Israel invades Gaza

[Islander]

And you think that is not enough? We need to send Americans over there to add to the total? Our objective in killing thousands of Vietnamese was to prevent death? Our objective was based on the fallacy of "domino theory". Who ridded the world of the Khmer Rouge?

These countries cannot realize that their problems are their own doing until the scapegoat of foreign intervention leaves them. That is exactly what happened in Vietnam. It was not until they were left alone to pursue their vision of communistic paradise that they were able to realize the futility of it all.

-a-train

I agree with you that the "domino effect theory was unsound in south east Asia. That is why I said that the example does not equate.

In terms of the Middle East I think it is quite different. Israel is a 5 million people tiny country surrounded by 600 million sworn enemies whom have declared that they will not rest until they will drive them into the Red Sea and destroy them. Enemies that do not accept the right of Israel to exist. I think it is safe to assume that without American support Israel would be gone by now. Some times you got to do what you got to do even when you do not like it. Just because you can not sit on the sidelines and do nothing. I use WW II in that context. The body count is incidental.

I reiterate my earlier point. After 50 years of deal making, meetings, treaties, negotiations and the like nothing has been achieved. Anyone (country or leader) in the ME that truly wants peace with Israel will be killed as Sadat was. Arafat was offered and got everything he wanted and he did not take the deal. He knew he could not if he wantesd to live. Fact: since June 2008 that the truce was negotiated Hamas fired 1000 rockets to southern Israel. I guess Israel's response is not popular but you would do what you thought was right given the circumstance. I would try something different, for example. Fact: Not one Arab/neighbor country denounced Hamas breaking the truce this years and firing at Israel, or their mob behavior when they attacked and effectively run out of town the legally elected Palestinian authority from Gaza. Not one meaningful word from the UN either, by the way.

This is a sad, unfortunate and protracted conflict; one nobody wants but there you have it.

[Rico]

So, you are saying we need to give Israel, a nuclear power with the most powerful airforce on the eastern hemisphere, more weapons so it can fight men with nothing but grenades, small arms, and RPGs? We further need to place santions on this enemy? And all this to "even the playing field"? Somehow, this enemy is so amazingly effective with these small arms and grenades, the Israeli military is not on an even playing field with them?

-a-train

Yeah, why not? We are currently supplying them with weapons. To not give them more weapons would be to completely stop selling them any additional weapons. Is that what you are advocating? I just want to be clear on that.

How will reducing Israel's access to weapons develop peace in the Middle East? You are certainly not suggesting any sanctions against Hamas. In fact, if Hamas wasn't attacking Israel in the first place, there would be peace in Gaza. How long have they been left alone to their own devices? A couple of years......but in that time even the Egyptians, fellow Arabs, were unwilling to open the Rafah border crossing.

[a-train]

Wow. I'm well-versed in irrational leaps, having made a few myself, but I've got to say that one was a doozie. Since we're having such a difficult time understanding each other, I think I'll exit stage right.

I anticipate engaging you in conversation in July, as I follow up on our little bet.

Peace out brother,

LM

I see you didn't argue with the example of the city of Enoch, the greatest city of God known to us. If you mean that self-defense is imperative to the survival of any nation in the face of scheming enemies, I'll quickly agree, but that is not the topic of our discussion. The issue I raise is that the United States need not subsidize the Palestinian/Israeli conflict nor take sides in it. Both activities only escalate hostilities and increase the loss of life and property.

Additionally, the justification of such destruction is simply not our place. Let Israel, which is clearly the military power of that region defend herself both physically and politically.

And gasoline is currently at its lowest real price in our lifetime, there can be no uncertainty that it will go up, and up a lot.

-a-train

[a-train]

I agree with you that the "domino effect theory was unsound in south east Asia. That is why I said that the example does not equate.

In terms of the Middle East I think it is quite different. Israel is a 5 million people tiny country surrounded by 600 million sworn enemies whom have declared that they will not rest until they will drive them into the Red Sea and destroy them. Enemies that do not accept the right of Israel to exist.

Jewish terrorists, in their efforts to establish the state of Israel said the exact same thing about 'aliens' who were then (1940's) inhabiting the land from the Nile to the Euphrates. They believed that Palestine, and Jordan had no right to exist.

These terrorists were awarded medals by the established state of Israel and were admitted into their military. Palestinian and other peoples living within those borders are justifiably concerned that they will be expelled just as have the many thousands to date. This is why the images in the OP are so poignant to inhabitants of that area of the world. They literally fear that the U.S., and other western powers, motivated by prospects of middle-eastern oil, together with Israel is scheming to establish an Israeli state extending into modern Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and completely consuming Palestine and Jordan. They literally believe that the ultimate goal is just as the early Zionists proclaimed: a state of Israel ten times its current size.

Can we blame them for these concerns? What has the last 50 years demonstrated? Perpetual war and a dramatic advance in the borders of Israel, combined with the overthrow of middle eastern governments by western powers both through covert CIA operations and direct military engagements.

I think it is safe to assume that without American support Israel would be gone by now. Some times you got to do what you got to do even when you do not like it. Just because you can not sit on the sidelines and do nothing. I use WW II in that context. The body count is incidental.

You brought the body counts up. On what should we place our assumption that the state of Israel would not exist without American tax dollars? And if that is true, why are we paying for it to exist? Why export Jewish Americans to Israel? Why pay to displace thousands of people and perpetuate a war? The truth is that the American support for Israeli military efforts comes mainly by virtue of Christian beliefs in end time prophecy. This is all driven home by the constant reminder of the holocaust in Germany.

I reiterate my earlier point. After 50 years of deal making, meetings, treaties, negotiations and the like nothing has been achieved.

Very much has been achieved. Just look at the maps. But yes, nothing has been achieved in terms of peace, so why will more of the same somehow make any difference? Isn't it time to try something else? We've been subsidizing the advance of Israeli borders and the death of thousands for all these years and it has not brought peace. Go figure, subsidizing and perpetuating war doesn't yield peace, who knew? What I am proposing is that we deescalate the conflict by withdrawing support of war and by trading openly with all middle-eastern countries fairly.

Anyone (country or leader) in the ME that truly wants peace with Israel will be killed as Sadat was. Arafat was offered and got everything he wanted and he did not take the deal. He knew he could not if he wanted to live. Fact: since June 2008 that the truce was negotiated Hamas fired 1000 rockets to southern Israel. I guess Israel's response is not popular but you would do what you thought was right given the circumstance. I would try something different, for example. Fact: Not one Arab/neighbor country denounced Hamas breaking the truce this years and firing at Israel, or their mob behavior when they attacked and effectively run out of town the legally elected Palestinian authority from Gaza. Not one meaningful word from the UN either, by the way.

And so what? Who are we the world police? We go around telling people what they should and should not say? We decide who is guilty and by what law in foreign lands?

This is a sad, unfortunate and protracted conflict; one nobody wants but there you have it.

So why then should we escalate the war by subsidizing both sides while justifying and aligning our foreign policy with one?

-a-train

Edited January 5, 2009 by a-train

[NeuroTypical]

If you mean that self-defense is imperative to the survival of any nation in the face of scheming enemies, I'll quickly agree, but that is not the topic of our discussion.

Agreed on both counts.

Let Israel, which is clearly the military power of that region defend herself both physically and politically.

So, I can understand the notion of "it ain't our problem" on a geopolitical scale. Let the other countries invade, take over, commit genocide on, themselves and each other - and we should just stay out of it all. Is that what you are saying?

I mean, if that's what you're saying, then fine. I just disagree with it. I'm of the opinion that the world is governed by the aggressive use of force. And the geopolitical game is structured such that if you're not an active player, you'll get played. And getting played through inaction really has no scriptural justification that I can find, City of Enoch references notwithstanding.

And gasoline is currently at its lowest real price in our lifetime, there can be no uncertainty that it will go up, and up a lot.

Yeah, whatever. The price you identified is $5/gal, and the date you identified is July 4 2009. Get that pink tutu ready!

LM

[a-train]

Yeah, why not? We are currently supplying them with weapons. To not give them more weapons would be to completely stop selling them any additional weapons. Is that what you are advocating? I just want to be clear on that.

Absolutely not. I am advocating free trade with ALL middle-eastern states and a complete cessation of foreign aid.

How will reducing Israel's access to weapons develop peace in the Middle East?

I am not advocating any effort to reduce Israeli weapons capabilities. Let them decide what weapons to possess, and how and when to use them. I advocate the same for ALL middle-eastern states.

You are certainly not suggesting any sanctions against Hamas. In fact, if Hamas wasn't attacking Israel in the first place, there would be peace in Gaza.

And if everyone in Europe had simply shut up and allowed Germany to take over there would have been no WWII. Sound crazy? That is exactly what Palestinian people see. They see an enormously powerful army supported by most of the west taking over the middle-east. It will take generations of a halting of border expansion to rest these fears. This weekend's invasion will not lead to such alleviation of fears.

How long have they been left alone to their own devices? A couple of years......but in that time even the Egyptians, fellow Arabs, were unwilling to open the Rafah border crossing.

Egypt actually wanted to allow crossing to alleviate humanitarian affairs, and their military actually checked returning Gazans for weapons, or at least claimed to. Egypt is trying not to become involved in this mess that the west seems bent on escalating.

What I am advocating is a policy of peace and commerce, rather than war. If Israel wants to expand her borders, the best means to accomplish this design is to build up a nation peaceful and so prosperous that others will want to be annexed. Utah made concessions to be numbered among the United States, it was not compelled to gain statehood through military force.

Such a project will take generations, but the current path Israel is on will be generations of perpetual war which if escalated by foreign interventionists such as the U.S., it has the potential to lead to a third world war with western nations aligning with Israel and eastern nations (including possibly Russia) with Palestine.

Renounce war and proclaim peace.

-a-train

Edited January 6, 2009 by a-train

[a-train]

So, I can understand the notion of "it ain't our problem" on a geopolitical scale. Let the other countries invade, take over, commit genocide on, themselves and each other - and we should just stay out of it all. Is that what you are saying?

So if letting one country invade another is not right, then surely you would prevent Israel from invading Gaza.

Do you really think the Palestinians are even half as powerful as it would require them to be to invade Israel and kill all Jews? You would rank them as a world power capable of some great take over? That is a lot of credit for a people numbering less than the population of many major U.S. cities and living in near poverty on what amounts to a giant concentration camp. (Some reports claim the per-capita income of Palestinian people is around $1,200 a year).

And, if we are trying to prevent middle-eastern states from invading Israel, why are we giving them foreign aid? We give MORE foreign aid to the enemies of Israel than to Israel. These are not world powers, they are living in third world conditions.

I mean, if that's what you're saying, then fine. I just disagree with it. I'm of the opinion that the world is governed by the aggressive use of force. And the geopolitical game is structured such that if you're not an active player, you'll get played. And getting played through inaction really has no scriptural justification that I can find, City of Enoch references notwithstanding.

I am not in any way saying that any nation not defend itself against invasion. If Palestine is the "player", why are we giving them hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars each year? If they are the modern NAZI's, the modern empire of evil seeking world domination, why are we subsidizing them? My position is that we cease from such foreign aid.

Yeah, whatever. The price you identified is $5/gal, and the date you identified is July 4 2009. Get that pink tutu ready!

Don't count your chicks before they hatch.

-a-train

[mrbeanroxs]

So what if Canada started lobbing rockets into the United States. Should we just stand down because its not a fair fight, or because we should keep trying for peace while our citizens die?

[a-train]

So what if Canada started lobbing rockets into the United States. Should we just stand down because its not a fair fight, or because we should keep trying for peace while our citizens die?

No, of course not. Have you looked at my position? I assume you are addressing me. What I would object to in such a scenario is Russia giving Canada anywhere from $150 million to $300 million a year in foreign aid while such a conflict goes on and on for decades.

-a-train

[Guest DeborahC]

I guess I just have to wonder what would happen if our government waltzed into California or Utah or any state in the union and informed the kind citizens there that they were returning the land where all their homes were built and where they had raised their families for several generations to the Native Americans, so they needed to pack up and move off... the lands was, after all, given to the Native Americans by God...

Me thinks a few might protest.. violently!

In my opinion, WE caused this conflict by not minding our own business!

[mrbeanroxs]

I guess I just have to wonder what would happen if our government waltzed into California or Utah or any state in the union and informed the kind citizens there that they were returning the land where all their homes were built and where they had raised their families for several generations to the Native Americans, so they needed to pack up and move off... the lands was, after all, given to the Native Americans by God...

Me thinks a few might protest.. violently!

In my opinion, WE caused this conflict by not minding our own business!

But was it not fortold in the scriptures that the gathering of Israel would take place? I think that this is the start of the return of the 10 lost tribes...

[Islander]

We can not fall into the revisionist's trap. If the creation of Israel in 1948 was a bad idea it is just too bad and too late to argue that point. For the most part is was a sort of "no man's land" between Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The UN signed off on it primarily because there were no clear geopolitical borders at the time, the minority Jews have been harassed in the region for 100 years and it seem to provide needed space for protection for them. The colonial powers also saw it as a sanctuary for the Christians. The population of the region was a mix of Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Jews, nomadic Bedouins and other tribal groups. There were no "Palestinians" in the modern sense of the world. The Arabs in the area derive their current sense of identity as "Palestinians" from the partition in '48. We can not go back and debate history in regards to who has the right to be where and the like. It has led nowhere.

That is just history. The issue today is that no matter what Israel has done to try and create a space to settle the issue it has not prospered. The question is why is today Israel attacking Hamas in Gaza? Well, try because after they (Hamas) signed a cease fire in June they launched over 1000 rockets at southern Israel just to make the point they are not interested in peace no matter what the other side does. By the way, why do the Egyptians close their border to Gaza? The skirmish with Hamas has nothing to do with the Egyptians?

Edited January 6, 2009 by Islander

[a-train]

But was it not fortold in the scriptures that the gathering of Israel would take place? I think that this is the start of the return of the 10 lost tribes...

And there you have it: the modern Christian crusade. Many crusaders centuries ago thought they were doing God's will in bringing about prophesied events while fighting wars with Muslims for power over Palestine.

The gathering of the Jews to Israel and their taking up of the political reigns of government IS indeed the fulfillment of prophecy. However, it is not necessary that we give foreign aid to the enemies of Israel. That actually would seem very counterintuitive if our endeavor is to support her.

It is further not necessary that we intervene in her affairs or those of her enemies. That only multiplies the problems. That is, in fact, why there was a 9/11: American involvement in middle-eastern affairs.

Further, if you actually believe the prophecies of the rise of Israel, you will notice that when the whole world turns against her and goes down to crush her she will not fall, her LORD and Master will save her. Supporting a policy of war toward the Muslim world is not the act of faith but of fear.

Further, western power-seekers understand this whole dynamic of the western Christian people's support for Israel based on their belief in scripture and these power hungry bureaucrats are using that to engage in self-aggrandizing and self-enriching political moves.

The real fallacy that all of this revolves around is the notion that we can make decisions for others better than they can for themselves. This was the Satanic falsehood upon which the third part of the host of heaven stumbled.

We need to step back and let Israel and Palestine sort out their differences and refrain from bringing more millions of people into the conflict. We do not run the world, nor can we. We will only bring upon ourselves our own ruin if we continue to meddle in middle-eastern affairs. There will come more 9/11 events.

Hitler invaded Poland on the assumption that he was preventing the advance of communism. His efforts proved to be fatal in the end. He could have allowed Poland to make her own decisions, but he thought he was better informed, better suited to make those decisions for the Polish people.

After Franz-Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, Austria-Hungary demanded that Serbia investigate, seek out, and destroy the terrorist groups among them. They threatened to hold the Serbian government accountable for the terrorist groups in their state. (Sound familiar?)

When Serbia failed to meet the demands in the July Ultimatum, Austria-Hungary withdrew her ambassador and ultimately declared war on Serbia. Because of treaties and compacts with other nations, both Austria-Hungary and Serbia had allies fighting with them, the rest of the story is known as World War I.

Here we are almost a full century away from that time and we seem to still not get it.

-a-train

Edited January 6, 2009 by a-train

[a-train]

The issue today is that no matter what Israel has done to try and create a space to settle the issue it has not prospered. The question is why is today Israel attacking Hamas in Gaza? Well, try because after they (Hamas) signed a cease fire in June they launched over 1000 rockets at southern Israel just to make the point they are not interested in peace no matter what the other side does.

Great. Where do we come in handing out millions/billions of dollars to all these parties? Israel should be independent and allowed to handle her own foreign policy. If she is at war, let her wage it. If she is making peace treaties, let her do so. If she perpetuates war or peace, it is her decision.

If she is constantly bombarded with rockets and goes hunting to stop the assault, let her do so. Our close alliance with her in such endeavors could rally bigger enemies behind those she invades. Where does everything go from there? This whole thing is one big mess and our involvement only makes matters worse for all parties.

-a-train

[Rico]

Absolutely not. I am advocating free trade with ALL middle-eastern states and a complete cessation of foreign aid.

Just realize that Palestine gets more foreign aid than does Israel. Maybe they should start by reducing the foreign aid given to Palestine to the same level that Israel gets.

I am not advocating any effort to reduce Israeli weapons capabilities. Let them decide what weapons to possess, and how and when to use them. I advocate the same for ALL middle-eastern states.

And what if that means buying weapons from the US, as they do now?

And if everyone in Europe had simply shut up and allowed Germany to take over there would have been no WWII. [/quote}

Bad analogy. Germany wasn't attacked, they were the attackers in the first place. You can compare them to Hamas, if you'd like to.

Egypt actually wanted to allow crossing to alleviate humanitarian affairs, and their military actually checked returning Gazans for weapons, or at least claimed to. Egypt is trying not to become involved in this mess that the west seems bent on escalating.

What I am advocating is a policy of peace and commerce, rather than war. If Israel wants to expand her borders, the best means to accomplish this design is to build up a nation peaceful and so prosperous that others will want to be annexed. Utah made concessions to be numbered among the United States, it was not compelled to gain statehood through military force.

In debates, you either advocate the status quo or you advocate a change in the status quo. What are you trying to do? I'm serious.

The status quo is that Gaza has their own government, their security forces and their own border. They are their own state. They do not want to be part of Israel. Israel doesn't want them to be part of Israel. Hamas has decided that they want to attack Israel because Israel is deciding who they choose to do business with.

Renounce war and proclaim peace.

-a-train

Don't you think that should start with Hamas, the aggressors?

[Islander]

Great. Where do we come in handing out millions/billions of dollars to all these parties? Israel should be independent and allowed to handle her own foreign policy. If she is at war, let her wage it. If she is making peace treaties, let her do so. If she perpetuates war or peace, it is her decision.

-a-train

Agreed. I think they can take care of themselves. I just take issue with those that go out of their way to criticize their response to aggression. They speak of "disproportionate response." Funny. You punch me in the face first and complain if I break your arm in response?

By the way, we do not subsidize any purchase of weapons systems to Israel. In fact, they develop some of the ones we use. They do purchase weapons from the US and of course, there is the issue of rumored transfer of nuclear technology to Israel. They are very much economically self sufficient. Israel, after all, has the most publicly traded companies in the NYSE after the US and Canada.

Edited January 6, 2009 by Islander

[a-train]

Just realize that Palestine gets more foreign aid than does Israel. Maybe they should start by reducing the foreign aid given to Palestine to the same level that Israel gets.

I would reduce them all to ZERO.

And what if that means buying weapons from the US, as they do now?

Certainly, let them. That is completely fine.

Bad analogy. Germany wasn't attacked, they were the attackers in the first place. You can compare them to Hamas, if you'd like to.

Not for the Palestinians, they see Israel as the aggressor. They see HER as the invader. They see Israel in the same way that Serbia saw Austria at the Battle of Cer.

And that is the problem, as uninvolved parties, when we choose a side and agree with them that the other was the first aggressor, we have taken the first step in the path to war.

In debates, you either advocate the status quo or you advocate a change in the status quo. What are you trying to do? I'm serious.

The status quo is that Gaza has their own government, their security forces and their own border. They are their own state. They do not want to be part of Israel. Israel doesn't want them to be part of Israel. Hamas has decided that they want to attack Israel because Israel is deciding who they choose to do business with.

I am only talking about U.S. foreign policy. Which, I believe should allow Gaza, Israel, and every other state on earth to define their own policies. What I am advocating is not the status quo. The status quo is one of interventionism. We are increasingly taking on more and more responsibility to police the world and to direct the affairs of other states. We need to stop this before we enter major conflicts which cannot be avoided once begun. Enormous amounts of blood and treasure will be lost and all to reach a compromise that will still not please everyone.

Don't you think that should start with Hamas, the aggressors?

If it were my decision, not another penny of foreign aid would go to Palestine, or any other state for that matter. And yes, I applaud success of any state in capturing, trying, convicting, and sentencing terrorists, murderers, thieves, rapists, and the like. But those are concerns for those states in which these crimes are committed. Hamas rockets have not struck here. The issue is not in our jurisdiction.

Much of Hamas's public approval is due to our involvement. We have become a scapegoat. With us gone, the people will begin to realize where the real problem lies, at least that the United States is not part of the problem. They will continue to blame Israel for everything, but I see little hope to convince them otherwise. Israel looks very guilty. Israel does not allow Arab Muslims to immigrate, she continually has leveled houses OUTSIDE her own borders, she has Gaza looking like one big concentration camp. But we, as foreigners, are powerless to better that perception.

What I am advocating is:

1. No more foreign aid.

2. No more attempts to direct the affairs of foreign states.

3. The removal of our armed forces from middle-eastern conflicts.

-a-train

Edited January 6, 2009 by a-train

[a-train]

Agreed. I think they can take care of themselves. I just take issue with those that go out of their way to criticize their response to aggression. They speak of "disproportionate response." Funny. You punch me in the face first and complain if I break your arm in response?

Certainly I don't believe we should tell Israel what to do, but heavy bombing will not end this madness for them. I can't help but imagine the scenario of a random rocket attack in the United States.

Let's say this attacker (or group) shoots the rockets from a house into a busy shopping district. What would be the response? Send gun-ships to destroy the whole block from which the rocket came? Bull-doze the whole block? We would have men on the ground seeking to investigate and apprehend the perpetrators. We would refrain from property damage.

Perhaps upon getting close to the shooters, the police (or military) come under small arms fire and engage them. While it would be a real mess, I cannot imagine a scenario where our police start bombing entire residential structures or wiping out a block of houses.

Wouldn't such activities make investigation MORE difficult? How can we be sure we got the perpetrators? Did some escape? Who is left to interrogate? Now, Israeli forces may know a lot more than we do, and I'll be fine to let them do as they please, but I see no reason for us to be involved or to come to Israel's rescue.

By the way, we do not subsidize any purchase of weapons systems to Israel. In fact, they develop some of the ones we use. They do purchase weapons from the US and of course, there is the issue of rumored transfer of nuclear technology to Israel. They are very much economically self sufficient. Israel, after all, has the most publicly traded companies in the NYSE after the US and Canada.

Which makes it all the more ridiculous that Israel gets billions each year in aid from the United States. We give them between 1.5 and 2% of their GDP, a substantial figure. Now we can say that these funds are not spent directly on arms, just as we can say that about aid to Palestinians. However, it could free up funds elsewhere for that purpose.

Still, that is besides the point. The aid essentially buys certain loyalty and the permission of politicians in Washington to have some pull among these states. They are OUR leaders, not Israeli or Palestinian leaders. They should not direct the affairs of other states. They should not be enabled to, via foreign aid, secure for their cronies, special licenses or accommodations for international business. It all amounts to tax-payer subsidized cronyism.

At the end of the day, it escalates already tense relations.

-a-train

Edited January 6, 2009 by a-train

[Rico]

I would reduce them all to ZERO.

Great. How do you propose we do that? Maybe we can start first by putting the foreign aid at the same level and then reduce them both to zero. FYI, the Palestinians get more foreign aid than does Israel.

And that is the problem, as uninvolved parties, when we choose a side and agree with them that the other was the first aggressor, we have taken the first step in the path to war.

Unfortunately in the real world, you do need to stand on the side of right.

I am only talking about U.S. foreign policy. Which, I believe should allow Gaza, Israel, and every other state on earth to define their own policies. What I am advocating is not the status quo. The status quo is one of interventionism. We are increasingly taking on more and more responsibility to police the world and to direct the affairs of other states. We need to stop this before we enter major conflicts which cannot be avoided once begun. Enormous amounts of blood and treasure will be lost and all to reach a compromise that will still not please everyone.

So convenient, in a complex world, you need to look at all of the relationships and how they are interconnected. I believe that every country should be able to define their own policies. That's what Israel wants to do and that is what Hamas want to stop Israel from doing. The main crux of the matter is Hamas wants trade with Israel, they want money from Israel, but they all want to kill Israelis. How can they have it all?

If it were my decision, not another penny of foreign aid would go to Palestine, or any other state for that matter. And yes, I applaud success of any state in capturing, trying, convicting, and sentencing terrorists, murderers, thieves, rapists, and the like. But those are concerns for those states in which these crimes are committed. Hamas rockets have not struck here. The issue is not in our jurisdiction.

I believe it is within our jurisdiction and I believe that deep down you know it is in our jurisdiction as well.

she has Gaza looking like one big concentration camp. But we, as foreigners, are powerless to better that perception.

Wrong. Israel has closed its borders with Gaza. That's completely within their rights to do as a sovereign nation. Hamas wants those borders open so that trade can flow across the border. Israel doesn't mind the trade, but doesn't want the terrorists in and prefers not to do business with terrorists. The only reason why Gaza is so cutoff is because Egypt, a fellow Arab state, doesn't want to do business with terrorists either. The fact that Gaza is cutoff is a totally Arab problem that Arab countries could solve in 10 seconds.

What I am advocating is:

1. No more foreign aid.

2. No more attempts to direct the affairs of foreign states.

3. The removal of our armed forces from middle-eastern conflicts.

-a-train

1) Good luck at enforcing that on all parties.

2) The US is currently not doing that, but countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc are trying to do that.

3) Our troops are not involved in the Gaza conflict.

One thing I might also add is that the amount of Arab money funding terrorism is staggering. I lived for several years in the southern Thai city of Yala. It's a hotbed of Islamist terrorism. I think I posted a bit about an experience of mine while paying a phone bill. It was dangerous, but I had no real problems because I wasn't in the crossfire and i left right before the Iraq war(which did cause problems).

In the run up to the Iraq war, an Iraqi government funded organization existed in Yala. They had two Iraqi government agents working out of it and they were interfacing with certain separatists elements. They were also passing money along to separatist groups. It was all under the guise of an educational project. Sure enough, after the Iraq war started, terrorist activities skyrocketed. I was lucky and heeded the advice of an Iraqi friend of mine who warned me that things would explode after the US went into Iraq. (Yes, Virginia, I know with 100% certainty that Bush was right and that Iraq was funding terrorism.)

These separatists groups were also being funded by gifts from Saudi benefactors as well. I remember when I went to the bank with an Iraqi friend. He needed to change some dollars. He had to go a desk in the back while they did the paperwork. As he was sitting there, he was talking with a girl cashing her monthly Saudi educational check. It was for the max of $2000. She received it on a monthly basis to cover her local educational needs. My friend was surprised it was so much, but she happily explained that she used only a small part for missionary work but rest she turned over to a local islamic group with ties to PULO. There ya go, terrorist funding 101.

[a-train]

Great. How do you propose we do that? Maybe we can start first by putting the foreign aid at the same level and then reduce them both to zero. FYI, the Palestinians get more foreign aid than does Israel.

Yes, I know that enemies of Israel get more, I already said that in a former post. That is why this is all so ridiculous. I would be happy with any reduction in foreign aid, but the best policy would be a total cessation of all foriegn aid for all governments whether it be Israel, Palestine, or whoever.

Unfortunately in the real world, you do need to stand on the side of right.

And that is exactly what I am doing. I am standing on the side of what is right and calling any I can to stand with me. The right thing to do is to deescalate the situation, not perpetuate war and tyranny.

So convenient, in a complex world, you need to look at all of the relationships and how they are interconnected. I believe that every country should be able to define their own policies. That's what Israel wants to do and that is what Hamas want to stop Israel from doing. The main crux of the matter is Hamas wants trade with Israel, they want money from Israel, but they all want to kill Israelis. How can they have it all?

Let them sort it out, we are only making the problem bigger and worse. If you believe that each state should define its own policies, then we are in agreeance.

I believe it is within our jurisdiction and I believe that deep down you know it is in our jurisdiction as well.

Deep down, I know there is NOTHING under the jurisidiction of the United States government in Palestine or Israel. Do you believe they should conduct their own investigations and pursue their own policies or not?

Wrong. Israel has closed its borders with Gaza. That's completely within their rights to do as a sovereign nation. Hamas wants those borders open so that trade can flow across the border. Israel doesn't mind the trade, but doesn't want the terrorists in and prefers not to do business with terrorists. The only reason why Gaza is so cutoff is because Egypt, a fellow Arab state, doesn't want to do business with terrorists either. The fact that Gaza is cutoff is a totally Arab problem that Arab countries could solve in 10 seconds.

What is wrong? The people of Palestine don't see Israel as containing and sanctioning them? We as foreigners CAN make the Palestinians see the situation differently? I agree that Israel has every right to close her borders and restrict trade however she sees fit and likewise do all other states.

1) Good luck at enforcing that on all parties.

Parties? You mean on the Republicans and Democrats? I advocate the people of the United States coming to realize that our involvement in middle-eastern affairs is nothing but fuel to the fire and we introduce a new foreign policy of non-interventionism.

2) The US is currently not doing that, but countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc are trying to do that.

We are occupying two middle-eastern states. In one, we have completely overtaken the government and have set up a new one. We impose sanctions on many states. Are you really saying that the U.S. is not making attempts to direct the affairs of foreign states?

3) Our troops are not involved in the Gaza conflict.

I didn't say they were.

One thing I might also add is that the amount of Arab money funding terrorism is staggering. I lived for several years in the southern Thai city of Yala. It's a hotbed of Islamist terrorism. I think I posted a bit about an experience of mine while paying a phone bill. It was dangerous, but I had no real problems because I wasn't in the crossfire and i left right before the Iraq war(which did cause problems).

In the run up to the Iraq war, an Iraqi government funded organization existed in Yala. They had two Iraqi government agents working out of it and they were interfacing with certain separatists elements. They were also passing money along to separatist groups. It was all under the guise of an educational project. Sure enough, after the Iraq war started, terrorist activities skyrocketed. I was lucky and heeded the advice of an Iraqi friend of mine who warned me that things would explode after the US went into Iraq. (Yes, Virginia, I know with 100% certainty that Bush was right and that Iraq was funding terrorism.)

These separatists groups were also being funded by gifts from Saudi benefactors as well. I remember when I went to the bank with an Iraqi friend. He needed to change some dollars. He had to go a desk in the back while they did the paperwork. As he was sitting there, he was talking with a girl cashing her monthly Saudi educational check. It was for the max of $2000. She received it on a monthly basis to cover her local educational needs. My friend was surprised it was so much, but she happily explained that she used only a small part for missionary work but rest she turned over to a local islamic group with ties to PULO. There ya go, terrorist funding 101.

Yes and what in the blazes are the bureacrats in Washington D.C. going to do about it? They can't stop the funding of a multi-billion dollar black market for drugs within our own borders. Will they have some effect on middle-eastern crime funding? Just what are we going to do about it? Dump more money into their economy? That would seem like the opposite of what we want to do if our effort is to decrease the funding of crime in that region.

-a-train

Edited January 6, 2009 by a-train

[Hemidakota]

What most people forgot is that Hamas and Hezbolah are "political parties" engendered, financed and initially supported by the Soviets; a "dictatorship of the people." And they are almost cookie cutter in strategy and architecture. Radical Islam happens to be the cover suit ideology and Israel the target rather than the US. They have held the people of Palestine and Lebanon hostage for 30 years while their hypocritical demagogues enjoy summer villas in Sardinia and Mykonos, "safe houses" (read palatial residences) in every western city and private jets everywhere they go. They will decapitate and cut the fingertips of any, including their own people, that dare to oppose them, suggest an alternative or openly disagree with the "leadership."

This is why since 1948 no negotiation has prospered, no Arab leader has accepted to any term offered and lived and no matter what atrocity Hamas does in the Gaza strip no voice in the Islamic world will oppose. They evicted the legally instituted government from Gaza at gun point and the Arab world stood in silence. What can we expect? More of the same, no matter what Israel offers or compromises.

Iran and Syria are the other two who are currently financing this group.

[Islander]

For 30 years the PLO said "as soon as Israel agrees to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza there will be piece." Well, that was the most painful agreement Israel had signed to this day. The Camp David accord provided the blue print for the pull out from Gaza, the West Bank and the abandonment of the settlements, the establishment of an independent Palestinian government authority and security forces. They got everything they wanted and was possible at the time. Sadat signed the peace deal with Israel and he was marked as a traitor by Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. He was killed the following year. To this day, they have no clear cut and consice specific demand. In my mind they have no intention ever to reach a durable peace agreement. Their issue goes back to '48 and unless Israel disapears they will not rest.

A couple of summers ago Hezbolah fighters crossed into Israel, attacked a border crossing point and took two Israeli soldiers hostages. NO reason at all. Other than the headline news no word fromt he Arab League or the UN. But when Israel geared up and went into Lebanon the outcry reached heaven. We are seeing the same movie here on the southern part of the country and the Gaza strip with rocket attacks non-stop since July when the cease fire was signed. They have not demonstrated they want to live in peace with Israel. They hold on to a grudge that can never be apeaced for they refuse to acknowledge the reality of today.

The Palestinian position brings to mind:

17 For behold, your fathers did wrong their brethren, insomuch that they did rob them of their right to the government when it rightly belonged unto them.

18 And now behold, if ye will lay down your arms, and subject yourselves to be governed by those to whom the government doth rightly belong, then will I cause that my people shall lay down their weapons and shall be at war no more.

• • •

24 And behold now, I am a bold Lamanite; behold, this war hath been waged to avenge their wrongs, and to maintain and to obtain their rights to the government; and I close my epistle to Moroni.

Alma 54: 17-18, 24

Edited January 6, 2009 by Islander