Markji wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

Markji wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

firefly wrote:Loweycue, I was very much enjoying the debate between bip, mark, bitty and oohah. Your comments are ignorant, ininformed and riddled with historical errors. Perhaps let them do the talking?

This is an very emotional issue for me and I get carried away. But if you don't want to read my posts its easy to ignore them.

It is an emotional issue for the entire world which has been going on for centuries. I would guess that you are of Lebanonese or Arab American origins which would make it more personal for you. But try not to take it personally.

I am an Indian, and not of Arabic or Islamic origin. It is personal to me because of some other reasons which I will not get into over here. When people write random generalizations like what's been posted here, its hard NOT to take it personally.

I assume you are Asian Indian as opposed to Native American Indian.?

The Indian sub-continent has experienced a somewhat similar situation as Palestine. India and Pakistan gained independence Aug 15, 1947 after being ruled by Great Britain who divided up the sub-continent into 2 nations against Gandhi's desire. Fighting immediately erupted and a number of wars and numerous conflicts have continued and the governance of Kashmir is still in dispute and is partially occupied by both nations.

Palestine/Israel gained independence in May 1948 (9 months later)after being ruled by Great Britain, who divided up the area into Palestine and Israel, and then walked away, knowing full well that there would be immediate bloodshed. The wars and conflicts have continued since then. One would have thought that Britain would have done a better job in overseeing the granting of independence and maintaining peace.

Your history is completely accurate, but that is not why this is such a personal issue for me. But lets not discuss that here.

There is one very stark difference between India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestine scenarios. Both Indians and Pakistanis (Hindus and Muslims) were indigenous people of the region from before the British Occupation. No disrespect to Indian Muslims or Pakistani Hindus but the division was aligned along religious lines. So even if you don't agree with the politics of the split (which I agree with BTW), you have to admit that the Pakistanis as well as the Indians had rights to the land. Israel on the other hand was created for jewish refugees of WWII and from Day 1 Israel by definition became an occupation of Palestinian lands. The UN chose British occupied Palestine for the creation of Israel (1946?) that was an extremely shortsighted decision in my opinion.

What transpired since then is well known and both sides are equally at fault. Whether people like it or not, Israel has subjected Palestinians to life as refugees in their own country! This is not an acceptable situation for any country anywhere on earth. And Palestine does not have an army or military, so yes they have to resort to launching rockets if they ever want to gain true independence.

I don't see that as very dissimilar to how Indians and Pakistanis fought the British occupation and if it was in style back then they too would have been labelled "terrorists" by the holier than thou sanctimonious know-it-alls.

I don't support the destruction of Israel or the death of innocent people on either side, I am not anti semitic have lots of jewish friends and have no problem with jews in general. But to,compare Palestinians attacking Israel with Mexicans firing rockets at us is crass and despicable and shows zero compassion for what the Palestinians have suffered for the last 60 -100 years. This is the type of statement that gets my blood boiling.

Silverfuel wrote:Markji: Gandhi in reality OK'd the partition and later on gave Pakistan enormous amounts of financial support. He thought we would be solving the Hindu/Muslim problem forever. I agree about everything else. India v. Pakistan is similar to Israel v. Palestine. Pakistan tried to engage India in a few wars, lost and now resorts to terrorism in Kashmir, Delhi and often Mumbai. During the late 80's they tried the same stuff in Punjab but failed. The Indian politicians do not allow military action but that is only because they are corrupt and nothing else. In reality, a military expedition into the tribal areas will drastically reduce the strength of the terror regimes.

Silverfuel, you must also be Indian to know so clearly of the widespread corruption of politicians in India. I found it almost unbelieveable what goes on and everyone knows what is happenning. Corruption becomes a way of life.

But Gandhi was against separation. I believe it was Jinnah, who was leader of the Muslim League who pushed for separation.
Quote on Gandhi and separation:

Mohandas Gandhi and Allama Mashriqi believed that Hindus and Muslims could and should live in amity. Gandhi opposed the partition, saying,
“My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.

Markji wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

Markji wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

Markji wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

firefly wrote:Loweycue, I was very much enjoying the debate between bip, mark, bitty and oohah. Your comments are ignorant, ininformed and riddled with historical errors. Perhaps let them do the talking?

This is an very emotional issue for me and I get carried away. But if you don't want to read my posts its easy to ignore them.

It is an emotional issue for the entire world which has been going on for centuries. I would guess that you are of Lebanonese or Arab American origins which would make it more personal for you. But try not to take it personally.

I am an Indian, and not of Arabic or Islamic origin. It is personal to me because of some other reasons which I will not get into over here. When people write random generalizations like what's been posted here, its hard NOT to take it personally.

I assume you are Asian Indian as opposed to Native American Indian.?

The Indian sub-continent has experienced a somewhat similar situation as Palestine. India and Pakistan gained independence Aug 15, 1947 after being ruled by Great Britain who divided up the sub-continent into 2 nations against Gandhi's desire. Fighting immediately erupted and a number of wars and numerous conflicts have continued and the governance of Kashmir is still in dispute and is partially occupied by both nations.

Palestine/Israel gained independence in May 1948 (9 months later)after being ruled by Great Britain, who divided up the area into Palestine and Israel, and then walked away, knowing full well that there would be immediate bloodshed. The wars and conflicts have continued since then. One would have thought that Britain would have done a better job in overseeing the granting of independence and maintaining peace.

Your history is completely accurate, but that is not why this is such a personal issue for me. But lets not discuss that here.

There is one very stark difference between India-Pakistan and Israel-Palestine scenarios. Both Indians and Pakistanis (Hindus and Muslims) were indigenous people of the region from before the British Occupation. No disrespect to Indian Muslims or Pakistani Hindus but the division was aligned along religious lines. So even if you don't agree with the politics of the split (which I agree with BTW), you have to admit that the Pakistanis as well as the Indians had rights to the land. Israel on the other hand was created for jewish refugees of WWII and from Day 1 Israel by definition became an occupation of Palestinian lands. The UN chose British occupied Palestine for the creation of Israel (1946?) that was an extremely shortsighted decision in my opinion.

What transpired since then is well known and both sides are equally at fault. Whether people like it or not, Israel has subjected Palestinians to life as refugees in their own country! This is not an acceptable situation for any country anywhere on earth. And Palestine does not have an army or military, so yes they have to resort to launching rockets if they ever want to gain true independence.

I don't see that as very dissimilar to how Indians and Pakistanis fought the British occupation and if it was in style back then they too would have been labelled "terrorists" by the holier than thou sanctimonious know-it-alls.

I don't support the destruction of Israel or the death of innocent people on either side, I am not anti semitic have lots of jewish friends and have no problem with jews in general. But to,compare Palestinians attacking Israel with Mexicans firing rockets at us is crass and despicable and shows zero compassion for what the Palestinians have suffered for the last 60 -100 years. This is the type of statement that gets my blood boiling.

Loweyecue, It seems that you are mostly against the large numbers of immigrants into Palestine after WWII. Well, there was really only a few places for these people to go. Believe me, they did not want to stay in Europe. Most were in concentration camps and saw their entire family exterminated by the Nazis. Others fought in the underground against the Nazis - they sent intelligence back to the allies command (my great uncle did that) or learned how to blow up strategic German military resources.

Palestine was very thinly populated then and offered hope for a place where they could live.

I am not sure why you are so against this, but you are and I won't push the point.

The question now is, how to get to a state of peace, lasting peace, not just some little ceasefire which soon gets broken. And the only way for that to happen to to eliminate the stress, tension, anger, hatred, fear that exists within both the Israelis and the Palestinian people.

NO. I am against the act of putting those immigrants there, not the immigrants themselves, its a hard distinction to explain to people but that's what it is. Montana was thinly populated, still is, Labrador? North Dakota? But no they had to go put them where anyone with even an iota of common sense would know this type of strife would result. The most bitter fight is over Jerusalem which is sacred to both Jews and Palestinians, and this was instigated by putting all these WWII refugees over there. The Jews came from various countries and could have been settled separately in small groups in the western countries they were there "allies" right?

What I am against is people who make random comments and generalizations about Palestinians without having any real understanding of what these people have had to put up with. I am willing to accept Israeli's living in Israel simply because it's too late to do anything about it. I have issues with Israeli's trying to dictate how Palestinians should live and what they are entitled to.

Silverfuel wrote:

Markji wrote:But Gandhi was against separation. I believe it was Jinnah, who was leader of the Muslim League who pushed for separation.
Quote on Gandhi and separation:

Mohandas Gandhi and Allama Mashriqi believed that Hindus and Muslims could and should live in amity. Gandhi opposed the partition, saying,
“My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God.

No. The Two Nation theory was bs and Jinnah knew it. India even today has more muslims than pakistan. Jinnah wanted power sharing between the congress and the muslim league. Gandhi wanted Nehru to take the reins of a free India. After a lot of delicate maneuvering, the group as a whole came up with the idea of partition. AND, Gandhi decided to give them money out of the Indian treasury. The biggest reason for partition was for the Muslim League to have a seat of power. If it was along religious lines, it failed miserably. There are several books about this. Gandhi pulled off a lot of shady deals from 1938 to 1947. Yes, publicly he said he was against partition but behind closed doors he did not oppose it. Sorry to hi-jack this thread and this will be my last post about this.

BTW, here is a Gandhi quote about Israel: "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct."

"If England belongs to the English, and France to the French", then who does America belong to? And who does England really belong to?

There is a migration of people all of the time, and in our modern world, this is more and more widespread. Who are the English? English history goes something like this. The original inhabitants of the island are thought to be from the Iberian peninsula(Spain), then the Celts and Picks settled. The Engels and the Saxons were 2 tribes from northern Germany and Denmark. They conquered and settled the island, pushing the Celts out of their homeland. It is now know as "Eng"land, the land of the Engels. The people we call "WASPS" = White Anglo Saxon Protestants referring to the English, are really originally German.

To complicate this, the Normans from Northern France led by William the Conqueror, defeated the Anglo-Saxons, settled and ruled Britain starting in 1066. Also the Vikings raided northern England and settled parts of that. So who are the present day Englishmen that England belongs to?

Palestine was never a country, just a territory. It had been ruled by foreigners since Roman times (2,000+ years). The last time it was an independent country it was called Israel and Judea. Also, FYI - the Arabs and Jews are close relatives....same father, Abraham, but different mothers. Talk about family discord.

It depends how far back you go. Gaza was its own entity prior to the sea peoples (Greeks/Phoenicians) invading. There was the independent Palestinian (Jewish) states of Judea and Israel that were independent initially (Israel was destroyed) and intermittently so until the Romans gave the Hashemite Arabs (EX: Harrod) control of Judea as a puppet state until they annexed it. The Arabs invaded in the 600s AD and the area became part of several Arab Caliphates with the Palestinians a subject people. In Ottoman times, it was divided into some six different provinces. It only became Palestine when the LN (League of Nations) granted it as a temporary mandate to Great Britain who promptly gave 2/3 of it to the Hashemite Arabs (yep, same tribe) forming the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The rump of Palestine was divided between the majority Jewish area and majority Muslim area by the UN with the Jewish part being called Israel and the Muslim part retaining the Palestine name.

Bottom line: there was never a nation called Palestine nor was there ever a nation comprised of the area of Palestine called another name. The closest thing today is The Palestinian Authority which has been blocked by a rebel HAMAS government in Gaza from forming a country and, one could argue, Jordan, comprising 2/3 of Palestine (it was half until Jordan invaded the area that was to be a free Palestine in 1948 and annexed the west bank until defeated by Israel in the sixties).

I think the points about Anglo-Saxon tribes etc in England are well taken. But then we would never be able to answer any questions about which people are indigenous to what lands if we keep going back in history. If you want a starting point (it will be somewhat arbitrary) in history when the modern age was initiated, it could be anywhere between the industrial revolution to the start of the British empire. History is not my favorite subject (obviously).

I think with everything that has gone down in that part of the world true integration is not possible. Integration is about "power" and right now the Israeli's have all the power and the palestinians are merely "tolerated". There will never be any power sharing between those two, and any other form of integration means the Israeli's will continue to dictate terms.

I think the Palestinians have deplorable living conditions the West Bank is basically surrounded by Israel on all sides and has the dead sea on the east. They are not masters of their own fate and that is the true issue that will always plague this region. So to first overthrow the people of a region and then allow them to "integrate" into society on your own terms isn't exactly a recipe for success. This is what the British did in India and elsewhere also. This basically guarantees that the indigenous people of the region will remain "second class citizens" while the ruling class enjoys almost all the benefits of the resources of that country.

And now I'll leave you with the following from one of my favorite authors of all time:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

Palmor(Israeli spokeman) said the cargo would be inspected in Ashdod and permitted goods could be transferred to Gaza. The import of cement has been sharply restricted, but Palmor said some could be sent to the territory in coordination with the United Nations.

Hamas has said it would refuse to accept any aid from the Israeli-intercepted flotilla as long as the blockade remained in place.

Congratulations Hamas. The people in Gaza are hungry and needing food and medical supplies, and you won't allow the aid to come in just because Israeli officials inspected the ship to stop you from receiving arms, which you would use to kill innocent people.