what is written" and then turn around to use deliberately twisted quotes made in 1938 by dead men as proof that the Israel of today simply wants to blow the citizens of Gaza to smitherens . . . care to also ignore what is "quoted"?

Stop the confusion. I did not post the quote by Ben Gurion.

What I'm saying is that Israel needs to shift policies. This siege mentality is hurting Israel very badly and it has to stop.

The real problem in Israel is leadership. Most of the leaders have had no vision for seeing Israel out of the trench it's been fighting from for decades. A leader with a vision is what is needed. Unfortunately, the last visionary leader we saw from Israel was assassinated by a fellow Israeli. Too bad!

RichyBlacK:

What I'm saying is that Israel needs to shift policies. This siege mentality is hurting Israel very badly and it has to stop.

Read 4 Play's last post . . . it would be good if u people begin to see issues with your thinking caps on. Israel has had to fight for her very existence since 1948 . . . and you accuse them of having a siege  mentality?
They have to endure rockets fired into schools, hospitals and day care centers everyday, they have to endure the constant sniper fire and the very real threat of suicide bombers everyday . . . and u accuse them of having a siege mentality?

RichyBlacK:

The real problem in Israel is leadership. Most of the leaders have had no vision for seeing Israel out of the trench it's been fighting from for decades. A leader with a vision is what is needed. Unfortunately, the last visionary leader we saw from Israel was assassinated by a fellow Israeli. Too bad!

looks like what is really needed is that you people get some eyeglasses so you can see the truth sitting right under your noses.
Israel was attacked in 1967, was it for lack of leadership vision?
Was the intifada as a result of an Israeli lack of leadership?

Na wa o.

RichyBlack . .  i notice you have been DELIBERATELY avoiding the real issues, prefering to respond to irrelevant points. Care to answer the very real questions staring u in the face?

4 Play:

Its not just a mere declaration of intent but a policy position that has been put in practice by Hamas since its inception.For instance,during and after the Oslo Accords' adoption,Hamas intensified their terror campaign in order to sink the deal.

Its not a negotiating position nor some mere rhetorical declaration but something which is a product of a particular interpretation of their religion.It is this intransigent position that many rabid Israel haters seek to wish away as not really important. I wonder if they will be saying that if the ruling Israeli party had in its constitution,a declaration that the Palestinians had no right to statehood.

4 play,

The question is how does Israel get out of this 60-year siege? Do you have any ideas on this? Are you aware that the this problem has stunted the growth of Israel? Can you imagine what Israel would have been without this tench-mentality that its leaders have relied upon for too long?

Without good answers to these questions, I don't see things getting better even after the state of Palestine is created. Israel needs to change its policies from that of "we are the Jews, the chosen ones and the Gentiles are barbaric" to that of "we are all Semitic people and monotheists, we can all work together".

4Him:

Read 4 Play's last post . . . it would be good if u people begin to see issues with your thinking caps on. Israel has had to fight for her very existence since 1948 . . . and you accuse them of having a siege mentality?
They have to endure rockets fired into schools, hospitals and day care centers everyday, they have to endure the constant sniper fire and the very real threat of suicide bombers everyday . . . and u accuse them of having a siege mentality?

looks like what is really needed is that you people get some eyeglasses so you can see the truth sitting right under your noses.
Israel was attacked in 1967, was it for lack of leadership vision?
Was the intifada as a result of an Israeli lack of leadership?

Yes, they've fought to defend themselves but that is old news. They need to start thinking about their future.

The last intifada was started because Ariel Sharon was a visionless leader who was trapped in the battles of the past. His visit of the Temple Mount was poorly orchestrated and triggered that intifada.

RichyBlacK:

4 play,
The question is how does Israel get out of this 60-year siege? Do you have any ideas on this? Are you aware that the this problem has stunted the growth of Israel? Can you imagine what Israel would have been without this tench-mentality that its leaders have relied upon for too long?

If its "stunted growth" you are worried about,worry more about Israel's Arab neighbors.Apart from the oil rich Gulf Arab states,for obvious reasons,Israel's GDP per capita dwarfs that of its Arab neighbors by large margins and is comparable to Western nations.

So,worry about the "stunted growth" in belligerent Arab states first before worrying about an economically and technologically advanced nation like Israel.

RichyBlacK:

The question is how does Israel get out of this 60-year siege?

You're asking the wrong question for obviously dishonest reasons. Israel is an established nation, those who have the problem are those who have just set the world record as the world's longest serving refugees. 60yrs!

RichyBlacK:

Do you have any ideas on this? Are you aware that the this problem has stunted the growth of Israel? Can you imagine what Israel would have been without this tench-mentality that its leaders have relied upon for too long?

richyBlack did you drink beer this night?   The Israeli economy had an 8% growth rate in 2006, higher than that of any western nation. It had a GDP percapita of $31,767  in 2007 and has an inflation rate of -0.1%

the INTEL chip was invented by the Israelis and they have their own silicon valley . . .

and u consider their growth stumped?   Now care to tell us how the economy of Gaza has fared in the hands of Hamas?

RichyBlacK:

Without good answers to these questions, I don't see things getting better even after the state of Palestine is created. Israel needs to change its policies from that of "we are the Jews, the chosen ones and the Gentiles are barbaric" to that of "we are all Semitic people and monotheists, we can all work together".

To start with, Israel has no such policy. Perhaps you want to direct your hypocritical policy change call to the right party . . . the arabs.

RichyBlacK:

Yes, they've fought to defend themselves but that is old news. They need to start thinking about their future.

Newsweek Magazine listed Tel Aviv as one of the ten most technologically influential cities in the world in 1998. The Jews already have their future mapped out.
I think you shld be more worried about the futures of those professional refugees across their borders.

RichyBlacK:

The last intifada was started because Ariel Sharon was a visionless leader who was trapped in the battles of the past. His visit of the Temple Mount was poorly orchestrated and triggered that intifada.

Even the arabs don't believe this.

The Jewish mob are out in force.
It makes no sence to defend the Jews though, because its in their nature to be violent.
First Airline hijacking in the middle east (You guessed it) done by the Jews in 1954
First car bomb in the middle east (King David hotel killings) 1946 done by violent Jews

Newsweek Magazine listed Tel Aviv as one of the ten most technologically influential cities in the world in 1998. The Jews already have their future mapped out.
I think you shld be more worried about the futures of those professional refugees across their borders.

Sorry its not yet Uhuru, at a point they would have to sue for peace. Won't be too long now.