1. I don't need their love. Yes, ending thir desire to destroy Israel will make things alot better for all.

2. Israel was destroyed by Europeans (Romans). Jews continued to live there. For 2,000 years we have been dealt dirt by Europeans (among others). It is only fitting it be restored by them....but in fact, Jews bought land there from the Ottomans and built the country from swamp and desert. Of course the shiftless want it. NOW. Well, tough break. They ain't getting it. Ever. Except between the eyes when they try it by force.

3. 2-5 answered in 2 above.

I don't wish to continue reiterating what has been said before in this thread, so unless you come up with something I consider significant I won't be responding further.

@ starkers: Thanks for the support, mate. It hasn't gone unnoticed (check your karma).

You jest for sure! The Vatican city state was not created by taking someone's property?

Absolutely right, Ken, there will be no peace until we can all live together as brothers of men and give in return rather than take without contribution.  Perhaps lobotomies to eliminate greed and power lust is a possible answer.

Yes, this era in the oldworld history roughly drawed our current borders for the most part in europe with small changes but not alot of people moving around after this.... why would that not apply to israel, i think because this land was made in modern times the enlightenment made it more of a issue. Probably if the jews got together and made an army and took it over themselves there would not have been the same conflicts because the opposing parties would have been done away with in that war. As it was now there was nothing the arab's could do against the worlds reigning superpowers dividing their land thru conquest. its like waveing a stick at a tank.

Lateran treaty... look it up. Political treaty not any war for making that state...

I am familiar with the granting of the land to the Holy See by the Kingdom of Italy.  What was there before that grant? and how was the Kindom of Italy created?  First a Lomabard state, then the Holy Roman Empire, then the Naploeonic state, then the Garibaldi state and then the Fascist stae of Mussolini until 1944.  One violent take over after another. I maintain my point that very country is/was created by someone taking something from someone. And surely you would not argue that the Pope's over time have conducted their fair share of wars in what is now Italy.

I guess the issue is settled. Arabs are evil and the israeli are good. I had no idea it was THAT easy.

... The real issue is that we only accept people to be equal if they have a life that's somwhat similar to ours... People sleeping naked outside some small hut must be living a miserable life, brainwashed because they don't know the freedom of having a car and cellphone.

There's one common thing with us though... We're all equally thickheaded.

Is it really your view that Hamas and it stated agenda represents all Arabs?  Certainly not mine and I pray that it will never be the case.  To be against Islamic terrorists is not to be against all Arabs any more that to be against Nazi Skin heads is to be against all Germans, etc. But then you must already know that.

Sure you are right looks like you know more about than i do! but that wasnt really the question right?... In the case of forming the Vatican City State there was not a violent takeover of the buildings that is that city state.

And Iceland isnt that a state?

Essentially, your comment comes back to what I was saying before... that outside intervention breeds contempt, bitterness and resentment, thus leading to more bloodshed.  True, it would have been a more ideal situation if the Jews could have reclaimed their own land for themselves.  However, they were essentially displaced, stateless and without organised government/leadership, not to mention devoid of the resources to mount such a large scale challenge.  Hence, the creation of the Israel we know today was up to the victors after WW II in Europe... which is where millions of Jews were displaced after the war but not wanted anywhere, so the powers of the time saw fit the give them back their traditional homeland to avoid conflict and further bloodshed throughout Europe. 

However, the recreation of Israel was not at the point of a gun or under threat of bombs, rather it was negotiated and bargained for... and whether ot not the Arabs agreed happily or not, they DID agree, and thus the voilence to take back which was never theirs to begin with is, to all intent and purposes, unwarranted.

Too bad you don't take the time to read what I wrote.

Hamas....not "The Arabs" is the target.

Stop trying the "Poor Victim" ploy. It's nonsense and appeal that is in this case invalid.

Hamas doesn't represent all Arabs. Never has. Never will. It represents the love of violence, hatred and the culture of death.

Enough!

Iceland as was conquered several times if you will check.  The Irish, the Nordes, the Celtic, the Norwegians and eventaully the Danes. But again, that is not the point in discussion.

The point is that there was agreat deal of violence leading up to the treaty.  To say there was none after the treaty was signed is like saying there was no violince in the creation of Belgium although a great war led up to it.

...and there it is... an inabilty to differentiate the two.

No one said a word about Arabs, but you assume thats what we mean...

I speak only of radicalism within Islam, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, Taliban.. etc...

Doesnt matter what has happened in past, who started it... these militants are evil, these people and their ideology need to be wiped from the face of the earth. Fueling their actions by somehow placing the overall blame on western leaders is nothing more than condoning them.

I wonder if the fight was in your own back yards who's side you would take then.

Regarding the Palestinian / Israeli situation

Certainly no easy solution - Similar but on a larger scale to Northern Ireland.   The palestinians dont seem to ever tire of dying and killing people.   Fortunately the Irish did and there seems to be a lasting peace.   I dont believe either side is in the right but surely they reach a point where they can see that rocket attacks and suicide bombings are not the answer.  

Dangerous situation really due to the massive potential of pulling in other nations into a larger war

I checked and it was not.. although under the rule of Norway and Norway-Danmark then danmark.. celts was immigrants... no military force involved... civil struggles... there was.... then treatys because of the civilstrife which made it belong to norway. The rest you know.

But it was not violence per see that made the treaty... and its a treaty not a takeover that was your statement.

It was not taken it was given period underlying causes aside.

wow I have not posted here in quite some time.  Having been there done that seen it from both sides, studied it, fought it(them) in operations you will never hear about ...it is that easy. Israel good radical islam bad.  After any of you take a trip over there, especially right now, walk the streets, live the life, eat, sleep, walk, talk, educate yourself.  Then come back to this post 6 months min from now and agree with us on this matter. It is a shame non the less. 

When seconds count, police are minutes away..protect yourself.

Have it your way.  I thought your point was that the Palestinians had their land taken by the allies.  If you wish to phase that as the allies gave their land away have it your way in the land of symantics.

Symanitics again, call it civil strife if you will.  The Danes took control of the country from those living there before them.

But again, have it your way.  And have a great day!