Flint, that post of yours is so out of sync with reality I don't even know where to start..

""palestinian soil" would include all Israel, according to Palestinians."

according to some Palestinians, as well as some Israelires.

"they've had diplomatic relations for some time
btw when one independent state encourages rocket strikes over the border into another independent state, what do you call that?"

That would be called war. But Israel has yet to recognise the Palestinian state, and in the process they can trim some ground of it. It's a strategy Chris.

"Arab-Israelis hold seats in the Knesset.  I hear the same lament from "oppressed" Flemish in your country--does that mean it must be true?"

They have to serve in the military longer though, just to name something.

"There is no point in a peace process.  The peace process is the biggest farce since the Berlin wall fell down.  Any economic growth by Palestine will be thrown into war with Israel.  I say that because they got hundreds of millions at Oslo and threw it into war with Israel.  They got their state and they started looting their own people. It's not Israel that prevents an Arab from owning hotels in Gaza.  The PA views such people as targets for extortion.  The PA, like Russia, is an organized crime ring with embassies."

Bollocks. It was always the Israelites who suspended the peace proces with building new settlements.
Labeling them all inhuman terrorists is a bit silly, or even racist.

"Would you prefer they fight rockets with rockets, not an embargo?"

They do that once in a while. When the Palestinians lob a few spitwads too much over those concrete walls, they bombard whatever building's still standing up (not to mention a hospital!) and drop enough coloured clusterbombs to mutilate children. Do not pretend cruelty is a Palestinian monopoly. What's needed is a true intention of peace. The Israelis aren't interested in it. They just keep them under their thumb and slowly build more settlements.

Flint, what about cement? People got their houses bombed..
That list was merely to show what silly things they put an embargo on. Flint, you absolutely have an eye to attack the details or examples, rather than the essence of the point made.

"Oh shampoo? Well I can see how Europeans can think wiithout shampoo life cannot go on."

Up yours with your "Uhmericuh is teh superior"-sentiment. It's silly and pointless.

"People die over there due to missile attacks. Ending luxuries until the attacks have ceased for a while puts pressure on the population to make the bad guys behave."

Yes, people do die there of missiles but most of them aren't Israeli's.

"Arcolex I spit on your friend. Violating an embargo of TERRORISTS! He should be ashamed and so should you of him. Any friend of mine supports terrorists is no friend of mine!"

So the people who instated the embargo are terrorists too now?
Hold your horses, Flint. It's not the people who are the terrorists, but a small fraction of them. They hold the weapons and with the embargo they surely would ensure they get their goods first. Pretty much like in any other embargoed country. Kim Yong Il was put on a similar embargo and he still manages to get his luxuaries. It's the people who suffer, not the leaders.
As psychology clearly shows, it's good to reward people when they're on the right way. Brutal action doesn't work. As you said, things have improved these last few months, surely the israelites could have allowed certain things to return into the Gaza strip. Like crayons for example.
Even children surely can not be a part of the population that's linked with terrorism in your mind, Flint.

It's repulsive that such a theme was the best they could come up with, but it's not against the rules on its own. Indeed, if they spouting silly ideas and language, a mod will take action.

Apart from that, I think this belongs into community, rathat than general.

Yes, somehow, I don't understand how people keep siding with the Israelites.
They took the land, drove the inhabiting people out of their houses, declared a one-sided independence. They still keep on taking Palestinian soil and claim ownership of their religious places, had a hand in the huge massacres of Sabra and Shatila, refuse to recognise the independent state of Palestina and actively deny rights to the Arabs in Israel.
One could say they are not exclusivly victims of terrorists.
Yes, they lost 6 millions in WWII and it is a tragedy, but it does not justify this apartheid or (a bold statement, I know) a slow ethnic cleansing.

I'm not saying the Palestinians don't have blood on their hands. I'm merely saying a proper solution can only come to exist in a more neutral treatment by the UN of both people. And first of all, Israel will have to agree on economic agreements with the Palestinians, so that they can work on a viable country. That, and only that will be the start of a true peace process.

"As for the EU Prediction. I believe it was 6 months after formation of the EU that I said the EU would not last (I do not remember a time frame) where I quoted Englands decision to not use the currency (smart move) and the Turkey issues. I think the clogs issue was up then also."

That's nearly 20 years ago. The Maastricht treaty was in 1992. Are you considering a Nostradamus style of prediciting? If so, then obviously you'll be right.

The correct term of that is regionalism, BiefstukFriet. There are some differences between the two. You even see it in the so called great Nationstates.

"Other predictions include Iraq, Obama (dozens there)"

If that's a prediction, you'll all be stunned when my predictions of more trouble in th Gaza strip will happen! Fear my insight in the future!

"It will not be a single nation, it will not be a single language, it will not be able to keep a single currency."

I thought 19th century nationstates and nationalism faded away mostly by now. It's bunk and it's not the only option for a state. Not the language is important, but the common goal. That's what the US always stood for..

"Contrary not strong militarily, but strong in other manners. If you thought you would lose, why start a war?"

Cause war was a lot different back then. The fought control, but a defeat wasn't as fatal as it is now. A peace treaty back then was usually a lot milder for those who lost, and you'd battle eachother in a few years/decades again anyway. And money was the key aspect in those wars, he who had the most money had the best army. Sizes were less important. It can't be compared to any war fought in modern times.

How foolish you were!

You shouldn't need a spell check to get it done, not when you call someone else an idiot. It makes you look silly when you claim your opponent is stupid while that opponent succeeds where you fail: comprehending the basic knowledge and structures of your native language.
You're a practicing christian right? Reread the part of the splinter/sawdust in the eye. It should be somewhere in Matthew according to the net.

Flint. Your post is irrelevant to the very essence of my point. As I said numberous times before: it was someone subscribing the idea of wealth distribution and he did it with a scientific study. The completeness of the study doesn't matter, at least it didn't for what I wanted to accomplish with posting it. And that was showing there was a scientific study about it.
And stop the bullshit about debating. You don't debate flint, you just ignore people and shout loud enough. That's exactly what you just did with the piece you typed for SD.

I must ask you to stop insulting me and my intelligence. It's getting on my nerves and I've been far too polite by tolerating it this long. It's also uncalled for and untrue (as other people in this thread said).