Why not just let them battle it out with the Palestinians and let the winner reign?

They already have beaten the Arabs over and over again.

Randpaul isn't going to win, not enough support.

Rand Paul is not running. His father Ron Paul is. Rand Paul is not so loony when it comes to foreign policy, does not have all the negative baggage of his father and could be President someday.

Whats the deal with Israel anyway? Why does the US have to support them? Why not just let them battle it out with the Palestinians and let the winner reign?

I know it's wildly off topic, but.....

It's "been there, done that". Israel can hammer the Palestinians any time you like. And still be surrounded by Arab states which would be even more hostile. This is a problem to which I can see no possible solution.

The American president who cut off support to Israel would be doing his own country a big favour, but none of them would dare.

Why not just let them battle it out with the Palestinians and let the winner reign?

They already have beaten the Arabs over and over again.

Thats the thing, if they can defeat them, why does the US keep supporting them then? Or are they able to defeat them because of US support via funding?

...

You haven't been very alert if you haven't noticed the current administration doing a grand job of cronie capitallism. Now Obama is even helping Buffett make millions more with his railroad hauling the oil they can't send by the Keystone pipeline because Obama didn't approve the pipeline. It gets worse every day.

More like he hasn't had his tinfoil hat delivered yet.

For your education...

http://www.bloomberg...f-pipeline.html

http://cofcc.org/201...-keystone-veto/

http://www.examiner....ystone-pipeline

Edit in: I just found this one on more Obama crony capitalism...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/26/soros-may-benefit-from-white-houses-natural-gas-proposal/

Why not just let them battle it out with the Palestinians and let the winner reign?

They already have beaten the Arabs over and over again.

Thats the thing, if they can defeat them, why does the US keep supporting them then? Or are they able to defeat them because of US support via funding?

The US government never helped them until they had defeated the Arabs 3 times over two decades, but after the victorious Six Day War in 1967, the US decided to make them allies to keep the Soviets - who were arming the Arabs - under control. The US keeps helping them because they are the only allies we can trust in the Middle East.

On the subject of Newt Gingrich, he is a historian and his statement that the Palestinians are an invented people was correct. There has never been a country, people or language of "Palestine" (other than the ancient Jewish one). Most of the "Palestinians" were illegal iArab mmigrants from surrounding countries who arrived at the same time the majority of the Jews came from Europe.

I am surprised to hear that the Americans didn't help Israel until after 1967, but I'll take your word for it!

After the First World War, there was a certain amount of shuffling of borders around the Middle East. Among other "countries" was the British Mandated Territory of Palestine, which had a mixed population of Jews and Arabs. Right so far? When Israel was constituted as a separate state in 1948, what happened to the rest of the Mandated Territory? As far as I can see, it was left to fend for itself.

The whole point is that the Palestinians, or whatever you like to call them, were left in limbo. This created, in my opinion, an unworkable situation... which has been emphasised by all that has happened since. Israel should never had been given its independence without at the same time catering for the "Palestinians". The seizure of the extra territory in 1967 made the situation even more unworkable.

Ideally, the whole of the Mandated Territory should have been made one country, with equal rights for Jews and Arabs... but I suppose that wouldn't have worked. The influx of Jews from Europe would have created an imbalance between Jews and Arabs.

Sorry, I'm beginning to ramble! Simply because I don't see the way out of the present impasse.

On the subject of Newt Gingrich, he is a historian and his statement that the Palestinians are an invented people was correct. There has never been a country, people or language of "Palestine" (other than the ancient Jewish one).

Countries are artificial constructs, people are not.

I am surprised to hear that the Americans didn't help Israel until after 1967, but I'll take your word for it!

After the First World War, there was a certain amount of shuffling of borders around the Middle East. Among other "countries" was the British Mandated Territory of Palestine, which had a mixed population of Jews and Arabs. Right so far? When Israel was constituted as a separate state in 1948, what happened to the rest of the Mandated Territory? As far as I can see, it was left to fend for itself.

The whole point is that the Palestinians, or whatever you like to call them, were left in limbo. This created, in my opinion, an unworkable situation... which has been emphasised by all that has happened since. Israel should never had been given its independence without at the same time catering for the "Palestinians". The seizure of the extra territory in 1967 made the situation even more unworkable.

Ideally, the whole of the Mandated Territory should have been made one country, with equal rights for Jews and Arabs... but I suppose that wouldn't have worked. The influx of Jews from Europe would have created an imbalance between Jews and Arabs.

Sorry, I'm beginning to ramble! Simply because I don't see the way out of the present impasse.

Taking the broad brush-strokes, you are correct.

The problem now is that if the Gaza strip, West Bank and Israel were reconstituted as one state, then that state would soon NOT be a Jewish homeland. The Arab population breed like rabbits, and would soon outnumber the Jewish portion. Being mainly Muslim, they are poorly educated (even their religious leaders are mostly poorly educated outside the Koranic studies) and will follow the guy who shouts the loudest. This will soon turn Israel into what 'Palestine' is now - an aggressive people with little education. British/Dutch football thugs spring to mind.

Israel is a very civilised, democratic country. Every citizen has the vote, regardless of creed. But an influx of 100% muslim population would skew the demographics so that there would soon be no place for the Jewish portion, as there would be hate campaigns launched against them by the newly arrived, illiterate muslim mobs.

I have worked with many Palestinians, both in Saudi and in UAE. These were the ones who had got an education in either US or UK (mainly) and one could converse with them on most matters quite reasonably. But bring up the word Israel and their eyes (to a man) would glaze over and they would spew out all sorts of nonsense that a sane man cannot believe.

And at 9/11 I was working in Libya. At about three in the afternoon there was an uproar in the NOC Clinic (National Oil Company) as several lab technicians came dancing down the corridors, whooping and yelling. The first planes had just crashed into the twin towers and these guys knew about before Libyan radio broadcast it. Maybe Gaza radio was more on the ball. But whereas the rest of us, Libyan or foreigner, were shocked and disbelieving, the Palestinian staff were in ecstacy.

They are not a nice people. They have grievances, sure, but they will not let the smallest slight go by without complaint after complaint for the rest of time.

Israel should never had been given its independence without at the same time catering for the "Palestinians".

I think you are talking about what is now Jordan which was supposed to be the Palestinian homeland, but you never hear the Arabs or the left talking about this.

By the way, Gaza and the West Bank were also supposed to be part of the land for the Palestinian Arabs, but were immediately occupied by Jordan and Egypt when Israel was formed and no one complained about it until Israel conquered them in wars started by the same Arabs that have used the Palestinian Arabs as pawns ever since.

The "Palestinians" were catered for, but their Arab brothers screwed them as usual and Israel got all the blame.

I can see you're right, HB, and I'm not suggesting that the two could be combined now. I just think that the whole creation of the state of Israel was mismanaged, and has left the world with an insoluble problem.

The Palestinians may be thoroughly nasty, and the Jews thoroughly nice.... but that doesn't solve the problem. A Jewish state surrounded by increasingly hostile Arabs is a recipe for catastrophe sooner or later.

I can see you're right, HB, and I'm not suggesting that the two could be combined now. I just think that the whole creation of the state of Israel was mismanaged, and has left the world with an insoluble problem.

The Palestinians may be thoroughly nasty, and the Jews thoroughly nice.... but that doesn't solve the problem. A Jewish state surrounded by increasingly hostile Arabs is a recipe for catastrophe sooner or later.

The avaerage Palestinian is no problem at all, until discussing the State of Israel. I have had several friends who paid their 10% to the PLO while working abroad - and were good fun, provided the I word never came up.

And there have been some nasty Israelis as well - but again with the ability to discuss everyday matters in a civilised manner, except for the defense of Israel. Remember their army is called the Israel Defence Force, not there to conquer other teerritory unless it is strategically necessary to defend Israel and it's citizens. And I sometimes wonder if all those citizens are worth defending - when going out and building settlements on Arab agricultural land. Unused land - OK. Agricultural land - belonging to others - not OK unless bought and paid for.

BTW, President Gingrich. It ain't gonna happen!

On the subject of Newt Gingrich, he is a historian and his statement that the Palestinians are an invented people was correct. There has never been a country, people or language of "Palestine" (other than the ancient Jewish one).

Countries are artificial constructs, people are not.

True that & I always wonder what folks who use that argument are trying to claim.

There once never existed a USA/"Americans" ....So perhaps it is ok for someone to push us all off?

True that & I always wonder what folks who use that argument are trying to claim.

That the "Palestinians" are not any more entitled to that land than the Jews, as most of them - on both sides - arrived in the area at pretty much the same time.

True that & I always wonder what folks who use that argument are trying to claim.

That the "Palestinians" are not any more entitled to that land than the Jews, as most of them - on both sides - arrived in the area at pretty much the same time.

Then I wonder why do they/many always use the argument as worded above by Gingrich?

Perhaps it would be more plausible the way you just worded it as a reason?

True that & I always wonder what folks who use that argument are trying to claim.

That the "Palestinians" are not any more entitled to that land than the Jews, as most of them - on both sides - arrived in the area at pretty much the same time.

Then I wonder why do they/many always use the argument as worded above by Gingrich?

Perhaps it would be more plausible the way you just worded it as a reason?

Usually the media only highlight the "inflamatory" sentence and leave out the explanation as it pisses people off who do not know the history of the region.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiqu5OcyAmg&feature=related

So who was there between the Jewish diaspora and their return?

Where did the Saracans go after they kicked the crusaders out?

I'd look it up in Wiki but it would only be liberal lies.

There were always Jews there, but mostly in Jerusalem as the rest of the area was largely barren desert until more Jews started arriving from Europe. bought large tracks of land made it bloom.

"..... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... a silent mournful expanse.... a desolation.... we never saw a human being on the whole route.... hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

Mark Twain (The Innocents Abroad, p. 361-362)

There were always some Jews and always some Arabs... and there were even a few Christian Arabs, though I think the Crusaders killed most of them. The point being of course that the land belongs to all of them equally, and the non-Jews (nice or nasty) did not get a fair deal in 1948 nor in 1967.

Putting aside our prejudices (and I think we all have them; I certainly do), I think we can agree that if the Palestinian mandate had become a single independent country, the Jews would have gradually assumed full control anyway, through sheer nous and hard work.

The point being of course that the land belongs to all of them equally, and the non-Jews (nice or nasty) did not get a fair deal in 1948 nor in 1967.

The lack of a "fair" deal was due to them refusing to accept the one that the UN offered them and declaring war on the Jews. Israel did ask the Arabs to stay and become citizens after they defeated them which is why so many are citizens today.

I'm not sure what deal the UN offered them, but I wouldn't disagree with you, UG. The problem is that the whole series of events has left a nasty loose end which shows no sign of being tied up. (Sorry... not sure what you do with 'loose ends'!).

The yellow part is what the Arabs turned down for their own State.

In spite of what some posters may believe, there is more to a Presidential election than the situation in Israel-Palestinian territories.

Please keep your comments civil and on-topic.

Here's an interesting comment on topic...

Kansas Speaker O’Neal asks House GOP to pray for Obama’s death

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is under fire after asking Republican House members to pray for President Barack Obama’s death. O’Neal made the request via an email he forwarded to GOP colleagues in the House. In an email sent in December, O’Neal asked his fellow Republicans to pray Psalm 109, which contains the following lines:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

The email has become the subject of a mini-media frenzy. Numerous major news outlets began reporting the details surrounding the disturbing prayer request on Friday.

The relevant verse from Psalm 109 is considered a prayer for vengeance, a prayer for the death of a leader. The most damning part of the prayer is lines 7-12:

'When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.

Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.'

Think Progress reports that O’Neal forwarded the prayer with his own message:

“At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”

News of the email is a sad commentary on Republican politics in Kansas. In addition, the email prayer request indicates an astonishing disregard and disrespect for the office of the presidency. For a government official to pray for the death of President Obama, and encourage other government officials to do the same, is not only morally reprehensible, it is also treason.

http://m.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/kansas-speaker-o-neal-asks-house-gop-to-pray-for-obama-s-death

Here's an interesting comment on topic...

Kansas Speaker O’Neal asks House GOP to pray for Obama’s death

The thread is about Newt Gingrich, not Mike O'Neal. It is off topic too.

I get more leeway than you because I'm a nicer guy.....

Here's an interesting comment on topic...

Kansas Speaker O’Neal asks House GOP to pray for Obama’s death

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is under fire after asking Republican House members to pray for President Barack Obama’s death. O’Neal made the request via an email he forwarded to GOP colleagues in the House. In an email sent in December, O’Neal asked his fellow Republicans to pray Psalm 109, which contains the following lines:

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

The email has become the subject of a mini-media frenzy. Numerous major news outlets began reporting the details surrounding the disturbing prayer request on Friday.

The relevant verse from Psalm 109 is considered a prayer for vengeance, a prayer for the death of a leader. The most damning part of the prayer is lines 7-12:

'When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.

Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.

Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.'

Think Progress reports that O’Neal forwarded the prayer with his own message:

“At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”

News of the email is a sad commentary on Republican politics in Kansas. In addition, the email prayer request indicates an astonishing disregard and disrespect for the office of the presidency. For a government official to pray for the death of President Obama, and encourage other government officials to do the same, is not only morally reprehensible, it is also treason.

http://m.examiner.co...r-obama-s-death

As the brothers say, "That's some sick shit".

Thanks for the map, UG. From that it's quite clear why the Arabs weren't having any (and I wouldn't have thought the Jews would have liked it much). It looks like two countries drawn by a committee, which I suppose is what it was.

Back to Newt. Paul and Santorum have no chance at all, but might have some nuisance value as spoilers. Both Gingrich and Romney are still in the race... but neither of them is likely to beat Obama. And we have another four years of a weak president.

Here's an interesting comment on topic...

Kansas Speaker O’Neal asks House GOP to pray for Obama’s death

The thread is about Newt Gingrich, not Mike O'Neal. It is off topic too.

I get more leeway than you because I'm a nicer guy.....

And beside that, it's Outside the Box, so a little more leeway is given.

Back to Newt. Paul and Santorum have no chance at all, but might have some nuisance value as spoilers.

Not sure if you read my earlier post about why Paul is running but it wasn't my opinion, it is the reason he is still running. He is not a spoiler.

Short term (2012), he is trying to amass as many delegates as he can so he can get a place at the table come convention time and get some of his monetary ideas included in the party platform....

He [Paul] noted that Newt Gingrich had endorsed his views on monetary policy in a nationally televised debate this week. Paul has called for the Federal Reserve to be audited and ultimately eliminated, and wants the value of the dollar tied to gold.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-28-15-20-14

Paul is not campaigning in Florida because they award ALL the delegates to the winner. That's not what a spoiler does...

Paul told reporters that it didn't make sense for him to campaign in Florida, which holds its primary Tuesday and awards all its 50 delegates to the winner. Polling indicates Mitt Romney is leading the field there.

"Some other campaigns have many, many millions of dollars to run a campaign," Paul said. "We maximize the delegates the way we're doing it."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-01-28-15-20-14

Long term (beyond 2012), he is trying to build a movement. The number of supporters/voters he has this year is far above what he had in 2008 and WAY above what he had 20 years ago. Paul is in his 70's but his son, Rand Paul, is following in his footsteps as a freshman Senator and is being groomed to take over the "movement" from Paul once he retires. Now that, is 50/50 my opinion and 50/50 what I've read.

As for Santorum, he isn't a spoiler either. He is hoping for one of two things;

1) Newt to self-destruct so that Santorum can take over as the more conservative, anti-Romney for the voters.

2) Position himself as a Vice Presidential candidate. It means little any attacks he has waged during the campaign. All is forgiven (in public) after the primaries. The main idea is to win in November, not hold grudges.