View on the recent Gaza/Israel stikes

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Owned it in what respect? The residents of that land were born, lived, worked, and died on that land. Other people would come tax them for using land they conquered but it usually was still worked on by the same people.

This argument is literally no different than the Eddie Izzard standup on flags. Political boundaries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.

Doesn't that logic seem kind of messed up? Well actually it doesn't because the people with the guns make the rules but eitherway...

When William Penn bought the land for Pennsylvania from the Iroquois, who lived way the hell up in New York state, the tribes that lived here were not happy they had to move. Ownership was not a European invention.
The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land.
Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.
Individual ownership and property rights was one of the basic tenets of the United States, and highly unusual.

I've always wondered what made this land the Jews home and not anyone else's? They weren't the first people to live there, people have been living in that area for 10,000 years and Judaism is only around 3,000 years old.

The Jews were the only ones that didn't have a place to be sent back to when they became a pain in the ass somewhere else. So the rest of the world decided the Jews needed a homeland and established one where it all started, which was a desert sparsely populated by people that didn't own the land. The Arab and Persian states really didn't give a shit about the Jews until they became successful and an embarrassment.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

When William Penn bought the land for Pennsylvania from the Iroquois, who lived way the hell up in New York state, the tribes that lived here were not happy they had to move. Ownership was not a European invention.

When did I say ownership was a European invention? I said the state was a European invention.

The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land.
Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.

I don't see how that gives anyone the right to kick people that have been living there since preshistoric times. It happened, just like it happened to almost every culture in human history, but I don't buy the justification at all.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Jews were the only ones that didn't have a place to be sent back to when they became a pain in the ass somewhere else. So the rest of the world decided the Jews needed a homeland and established one where it all started

As I said in my last post, the self-determination part I don't care about it is that area would not have worked out. The more I look into it the more I find that this plan was destined to fail but there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. The Jews weren't going to go anywhere else and the Arabs didn't want to live in a Jewish homeland.

Also, what gives the Jews anymore right to land than lets say the Aboriginals in Australia or the natives in the United States, or the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Kosovo, Ossetians, and the millions of other ethnic groups that don't have a homeland? As I said, I disagree with the justifications behind it.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

which was a desert sparsely populated by people that didn't own the land.

Studies have shown that the DNA of the Palestinians represent people that have lived in that area since Prehistoric times. Other cultures have invaded and mixed in with the gene pool, but most can trace ancestors back to prehistoric ancestors that lived in the same area.

Define didn't own the land.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

the Arab and Persian states really didn't give a shit about the Jews until they became successful and an embarrassment.

The Arab states or the local Arabs? Three of the five Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948 weren't even around for five years.

Years gained independence from British
Syria - 1946
Jordan - 1946
Lebanon - 1943
Egypt - 1922
Iraq - 1932

Even then, they didn't really see the Jews as a threat because they denied the early two-state solution.

If you are talking about the local Arabs, you are dead wrong. Tensions started right when the talk of a Jewish state began.

The promise of liberation from the Ottomans led many Jews and Arabs to support the allied powers during World War I, leading to the emergence of widespread Arab nationalism.[12] During this time tensions between the native Arab population of Palestine and the small, but growing, Jewish population in the area had begun to increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict

In 1922 the population of Palestine consisted of approximately 589,200 Muslims, 83,800 Jews, 71,500 Christians and 7,600 others (1922 census[8]). However, this area gradually saw a large influx of Jewish immigrants (most of whom were fleeing the increasing persecution in Europe). This immigration and accompanying call for a Jewish state in Palestine drew violent opposition from local Arabs, in part because of Zionism's stated goal of a Jewish state, which many Arabs believed would require the subjugation or removal of the existing non-Jewish population

Under the leadership of Haj Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the local Arabs rebelled against the British, and attacked the growing Jewish population repeatedly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

When did I say ownership was a European invention? I said the state was a European invention.

Right here.

Political boundries were not used by anyone outside Europe, therefore technically they did not own the land according to the Europeans. So, when Europeans colonized the area and set up politically boundaries, they got to determine who owned what land.

Which is why I said;

The invention of the "state" wasn't a big change, just a way to define the boundaries that had been in flux, between the Kings that owned the land. Really no different than the Caliphs/War Lords/Chiefs around the globe that owned the land.

I don't see how that gives anyone the right to kick people that have been living there since preshistoric times. It happened, just like it happened to almost every culture in human history, but I don't buy the justification at all.

You don't accept the history of man since prehistoric times... Hmm.

Also, what gives the Jews anymore right to land than lets say the Aboriginals in Australia or the natives in the United States, or the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, Kosovo, Ossetians, and the millions of other ethnic groups that don't have a homeland? As I said, I disagree with the justifications behind it.

The Aboriginals still live in Australia, the Indians still live in the US and the Kurds still can and do live in Turkey. Most of the others still live in the same areas unless they chose to migrate or were forcibly removed by people like Stalin. But even most of those people can now go back to the same area if they choose.
Maybe you don't approve, maybe you don't accept, or maybe you don't understand, but whichever, that's your problem because I don't think there's one nation in the whole world that gives a shit.

Define didn't own the land.

OWN : noun, pronoun : that which belongs to oneself
There are two ways you can own the land;
1- Legal title under the rule of law
2- Have possession and the power to retain it
Most of the world uses #2

The Arab states or the local Arabs? Three of the five Arab states that attacked Israel in 1948 weren't even around for five years.

States, because individuals don't have armies so they don't count. See #2 above.
The fact remains that the people living in and around Palestine have always been ruled by others... that owned the land.

[piercehawkeye45]

Okay I see your point now Bruce.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I think the Hamas may be at a disadvantage in this one unless it goes on for an extended period of time. Israel may have learned it's lesson with the last incursion into Lebanon.

Israel stated that they plan an occupation that will last a long time. They want to completely wipe out Hamas, which I would think is impossible. Even if they do, its likely that an even more extreme group will take over.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

its likely that an even more extreme group will take over.

Why do you say that?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Okay I see your point now Bruce.


Israel stated that they plan an occupation that will last a long time. They want to completely wipe out Hamas, which I would think is impossible. Even if they do, its likely that an even more extreme group will take over.

Maybe, maybe not. There really is no evidence to support that notion. So far it looks like Iraq is coming around, there is no reason to think that The Gaza could not do the same. As I said in an earlier post, Israel may be getting ready to go through their own little Iraq as well and all the pain that went with it.