quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Doni your post sounds like the kind of we won so suck it attitude that is not any good coming from either side. I think the 2010 election results could be interpreted as many voters who voted for Obama very unhappy with him thus far. 82 T/A, JFK has been so mythologized I don't think people who didn't live through the time can really know how it really went down. Heck even people who lived through it have probably had their memories clouded by all the propaganda. I would think it was not as harmonious as we are told. Many people would have toned down there opposition to him after the assassination and people also have the tendency to revise their own histories. High voter turnout: has anyone ever thought that maybe it's not a good thing? If you think that it means many people who normally don't vote are voting. Why weren't they interested enough in voting before? How much attention to policy are those folks giving? How much of it has to do with the weather? I'd like to see a higher turnout consistently, but only because more people are more interested and better informed.

Most of us know the history... the dead voters in Chicago, the extramarital affairs, etc...

But when it came to America, and it's prominence... there was no apologizing... none whatsoever. On the contrary, there was competition. We went to the moon because JFK made it so.

Do I think he screwed up on a few things? Yeah... I think he screwed up by not helping the Cuban rebels. He basically told them we would help, they went through with the attack, and we backed down... bad decision, and thousands of Cuban rebels died in the Bay of Pigs... that's why Cubans vote Republican now.

Regardless... he didn't apologize for America... he believed that American exceptionalism was NOT like French exceptionalism, or German exceptionalism... he believed that America really is the best hope for the world, and he aimed to prove it. Besides, there is a LOT of stuff that he did in the background which doesn't make much press, but that we can thank him for now that it's all been declassified.

...and I'm a hard-core Republican.

JFK and BHO are much alike - green, inexperienced, in over their head, taking advice from idealogues.

JFK got the black vote by promising prompt movement on civil rights issues, then did nothing until late in his Presidency. The Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missle Crisis - how many of you on this forum are old enough to remember the sound of construction equipment running 24/7 as people built bomb shelters in the suburbs?

The mass media and organized crime money elected JFK. Check your history and read a book called "The Ten Worst Mistakes of JFK's Presidency" (or something like that, it's been a while).

JFK was immortalized by the press because he was assasinated. He was not up to the job. Another similarity to BHO.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: a massive move towards buying up corporations. Literally, there have been over 1000 corporations that have been purchased by the US government. The only ones which make headlines are GM, Chrysler, and some of the banks... but there are actually over 1000 corporations, smaller ones, that have been purchased by the US government. We have no business running corporations because then they are run as an expense, rather than a business.

I was not aware of this. Do you have a list of what ones were bought since Obama has been in power?

quote Originally posted by newf: I was not aware of this. Do you have a list of what ones were bought since Obama has been in power?

Yeah, it really sucks. There are a few that have been around pre-Obama... there's of course Amtrak which everyone knows about, but there are several more. Off the top of my head, more than half of the parts suppliers that provided parts to GM and Chyrsler were also purchased by the US government (there were hundreds). There is in the neighborhood of 300+ banks that were actually bought out by the government, and are now government organizations. They still look just like they always did, but the board of directors are government employees, and the financing still comes from the government (most of it is still coming from the TARP fund).

A couple banks that I am aware of. The US government also bought GMAC, which by that point had already been split-off from GM. So, the GMAC which provided auto loans, went belly up primarily because of their investment in mortgages. So... after the government bought them, they changed the name. It's no longer called GMAC, I completely forget what they changed it to. Here's the shady thing, and this is how more than half of these government owned corporations were purchased... but after GM was restructured, the government said... Hey, we now need a bank that can provide auto loans for GM. So, what WOULD make perfect sense of course would be to re-integrate, or at least, make use of GMAC (under a different name now) since it was already owned by the government. Under the excuse of necessity, they purchased another bank (also forget the name) which had no affiliation with auto loans any more than any other normal bank does, and restructured them to focus on auto loans.

Nearly every other company purchased was done in a shady way like this. I'll try to find out the names of those banks, but there are dozens of them. The US then pulled another shady move to capture more US debt / obligation by eliminating the right for banks to offer student loans. The only way you can get student loans is through the US government now. There is only 1 other private bank that's allowed to offer student loans, and that's because one of the senators who lived in that state, was lobbyed by that bank and fought hard to get an exemption. This passed before the 2010 congressional shake-up.

It's gotten really, really, shady... and so long as we're babysitting all these companies, we're never going to recover. It just makes me mad when I see Democrats complain so much about subsidies for corporations, when in fact in the last 2 years, we've purchased over 1000 corporations.

We owned VERY few, just Amtrak and a couple of other crappy businesses before this administration.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: There is in the neighborhood of 300+ banks that were actually bought out by the government, and are now government organizations. They still look just like they always did, but the board of directors are government employees, and the financing still comes from the government (most of it is still coming from the TARP fund). A couple banks that I am aware of. The US government also bought GMAC, which by that point had already been split-off from GM. So, the GMAC which provided auto loans, went belly up primarily because of their investment in mortgages. So... after the government bought them, they changed the name. It's no longer called GMAC, I completely forget what they changed it to. Here's the shady thing, and this is how more than half of these government owned corporations were purchased... but after GM was restructured, the government said... Hey, we now need a bank that can provide auto loans for GM. So, what WOULD make perfect sense of course would be to re-integrate, or at least, make use of GMAC (under a different name now) since it was already owned by the government. Under the excuse of necessity, they purchased another bank (also forget the name) which had no affiliation with auto loans any more than any other normal bank does, and restructured them to focus on auto loans.

I was unaware of that. I thought the failed banks were seized by the FDIC and then sold off to other banks. I know a lot of banks have been sold that way.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I was unaware of that. I thought the failed banks were seized by the FDIC and then sold off to other banks. I know a lot of banks have been sold that way.

Yeah I thought so too but have to admit I don't know one way or the other. I'd like to see some documentation (links whatever) on all these companies being bought by the U.S. gov't in the last few years.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 05-20-2011).]

there can be no peace without justice
how do the neo-conned propose to deal with the non-jews
who have had their country stolen by the jewish illegal immigration

Throughout history, wars have been fought over religion, money and land. The old adage, "To the victor go the spoils", came from this history. Israel fought a defensive war (that means they were attacked), and kept the land that they won. It's happened that way for friggin' ever. The only country to not do so was the USA after WW II.

So explain to us all, Ray, how the settlement of the West Bank is 'illegal'?

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Doni your post sounds like the kind of we won so suck it attitude that is not any good coming from either side. I think the 2010 election results could be interpreted as many voters who voted for Obama very unhappy with him thus far.

Not at all, Scott.

It's simply a recognition of the fact that he won the presidential election. Personally, I don't feel like I "won or lost" as I'm attempting to view the picture from a larger panorama than that. Having said that, however, the "Face of America" is among the most paramount responsibilities for the POTUS and Obama's got the job for the time being so it stands to reason that he "represents" America on a collective level. Obviously and quite understandably, those who didn't vote for him or supported an opposing candidate would have a problem with that. However, the rest of the world ("vote local...think global") by and large doesn't make that singular distinction.

He's the POTUS....we're Americans.

As such, he's our "spokesperson" until he's voted out of office.....OR is constitutionally restricted from serving a third term.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 05-20-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: there can be no peace without justice how do the neo-conned propose to deal with the non-jews who have had their country stolen by the jewish illegal immigration

You do understand there was no palestine until recently, that is an invention of the UN. You do understand most of Israel was nothing but vacant desert with maybe a nomad or two before 1948. Your the one who is conned.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: You do understand there was no palestine until recently, that is an invention of the UN. You do understand most of Israel was nothing but vacant desert with maybe a nomad or two before 1948. Your the one who is conned.

that land has had people there for at least 8000 years
and your BS about nomads is just propaganda

the point is propaganda does not lead to peace
and without a true picture of who is a native and who is a illegal immigrant [under brit's laws]
there can be not justice or peace

in case you have misssed it the world is changing
the arab spring can if we are lucky can bring peace
SOS repeated will bring more terror
so your lies do not lead anywhere but to more terror

do your really want justice and an end to terror
or is the fairytales your support more important then peace ???

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by newf: Yeah I thought so too but have to admit I don't know one way or the other. I'd like to see some documentation (links whatever) on all these companies being bought by the U.S. gov't in the last few years.

I can do more searches when I get home, but here it is for GMAC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial

It's now called Ally Financial, and it's owned 73% by the US government, it had already been split off from GM some time before bankruptcy when it was originally called GMAC. After they split off, the US Government bought them, and renamed it Ally Financial.

Then, out of the blue, the US Government bought AmeriCredit for 3.5 billion dollars, and has recently named it the GM Financial Arm.

http://www.ibtimes.com/arti...-finance-leasing.htm

http://wiki.fool.com/AmeriCredit


Amtrak is one that still infuriates me, I think it was bought in 1971... but continues to draw tons of capital from the taxpayers, and does NOT generate a profit.


I hate to put it so bluntly, but the government buys two kinds of businesses...

1) Deals with money (banks)
2) It's work force is unionized.


There are a few that I know of that are owned by the government (whole or in part):

Citigroup
AIG
Morgan Stanley
PNC Financial Services Group
U.S. Bancorp
Capital One Financial
Regions Financial Corporation
State Street Corporation
Discover Financial
North Dakota Mill and Elevator

And of course have what are called "GSE"s which include Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Farmer Mac, Sallie Mae, etc...


There's a bunch of others too... like American Axle which is partly owned (through preferred shares) from the US government. Literally, something like half of the parts suppliers in Detroit are owned whole or in part by the US. I think the US owned or still owns part of Arvin Meritor as well (I think now called Meritor).

I can try to spend some time to search and get a list... this might be a good blog post for my website.

quote Originally posted by ray b: that land has had people there for at least 8000 years and your BS about nomads is just propaganda the point is propaganda does not lead to peace and without a true picture of who is a native and who is a illegal immigrant [under brit's laws] there can be not justice or peace in case you have misssed it the world is changing Hamas has said there will be no peace till every Jew is dead. Is that the peace you support? the arab spring can if we are lucky can bring peace SOS repeated will bring more terror so your lies do not lead anywhere but to more terror do your really want justice and an end to terror or is the fairytales your support more important then peace ???

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: You do understand there was no palestine until recently, that is an invention of the UN. You do understand most of Israel was nothing but vacant desert with maybe a nomad or two before 1948.

Are you serious? You don't think there were plenty of Arabs displaced by the formation of Israel?

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Hamas has said there will be no peace till every Jew is dead. Is that the peace you support?

no I have never really supported any arab group
but do object to my taxes funding religious nuts of any religion
a fair just peace needs both sides to give up somethings to get others
a never give an inch dogma will reinforce terror
and the zionist state has used terror too

the mid eastern mess will never be solved one sided plans
as both sides have done wrong and need to take a step back

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I can do more searches when I get home, but here it is for GMAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial It's now called Ally Financial, and it's owned 73% by the US government, it had already been split off from GM some time before bankruptcy when it was originally called GMAC. After they split off, the US Government bought them, and renamed it Ally Financial. Then, out of the blue, the US Government bought AmeriCredit for 3.5 billion dollars, and has recently named it the GM Financial Arm. http://www.ibtimes.com/arti...-finance-leasing.htm http://wiki.fool.com/AmeriCredit Amtrak is one that still infuriates me, I think it was bought in 1971... but continues to draw tons of capital from the taxpayers, and does NOT generate a profit. I hate to put it so bluntly, but the government buys two kinds of businesses... 1) Deals with money (banks) 2) It's work force is unionized. There are a few that I know of that are owned by the government (whole or in part): Citigroup AIG Morgan Stanley PNC Financial Services Group U.S. Bancorp Capital One Financial Regions Financial Corporation State Street Corporation Discover Financial North Dakota Mill and Elevator And of course have what are called "GSE"s which include Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Farmer Mac, Sallie Mae, etc... There's a bunch of others too... like American Axle which is partly owned (through preferred shares) from the US government. Literally, something like half of the parts suppliers in Detroit are owned whole or in part by the US. I think the US owned or still owns part of Arvin Meritor as well (I think now called Meritor). I can try to spend some time to search and get a list... this might be a good blog post for my website.

Yeah you made it sound as if the U.S. Gov't have been buying up thousands of companies whole and running them but that doesn't appear to be the case. Maybe you can provide some better information when you have a moment.

In a meeting today, Netanyahu basicly ditzed Obama.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: You do understand there was no palestine until recently, that is an invention of the UN. You do understand most of Israel was nothing but vacant desert with maybe a nomad or two before 1948.

You do realize that Israel was created after the British pulled out of "The British mandate of Palestine... If Palestine didn't exist, how did that area get that name? Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over that land for at least 2000 years. They will still be fighting over that land even if they had a coalition government and no borders. Its been that way since "The house of Abraham" in the bible.

And just who is the anointed one to tell Israel what to do? He can't control some Americans, let alone the Jewish state.

[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 05-20-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: You don't think there were plenty of Arabs displaced by the formation of Israel?

You do ? How many would you say ? Six million plus Jews were displaced from the planet Earth by genocide.
Besides, we are talking about Palestinians. These are the ones displaced by the 67 war (in which Israel was attacked). The land in question used to be Jordon. Jordon doesn't want them.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: You do realize that Israel was created after the British pulled out of "The British mandate of Palestine... If Palestine didn't exist, how did that area get that name? Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over that land for at least 2000 years. They will still be fighting over that land even if they had a coalition government and no borders. Its been that way since "The house of Abraham" in the bible. And just who is the anointed one to tell Israel what to do? He can't control some Americans, let alone the Jewish state.

Do a google image search of that map, Israel only has a very small portion of that "palestine".

quote Originally posted by htexans1: If Palestine didn't exist, how did that area get that name? Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting over that land for at least 2000 years.

Palestine got it's name from the Greek Philistines. Not the Arabs. The Philistines did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.
The name itself, refers to rolling or migratory. The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat).
Point is, Israel was there first.
Fact is Palestine does not even exist now.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: You do ? How many would you say ? Six million plus Jews were displaced from the planet Earth by genocide. Besides, we are talking about Palestinians. These are the ones displaced by the 67 war (in which Israel was attacked). The land in question used to be Jordon. Jordon doesn't want them.

How many? I'm not sure but I've heard many hundreds of thousands. So because the Nazi's killed Jews that makes it OK to displace others from their home somehow?? I would agree if those people displaced were Nazi's but that's not the case.

Israel as far as I know was formed before 67 and they displaced plenty of people before then.

I support Israel but think there should also be a Palastinian state.

quote Originally posted by newf Israel as far as I know was formed before 67 and they displaced plenty of people before then.

Israel has been a nation since it's war of Independence in 1948 but the Israelites have been around since Biblical times. Read this Wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

If you don't like that link here is another.
http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.php

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-20-2011).]

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: In a meeting today, Netanyahu basicly ditzed Obama.

\

Oh, man, that was CLASSIC. Netanyahu SCHOOLED Obama. Obama tried to serve him a crap sandwich, and Bebe slid it back to him and said "no thanks."

Obama got his ASS HANDED TO HIM today, and rightfully so.

I think that the biggest obstacle to peace over there is that the Palestinians have unrealistic expectations. The Palestinian leaders (all of them) have been conditioning the Palestinians to think that the "new" Israel (after its boundaries are redrawn to make room for the new Palestinian state) will have to accept substantial numbers of Palestinians for resettlement within the "new" Israel--instead of within the boundaries of the new Palestine.

In other words, as the Israeli PM Netanyahu has been saying, the issue of Palestinian "return" must be settled within the boundaries of the new Palestine--and not within Israel. I think that's a key point where Netanyahu is 100 percent right.

Up until yesterday I tended to discount the idea that Obama was not a reliable friend to Israel, but yesterday's "1967 borders speech" (in which Obama said little or nothing about the concessions that are necessary from the Palestinians) -- I think that Obama's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took one step backwards instead of forwards.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Israel has been a nation since it's war of Independence in 1948 but the Israelites have been around since Biblical times. Read this Wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel If you don't like that link here is another. http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.php

What's your point?

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Up until yesterday I tended to discount the idea that Obama was not a reliable friend to Israel, but yesterday's "1967 borders speech" (in which Obama said little or nothing about the concessions that are necessary from the Palestinians) -- I think that Obama's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took one step backwards instead of forwards.

That's the understatement of the year. Obama stepped on his dick, and Israel is PISSED.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Do a google image search of that map, Israel only has a very small portion of that "palestine".

Very true.

quote Originally posted by newf: Yeah you made it sound as if the U.S. Gov't have been buying up thousands of companies whole and running them but that doesn't appear to be the case. Maybe you can provide some better information when you have a moment.

When you say "run" by the government, does that mean you think Obama runs them all himself? In most of the cases, the companies are majority owned by the government. Through that majority, they can wipe out the board of directors, and then the government (whatever department or task force or czar that's in that area of expertise) will elect through common stock vote the new members of the board of directors. In most cases, they're either friends of the czars, union leaders, etc...

So... yes, the government is running them. The government runs those corporations in the same way they do GM, etc... through appointment to the board of directors.

I only rattled off maybe a bit more than a dozen, but there are close to a thousand. I found several links for you to the several that you specifically asked proof for, only for you to respond with basically a two-liner saying I was more or less full of it. I know you're not trying to be a dick, but I don't see the point of compiling a huge post with hundreds of links, only for you to ease out of it on a technicality saying somehow that it's not a big deal. If you're interested enough, feel free to do your own searches.

quote Originally posted by newf: How many? I'm not sure but I've heard many hundreds of thousands. So because the Nazi's killed Jews that makes it OK to displace others from their home somehow?? I would agree if those people displaced were Nazi's but that's not the case. Israel as far as I know was formed before 67 and they displaced plenty of people before then. I support Israel but think there should also be a Palastinian state.

Do you also support the many attemps over the last century to return all the land taken (by force) from the idigenous people of North America by the Europeans--or do we just draw the ever decreasing circle tightly around Israel. excluding us and convienently focus strictly on the '67 war? Obama was in Texas a few days ago, and I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky he didn't publicly advocate relocating our own Texas border to that delineated prior to 1835. Interesting and not at all surprising he has publicly called for another nation to relinquish it's own secure borders, especially since Obama has failed to secure our own. I can't say it did much for his re-election campaign tho.

Wars and natural events dictate where borders lie, and they change quite often, as we saw during western end southern expansion of both Canada and the US. Native North Americans now have control of just tiny fractions of the territory they once freely roamed over and called their own, before the Europeans arrived. The ones with the superior armed forces always gains territory, even if they have inferior #s of troops.

quote In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border[18]. Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19) and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[19][20] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or justification for war.[21][22] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May 22–23. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[23] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War. Leadup to war: Military preparationsArab preparations. On the eve of the war, Egypt massed approximately 100,000 of its 160,000 troops in the Sinai, including all of its seven divisions (four infantry, two armored and one mechanized), as well as four independent infantry and four independent armored brigades. No less than a third of them were veterans of Egypt's intervention into the Yemen Civil War and another third were reservists. These forces had 950 tanks, 1,100 APCs and more than 1,000 artillery pieces.[24] At the same time some Egyptian troops (15,000 - 20,000) were still fighting in Yemen.[25][26][27] Nasser's ambivalence about his goals and objectives was reflected in his orders to the military. The general staff changed the operational plan four times in May 1967, each change requiring the redeployment of troops, with the inevitable toll on both men and vehicles. Towards the end of May, Nasser finally forbade the general staff from proceeding with the Qahir ("Victory") plan, which called for a light infantry screen in the forward fortifications with the bulk of the forces held back to conduct a massive counterattack against the main Israeli advance when identified, and ordered a forward defense of the Sinai.[28] In the meantime, he continued to take actions intended to increase the level of mobilization of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, in order to bring pressure on Israel. Syria's army had a total strength of 75,000 and amassed them along the Syrian border.[29] Jordan's army had 55,000 troops,[30] including 300 tanks along the Jordanian border, 250 of which were US M48 Patton, sizable amounts of M113 APCs, a new battalion of mechanized infantry, and a paratrooper battalion trained in the new US-built school. They also had 12 battalions of artillery and six batteries of 81 mm and 120 mm mortars.[31] Documents captured by the Israelis from various Jordanian command posts record orders from the end of May for the Hashemite Brigade to capture Ramot Burj Bir Mai'in in a night raid, codenamed "Operation Khaled". The aim was to establish a bridgehead together with positions in Latrun for an armored capture of Lod and Ramle. The "go" codeword was Sa'ek and end was Nasser. The Jordanians also planned for the capture of Motza and Sha'alvim in the strategic Jerusalem Corridor. Motza was tasked to Infantry Brigade 27 camped near Ma'ale Adummim: "The reserve brigade will commence a nighttime infiltration onto Motza, will destroy it to the foundation, and won't leave a remnant or refugee from among its 800 residents".[31] 100 Iraqi tanks and an infantry division were readied near the Jordanian border. Two squadrons of fighter-aircraft, Hawker Hunters and MiG 21 respectively, were rebased adjacent to the Jordanian border.[31] On June 2, Jordan called up all reserve officers, and the West Bank commander met with community leaders in Ramallah to request assistance and cooperation for his troops during the war, assuring them that "in 3 days we'll be in Tel-Aviv".[31] The Arab air forces themselves were aided by volunteer pilots from the Pakistan Air Force acting in independent capacity, as well as some aircraft from Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to make up for the massive losses suffered on the first day of the war.[32]

/\
THAT massive buildup right on it's border , is what prompted Israel to go to war. Can't say I blame them either, and /\ THAT is why Israel will never relinquish the territory it gained in that war and kept as a buffer against a repeat of such massive alliance pitted against themselves.

The whole of the Arab world also claims there should be a Palestinian state, and have tried at least 3 times to forcefully implement that state.
You would think they would learn--I for one, would be a bit hesitant to make a 4th attempt, Obama or no Obama.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Palestine got it's name from the Greek Philistines. Not the Arabs. The Philistines did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name itself, refers to rolling or migratory. The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). Point is, Israel was there first. Fact is Palestine does not even exist now.

close but not quite
jews first
abraham was a nomad who if the story is not totally made up
wandered in to caanan from iraq
his people lived there and then moved to egypt proper
why the proper ?
because the egyptian empire ruled the whole place most of the time
then there is the whole exodus FANTASY
REMEMBER EGYPTIAN EMPIRE
YES THE JEWS NEVER LEFT THAT EMPIRE
WELL THAT MAKE THE WHOLE STORY OFF
and by their own bible story they wandered in and out
then got taken captive and came back
and were mostly run out by the romans after 3 or 4 bloody revolts
almost 2000 years ago
in short their claims of kingdom or empire is very exaggerated
at best vassal or tributes of egypt except in brief periods

Philistines were gone by 500bce
really not native people or ancestors of current natives in Palestine
who currently have been there far longer then the jews

here's an article I wrote, just my two cents on the matter
http://circlethewagons.net/...s-naivete-gone-wild/

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 05-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: /\ THAT massive buildup right on it's border , is what prompted Israel to go to war. Can't say I blame them either, and /\ THAT is why Israel will never relinquish the territory it gained in that war and kept as a buffer against a repeat of such massive alliance pitted against themselves. The whole of the Arab world also claims there should be a Palestinian state, and have tried at least 3 times to forcefully implement that state. You would think they would learn--I for one, would be a bit hesitant to make a 4th attempt, Obama or no Obama.

So if the wars with Israel had resulted in the taking of it you would be fine with that?

My point is that many Palistinians were displaced by the formation of Israel and I think they are entitled to have a land to call their own just as the Jewish people have in Israel. In fact I have always found it ironic as I would think the Israeli's of all people would understand such a desire for a homeland.

Again, AFAIK this was meant to be a starting point towards peace talks as it has been a long held idea that the 1967 borders WITH agreements to section certain land masses. Is it the best solution? I don't know but with many negotiations both or one side is pretty against with what a mediator has to say at first but that is used as a starting point.

quote Originally posted by newf: So if the wars with Israel had resulted in the taking of it you would be fine with that? My point is that many Palistinians were displaced by the formation of Israel and I think they are entitled to have a land to call their own just as the Jewish people have in Israel. In fact I have always found it ironic as I would think the Israeli's of all people would understand such a desire for a homeland. Again, AFAIK this was meant to be a starting point towards peace talks as it has been a long held idea that the 1967 borders WITH agreements to section certain land masses. Is it the best solution? I don't know but with many negotiations both or one side is pretty against with what a mediator has to say at first but that is used as a starting point.

Do you know what the borders of Palestine were before 1967? (note: This is a trick question)
Palestine is a region, not a state. Saying the formation of Israel displaced Palestinians is like saying the Louisiana Purchase displaced "North Americans."
Palestine is the area where the ancient Philistines lived at the beginning of the Iron Age.

"Biblical scholars often trace the word to the Semitic root p-l-š (Hebrew: פלש‎) which means to divide, go through, to roll in, cover or invade, with a possible sense in this name as "migrant" or "invader"." Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition: Appendix II Semitic Roots. 2000. Retrieved 2008-01-02.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Do you know what the borders of Palestine were before 1967? (note: This is a trick question) Palestine is a region, not a state. Saying the formation of Israel displaced Palestinians is like saying the Louisiana Purchase displaced "North Americans." Palestine is the area where the ancient Philistines lived at the beginning of the Iron Age. "Biblical scholars often trace the word to the Semitic root p-l-š (Hebrew: פלש‎) which means to divide, go through, to roll in, cover or invade, with a possible sense in this name as "migrant" or "invader"." Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition: Appendix II Semitic Roots. 2000. Retrieved 2008-01-02.

The Arab people who were displaced by the formation of Israel then. The people who call themselves Palastinian today. Does that make more sense??

quote Originally posted by newf: The Arab people who were displaced by the formation of Israel then. The people who call themselves Palastinian today. Does that make more sense??

The point is there isn't a Palestinian state, there are Palestinian territories. (like the Louisiana Territory before there was a Louisiana state) There has been talk about creating one, but I don't see any peace process working as long as Palestinians work for the destruction of Israel. Any borders will be violated, as history has proven. The 1967 borders weren't enough to prevent the Six-Day War. Going back to those borders will only weaken Israel and make them more vulnerable to attack. It doesn't further the goal of peace. Hamas (meaning Islamic Resistance Movement) governs the Gaza Strip and has stated they are committed to the destruction of Israel. This isn't just about various countries arguing over borders. At it's core, it's a clash between Judaism and Islam. That's not a conflict I see being solved by moving a border. As long as Jews exist in the region, there will be conflict.