<html> <body> that was the philistine city of gaza.  i wonder if it's the same as gaza city today.  samson didn't like his experience there at all and expressed his dissatisfaction dramatically.  you just can't please some people, even though he had no one to blame but himself for getting there. claiming the gaza strip based on samson's outing is sort of like arguing the babylonian captivity and the period of slavery in egypt make iraq and egypt part of israel.  who knows what they'll think of next.  perhaps annexing somalia or ethiopia, the possible homeland of the queen of sheba. anyway, none of this matters since when Armageddon comes, if you're not christian, you're in deep trouble.  something joe lieberman found out the hard way when he discovered he was endorsing a fanatical organization.  to him it must have looked good on the surface. (he pulled his endorsement) even if perlstein is successful, i doubt the israeli settlers will move. eyeless in gaza was the name of a guitar duo in the 1980s.  ;-) R At 02:21 PM 8/13/2004, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi, well, Samson did go "eyeless in Gaza" so for the hard-core zealots it should be part of Israel -- but of course some people are willing to compromise. Rick Perlstein did an article about how the Bush adminstration was trying to argue that Gaza wasn't Biblical, so that the Christian right would accept Sharon's withdrawal plan. Jeet <dl> <dd>  <dd>it's my understand gaza was not a part of the biblical lands. <dd>R </dl>___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk" eudora="autourl">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </blockquote></body> </html>