Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on August 27, 2004, 02:29:35 am
-
http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/
Here's a summary:
[q]* "The Right Road to Peace"
Israel's former Minister of Tourism, Benny Elon, who was fired by Prime Minister Sharon for his opposition to the Disengagement Plan, has come up with a Biblical peace plan that he calls "Jordan is Palestine" or "The Right Road to Peace." He recently presented this plan to Jordan's Crown Prince Hassan and is presently in the United States to rally support for his plan among both Jewish and Christian leaders.
Interestingly Crown Prince Hassan's main objection against this peace plan was Israel's records of how they have treated Arab allies up till now. Arafat and his men, whom the labor politicians in Israel, with the help of mostly the Unites States, imported from exile and put in charge of the Palestinians, have been a night mare for these Arabs. Also the way Israel betrayed its South Lebanese allies in 2000 is a disgrace. In more than one case Israel has forsaken her relationship to moderate Arabs in favor of terrorists.
Elon's peace plan, which can be studied in more detail at http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/, has six steps:
[list=1]
- Dissolution of the Palestinian Authority
Immediate dissolution of the Palestinian Authority, a non-viable entity with no future, whose existence precludes the termination of the conflict.
- Eradication of terror infrastructure
Israel will uproot the Palestinian terror infrastructure. All arms will be collected, incitement will be stopped and all the refugee camps, which serve as incubators for terror, will be dismantled. Terrorists and their direct supporters will be deported.
- Recognition and Development of Jordan as the Palestinian State
Israel, the United States and the international community will recognize the Kingdom of Jordan as the only legitimate representative of the Palestinians. Jordan will once again recognize itself as the Palestinian nation-state.
In the context of a regional economic development program, Israel, the United States and the international community will put forth a concerted effort for the long-term development of Jordan, to rehabilitate its economy and enable it to absorb a limited number of refugees within its borders.
- Israeli sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Gaza
Israeli sovereignty will be asserted over Judea, Samaria and Gaza (the West Bank). The Arab residents of these areas will become citizens of the Palestinian state in Jordan. The status of these citizens, their connection to the two states and the manner of administration of their communal lives will be decided in an agreement between the governments of Israel and Jordan (Palestine).
- Rehabilitation of refugees and completion of population exchange
Israel, the United States and the international community will allocate resources for the completion of the exchange of populations that began in 1948, as well as the full rehabilitation of the refugees and their absorption and naturalization in various countries.
- Peace and normalization
After implementation of the above stages, Israel and Jordan-Palestine will declare the conflict terminated. Both sides will work to normalize peaceful relations between all parties in the region.
The plan makes clear that a small, sliced-up and crowded Palestinian state in the areas of Judea and Samaria, aside a threatened and narrow Israel - such as envisioned in the Road Map plan - is a sure recipe for war in the near future. Elon says,
"Just like the Oslo Plan fell, and the Road Map fell, and Sharon and his disengagement will fall - the public will come to us and ask us, 'What do you propose?' - and then, we must not hesitate or stutter! We must have a serious plan, one that is on the table and known, and that is what will win."
This peace plan was recently mailed to all Jews in Judea and Samaria. Benny Elon believes that the settlers have the strongest fighting spirit today in Israel and are the key factor to the success of the plan, just as their hard work of going door to door defeated the disengagement plan within the Likud party.[/q]
It gets :yes: :yes: from me.
-
a) What gives Israel the right to dismantle the PA? You may or may not like them, and I may even agree with you, but since when can Israel decide what to do about the PA?
b)Essentially, Israel gets the West Bank and Gaza, and in return they simply recognize Jordan, and already exisiting and independent country, as Palestne. What to the Palestinians get out of this? Its a one-sided deal. This is equivalent to the Palestinians just giving up the OT to Israel. Also, what about Jerusalem?
c) The plan includes the dismantling of the "terror infrastructure", but does nothing about the IDF. In essence, you would have one side disarm, while the other retains its arms? Strategically, why would anyone agree to this? Whatever you may think of the Palestinian terrorists/militants/insurgents/freedom fighters, you can't reasonably expect them to disarm, knowing that they have been in armed conflict with the IDF for decades.
d) The status of the residents of the OT is left vague and unresolved. Are they Jordanian citizens, and if so, will they remain in the OT, and if so, what rights will they have.
e) The issue of the displaced people from 1948 remains unresolved. Will they in no way be compensated? I'm assuming the right of return is out of the question. They have yet to recieve so much as an apology, or even an admission that they have been wronged.
f) Who gives Jordan the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinians. The shabby treatment they (the Palestinians) have recieved from neighboring countries should confirm that these countries do not have the best interests of the Palestinians at heart, so why should they have jurisdiction over them? The Palestinians need their own leadership and government.
-
another thing, looking at the Maps section of the website, specifically the Refugees map, the words "completion of the process" show a rathe heavy bias, as does most of the rest of the website.
The authors seem to think that becuase Jewish refugees were coming in to the territory that was to become Israel, that it is somehow natural that the natives be kicked out. Thats like saying that because I have come into your home, it stands to reason that you should leave, and that thats nice and normal.
Not to rain on your parade Sandwich, I'm just offering my honest opinion. The plan seems to be very pro-Israeli, and doesn't compromise on most of the key issues.
-
A lot of the questions you raise are addressed on the site, so pardon my quoting alot. :)
Originally posted by Rictor
a) What gives Israel the right to dismantle the PA? You may or may not like them, and I may even agree with you, but since when can Israel decide what to do about the PA?
What gives the PA the right to represent the Palestinians? They've wronged them in so many ways - stole funds, initiated incitement, supported and encouraged hatred, and participated in terrorisim - that kind of an organization has the right to be a viable contact for a people that resent it?
Granted, Israel doesn't have a legal right to deal with the PA (AFAIK). But something needs to be done to remove their negative influence, and in the end of things, the occupied territories can be "policed" by one military force alone - Israel's. It's a matter of who's the best people for the job. If the UN had any chance of uprooting the terror infrastructure, then I guess they'd be ideal. But the thought of the UN enforceing something is simply laughable.
b)Essentially, Israel gets the West Bank and Gaza, and in return they simply recognize Jordan, and already exisiting and independent country, as Palestne. What to the Palestinians get out of this? Its a one-sided deal. This is equivalent to the Palestinians just giving up the OT to Israel. Also, what about Jerusalem?
The Palestinians get full citizenship in a soverign nation, with the full aid of the US and Israel (and hopefully do-good humanitarian bodies like the EU and UN) to help Jordan absorb the refugees. From the site: [q] While based on the principle of "two states for two nations", the proposed Road Map does not achieve that goal.
It is not a "two state solution" at all. Without the complete destruction of Israel, Palestinians Arabs can only be offered a state-like entity, unable to sign international agreements, without an army and made up of a number of small and overcrowded fragments of territory.
This quasi-state would not have natural borders. Rather, population centers on both sides will straddle the border, perpetuating continued friction between Israelis and Palestinians.
The Palestinian entity's economy will be permanently dependent on Israel.
This entity would be an Israeli protectorate, leading to an intensification of the sense of humiliation felt by Palestinian Arabs who would aspire to encroach further into Israeli territory.
The refugee problem will not be solved through this entity and Palestinian Arab demands for the right of return will continue to threaten Israel's existence. The motivation for terror will remain high.
From every aspect - geographic, economic and demographic - it is clear that it will be impossible to resolve the problem within the small, overcrowded area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. [/q]
c) The plan includes the dismantling of the "terror infrastructure", but does nothing about the IDF. In essence, you would have one side disarm, while the other retains its arms? Strategically, why would anyone agree to this? Whatever you may think of the Palestinian terrorists/militants/insurgents/freedom fighters, you can't reasonably expect them to disarm, knowing that they have been in armed conflict with the IDF for decades.
The IDF is the equivalent of Jordan's military, not the Hamas/Islamic Jihad/etc. Your parallel between a soverign nation's armed forces and terrorist organizations is illogical in the extreme. "Well, if the USA dismantles Al Qaida (sp?), the USA's armed forces would then need to be dismantled as well." Utter nonsense.
d) The status of the residents of the OT is left vague and unresolved. Are they Jordanian citizens, and if so, will they remain in the OT, and if so, what rights will they have.
From the site: [q]In the framework of the eradication of terror, the terrorist heads and inciters will be deported from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The dismantling of the refugee camps, part of the rehabilitation process, will reduce the Arab population in these areas and lessen the poverty and density in the Palestinian Arab towns.
The Arab population that will continue to reside within the new areas of the State of Israel, will benefit from the civil rights conferred by Israel, but its citizenship will be Palestinian, and its political rights will be actualized in Amman. The actual administration governing the Arab sector will derive its authority from the Israeli sovereign, but will enjoy limited autonomy in a form to be determined in negotiations between Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Palestine.[/q]
e) The issue of the displaced people from 1948 remains unresolved. Will they in no way be compensated? I'm assuming the right of return is out of the question. They have yet to recieve so much as an apology, or even an admission that they have been wronged.
From the site:[q] b]Completion of the population exchange begun in 1948:
The relocation and rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees in Arab lands will complete the population exchange process begun in the 1940s:
- The State of Israel absorbed millions of Jewish refugees from all over the world and, within a few years, these refugees became citizens of the state with full rights.
- Almost one million of these refugees fled from Arab lands leaving behind property and wealth for which they were never compensated.
At the same time, the 1948 War of Independence created hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees who fled to Arab lands.
While the Jews displaced from Arab lands were rehabilitated and naturalized in Israel, the Arab countries refused to do the same for Arab refugees.
The resettlement of these refugees and their descendants will complete a historic circle of population exchange. This will result in the emergence of countries where the majority of their population shares a common nationality and culture. [/q][/b][/color]
f) Who gives Jordan the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinians. The shabby treatment they (the Palestinians) have recieved from neighboring countries should confirm that these countries do not have the best interests of the Palestinians at heart, so why should they have jurisdiction over them? The Palestinians need their own leadership and government.
This point is the one point you raise that I partially agree with - Jordan's past treatment of the Palestinians has been worse than Israel's treatment of them. The question is why? Do they simply not like them? If so, that's a problem. Or was it a lack of (cap)ability (funds & infrastructure) to properly absorb them? If that's the case, then:[q] What would Jordan gain from becoming part of the regional settlement?
The current Jordanian regime is friendly to Israel and for the most part pro- Western. Its stability, however, is currently in danger because of its delicate geopolitical status. The lack of clarity concerning the status of its Palestinian majority and the danger posed to it by the establishment of an additional Palestinian state would foment unrest among the Palestinian population of Jordan against the government.
The dissolution of the Palestinian Authority and the subjugation of the PLO establishment would elicit a sigh of relief in Amman and pave the way for the underscoring of the Palestinian character of Jordan, whose absolute majority - including the Queen and numerous senior government officials - is Palestinian.
A comprehensive development program for Jordan, accompanied by moderate reforms to bolster its Palestinian character, is likely to be welcomed in Amman and would move the kingdom forward to a more hopeful future.
Jordan's principal problems are economic. It could be significantly strengthened by Israel and the United States in the context of a regional "Marshall Plan" integrated with the rebuilding of Iraq.
A comprehensive, internationally funded development plan for Jordan, most of whose territory is undeveloped, would facilitate the absorption and naturalization of the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
Israel has a profound interest in the development of Jordan as a Palestinian state. The transfer to Jordan of significant portions of American military aid to the Middle East could significantly transform Jordan's economy.
The normalization of relations and cessation of hostilities would significantly reduce the need for major U.S. foreign defense aid, part of which could also be reallocated to boost Jordan's economy. [/q]
Or is it simply a matter of Jordan and the Arab world using the plight of the Palestinians to oppose Israel's existance?[/color] [/B]
Originally posted by Rictor
another thing, looking at the Maps section of the website, specifically the Refugees map, the words "completion of the process" show a rathe heavy bias, as does most of the rest of the website.
The authors seem to think that becuase Jewish refugees were coming in to the territory that was to become Israel, that it is somehow natural that the natives be kicked out. Thats like saying that because I have come into your home, it stands to reason that you should leave, and that thats nice and normal.
Not to rain on your parade Sandwich, I'm just offering my honest opinion. The plan seems to be very pro-Israeli, and doesn't compromise on most of the key issues.
Thousands of years ago... ;) The Palestinians are not the only ones to have been native to this area. The Jews were here "first", but before them you had the (non-existant in this day and age) peoples of Canaan.
-
The US is not really interested in peace in the region. If they were, they would actually try to do something about it other than invading Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Thousands of years ago... ;) The Palestinians are not the only ones to have been native to this area. The Jews were here "first", but before them you had the (non-existant in this day and age) peoples of Canaan.
Not really. I can't exactly go back to my parents' old house and tell the current inhabitants to shift because I'm descended from somebody who used to live here before they did.
-
Surely it should be the Palestinians choice who represents them? Be it the PA or not.
-
The problem with the plan is, Jordan and the OT are seperate entities. Jordanian territory is not being disputed, Gaza and the West Bank are. Saying that the Palestinians should give up the OT to Israel in return for which they will recieve Jordanian citizenship is absurd. Why not Italian citizenship, or Japanese? Jordan is already recognized as a full, legal country, so Israel is not really making any concessions here. They would simply recognize Jordan as "Palestine", and in return would get all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Furthermore, I don't think Jordan would really be willing to do that. Neither would the Palestinians. If land, and land, was as good as any other land, there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place. Palestinians want that specific bit of land, as does Israel. And therein lies the problem.
Now, while I do agree with you that the PA is corrupt and ineffective, they're the closest thing the Palestinians have to a government. Jordan doesn't care about them, neither does Egypt or Lebanon. So, they need someone to speak for them, and until they come up with something better, thats the PA.
Regarding the disarmament of Hamas & Co (and organization which I think I should point out Israel created), well, they both exist to defend against an invasion from the other. In theory this is true, but in practice, both have attacked targets within the other's territory. So far as Palestine exists as a seperate entity, apart from any neighboring Arab country, Hamas is their military force. However, I don't think you can expect Palestinians to give up their army (its as close as they have to an army) without any was to insure that the IDF won't attack.
Just like the Etzel, Irgun and Lehi members (terrorists, they even admitted it themselves) were made part of the Israeli army, so Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all of those ought to be made into an official army.
its late (or rather, its early) so I'll continue this tommorow.
-
What a load of crap. It's just an attempt to legitimise stealing the Gaza Strip.
-
I put "Definitely not!"; only cuz if i was in charge and could get away with it, id ship em all to antarctica.
I didnt read it that througouly, but it works for me
-
Originally posted by Drew
I put "Definitely not!"; only cuz if i was in charge and could get away with it, id ship em all to antarctica.
I didnt read it that througouly, but it works for me
Or Madagascar, perhaps?
-
Originally posted by Drew
I put "Definitely not!"; only cuz if i was in charge and could get away with it, id ship em all to antarctica.
Just the palestinians or everyone in Israel and Palestine?
-
Nice land-grab plan! I voted "Aww hell naw!", in Will Smith manner.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Just the palestinians or everyone in Israel and Palestine?
Everyone in the Middle East, probably. Easy oil access that way.
-
But then you'd lose all the potential oil fields on Antartica... Or you'd have to ship them all back once the oil in the middle east was gone. :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
What a load of crap. It's just an attempt to legitimise stealing the Gaza Strip.
Probably being anal about it, but Gaza is actually not what Israel is after that much. Its small and infertile. The West Bank is something like 15 times the size, and has much more arable land. Thats the essence of the Disengagement Plan. Give the Gaza, and dismantle a few settlements, but in exchange take a bigger piece of the better land (West Bank) and just move the settlers over. One of the only reason why Israel needs Gaza is as a buffer zone with Egypt, and even with the Disengagament Plan, they plan on keeping Philadephi road, which serves that prupose.
I don't know why there is so much opposition to it in Israel, its actually a very sweet deal, and not at all the humanitarian gesture its made out to be.
-
The Australian Ambassador to Israel was fired today after presenting what he called his "8 Lane Highway to Peace" to the israeli parliament yesterday.
"It's the Palestinians Land. **** off."
There is currently no word on who will replace him.[/i][/COLOR]
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Probably being anal about it, but Gaza is actually not what Israel is after that much.
I know but only a fool of galactic proportions could believe he'd get away with an attempt to legitimise stealing the West Bank.
-
I'm sorry to say this but the only way to get peace is:
1). Having some ID4 aliens threaten Earth and they have no choice to team up with the rest of the world (yeah, like thats gonna happen :p)
2). A major conflict between the two that results in mutual annihalation and start anew,
3). Or steamroll the entire region. Glass it. Destroy it. And then rebuild it.
Seriously, the fighting will never stop untill you start with a clean slate. There will always be hostility. There will always be killing. Always. it's sad really.
I'm really sorry to say all this but I truly believe that the 'clean slate'-way is the only way to really start over. Diplomatic intervention from the US, UN, etc etc will do exactly ****. Diplomacy in the region itself will do exactly ****. No side will ever be happy and the fighting goes on.
A sad sad situation, but it's the cold hard truth.
-
@ Black Wolf: :lol: Heehee! Great stuff...
Definitely not. This "plan" has nothing to offer the Palestinians, and essentially means that Israel gets it's own way. I can't support that.
I'd have to agree with Tiara on this - they'll never sort things out of their own accord. I say isolate the lot of 'em. Take away all the weapons and support from outside, build a big wall around the whole place, and leave it for 20 years. Then open it up, and see what happened. Either they'll be living in a lovely, integrated society, or they'll all be dead. Either way, problem solved.
This conflict is so pathetic I can't even begin to describe how much it disgusts me. We're supposed to be a civilized species, and yet this kind of thing is still happening...:blah:
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
This conflict is so pathetic I can't even begin to describe how much it disgusts me. We're supposed to be a civilized species, and yet this kind of thing is still happening...:blah:
Amen to that. :)
Though I wouldn't call Humanity 'civilized'... :p
-
Originally posted by Tiara
I'm sorry to say this but the only way to get peace is:
1). Having some ID4 aliens threaten Earth and they have no choice to team up with the rest of the world (yeah, like thats gonna happen :p)
2). A major conflict between the two that results in mutual annihalation and start anew,
3). Or steamroll the entire region. Glass it. Destroy it. And then rebuild it.
Seriously, the fighting will never stop untill you start with a clean slate. There will always be hostility. There will always be killing. Always. it's sad really.
I'm really sorry to say all this but I truly believe that the 'clean slate'-way is the only way to really start over. Diplomatic intervention from the US, UN, etc etc will do exactly ****. Diplomacy in the region itself will do exactly ****. No side will ever be happy and the fighting goes on.
A sad sad situation, but it's the cold hard truth.
You're sitting at a computer desk, 10,000km away, of course you can say this and that, it doesn't affect you. Thats essentially how Washington's foreign policy has been run for decades. Someone sitting in DC thinks they are wise and infallable, and thinks they have the right to play God with the lives of people half a world away and nations which they do not understand.
I wouldn't trust anyone to make Israel/Palestine policy other than the people directly involved in the conflict (with the possible exception of people who have not only lived in the region, but have dedicated their lives to its study; think Edward Said). First of all, there is a deep, deep ignorance about who these people are and what their lives and hopes are like. Usually, its the same shallow stereotype over and over, based upon which foreign policy-makers lay all their plans. Only with a deep and profound understanding of the conflict and the people involved can someone make succesful policy, and even then, their right to do so is questionable if they are not affected.
For thousands, even millions, of Israelis and Palestinians, a peaceful solution, however unlikely it may seem, is the only hope. Palestine has been occupied by one power or another for thousands of years, stating that peace is somehow impossible comes off as a bit arrogant to me. I would think that a history teacher would appreciate just how, relatively speaking, small this conflict is. How many times has an "unresolvable" conflict been settled in the past? Most of the great European powers wee at each other's throat at one point or another, and yet look at the EU today.
I just typed that entire post over my cat, who has taken up sleeping where the keyboard should be. Cats, they have some sort of natural instinct where they know exactly where they will cause the most inconvenience, and there proceed to calmly lie down and fall asleep there.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
You're sitting at a computer desk, 10,000km away, of course you can say this and that, it doesn't affect you. Thats essentially how Washington's foreign policy has been run for decades. Someone sitting in DC thinks they are wise and infallable, and thinks they have the right to play God with the lives of people half a world away and nations which they do not understand.
[/b]
Question; have you lived from age 4 to 10 in a poor country where fighting between religious factions, rebels and **** was normal at the time (indonesia in this case)? Well, I have. I know what kind of **** it is about. And I also know that the only way to solve these fights is to finish it once and for all and start over.
I'm most definately not some 'holier then thou' politician in Washington. And I resent the fact that you think I am.
I wouldn't trust anyone to make Israel/Palestine policy other than the people directly involved in the conflict
*BUZZ* Foul! Your out!
If you leave it up to them, the conflict will only be perpetuated. Nothing will ever stop unless the entire region collectively rises up and says 'It stops here!'. But we both know that will never happen.
First of all, there is a deep, deep ignorance about who these people are and what their lives and hopes are like. Usually, its the same shallow stereotype over and over, based upon which foreign policy-makers lay all their plans. Only with a deep and profound understanding of the conflict and the people involved can someone make succesful policy, and even then, their right to do so is questionable if they are not affected.
Once again, you cannot make any policy between the two sides involved in this conflict.
1). They both want the same and yet the exact opposite.
2). Terrorists will never stop just because some politicians say so. 1 terorist is enough to escalate the entire conflict once again.
For thousands, even millions, of Israelis and Palestinians, a peaceful solution, however unlikely it may seem, is the only hope. Palestine has been occupied by one power or another for thousands of years, stating that peace is somehow impossible comes off as a bit arrogant to me. I would think that a history teacher would appreciate just how, relatively speaking, small this conflict is. How many times has an "unresolvable" conflict been settled in the past? Most of the great European powers wee at each other's throat at one point or another, and yet look at the EU today.
1). The EU today is basically formed through war and basically complete annihalation. You know, the thing called WORLD WAR 2.
2). Name any unresovable conflict that has been resolved without one side giving in to the other's demands.
And yes, i know this conflict isn't that big, but obviously it has a proportionally bigger impact on the world. Both religious and political. Just because it's confined to a few countries doesn't mean it's a 'small' conflict.
I just typed that entire post over my cat, who has taken up sleeping where the keyboard should be. Cats, they have some sort of natural instinct where they know exactly where they will cause the most inconvenience, and there proceed to calmly lie down and fall asleep there.
Don't start... :p I know all about that :p
-
A major conflict between the two that results in mutual annihalation and start anew
You can rest assured that if Israel unleashed the full might of its military against Palestine, the annihalation would most certainly not be mutual.
Yep, Rictor. My cat does the exact same thing when I'm typing. Drives me nuts but I just can't really get mad at him.
EDIT: The formation of the European Union was not out of World War 2. It was a trade agreement that began as the Common Market in the 1950s, I believe.
-
Here's the solution. Every week we shoot the leader of Israel and Palestine until we see progress.
That way we go straight to the source and ignore all the common people in both countries who just want to live their lives in peace.
Hey Blair. Invite the leaders over to the UK for a "conference"
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
You can rest assured that if Israel unleashed the full might of its military against Palestine, the annihalation would most certainly not be mutual.
Yeah it would. With the Palestinians gone Israel would face economic collapse. Why do you think they haven't just closed off the borders and been done with it yet? After that it would only be a matter of time before civil war wiped them out too.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
You can rest assured that if Israel unleashed the full might of its military against Palestine, the annihalation would most certainly not be mutual.
[/b]
Yet it would NEVER be able to eradicate the underground movements and terrorism would be at an all-time high. Just look at America and it's military supremacy.
The conflict would simply continue only on a different level. And I think the death toll would only be worse then it already is.
EDIT: The formation of the European Union was not out of World War 2. It was a trade agreement that began as the Common Market in the 1950s, I believe.
Yes, but all that could be realized because of the WWII. After that, Europe became more unified because they could start over.
-
What a great idea!
-
It's pretty much the same 'gift' as always, all wrapped up in shiny paper. And, just like a present, I see precious little say from the reciever as to it's contents.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
What a great idea!
Well, if it's such a great idea you're free to move to Israel ;)
-
Oh yes, and damn the UN soldiers for not being able to enFORCE anything, you know what they're like though, ask questions first and shoot later ;)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Yeah it would. With the Palestinians gone Israel would face economic collapse. Why do you think they haven't just closed off the borders and been done with it yet? After that it would only be a matter of time before civil war wiped them out too.
Uhh.... no. With Israel gone, the Palestinians would collapse. Remember, it's the Palestinians who travel back and forth to Israel for work. And if all the "cheap labor" of the Palestinians was cut off, then yeah, it'd be hard, but Israel does have over 10% unemployment.
If Israel completely cut the Palestinians off from entering Israel, they would be in deep dish doodoo. As has been said here already, it seems like the state of Israel is more worried about the Palestinians plight than any of their so-called Arab friends in the surrounding nations.
Originally posted by Flipside
Oh yes, and damn the UN soldiers for not being able to enFORCE anything, you know what they're like though, ask questions first and shoot later ;)
Don't get me started on the f***ing UN soldiers, m'kay? They're the ones who allowed my friends to be kidnapped right under their noses, all because they were "observers". Bullsh*t.
-
Well, I'm sorry about your friends, I'm inclined to think they should have done their job as soldiers and protected your friends safety, however, I for one would be somewhat nervous if the UN started enforcing some of their resolutions.
-
Benny Elon has a peace plan :lol:
And it involves the old Jordan is the palestinian state arguement again, what a surprise. :rolleyes:
Heres a quote from the same guy:
"It's clear that Islam is on the way to disappearing. What we are now seeing across the Muslim world is not a powerful surge of faith but the dying embers of Islam. How will it disappear? Very simply. Within a few years a Christian crusade against Islam will be launched, which will be the major event of this millennium. Obviously, we will be up against quite a large problem when only the two great religions of Judaism and Christianity remain, but that's still a long way off."
This guy has a peace plan? Please.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Uhh.... no. With Israel gone, the Palestinians would collapse. Remember, it's the Palestinians who travel back and forth to Israel for work. And if all the "cheap labor" of the Palestinians was cut off, then yeah, it'd be hard, but Israel does have over 10% unemployment.
That arguement is incredibly dumb sandwich.
Originally posted by Sandwich
If Israel completely cut the Palestinians off from entering Israel, they would be in deep dish doodoo. As has been said here already, it seems like the state of Israel is more worried about the Palestinians plight than any of their so-called Arab friends in the surrounding nations.
Ya, and thats why they're kicking them off their land and colonising it
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Sandwich
Don't get me started on the f***ing UN soldiers, m'kay? They're the ones who allowed my friends to be kidnapped right under their noses, all because they were "observers". Bullsh*t.
Speaking on behalf of the few boys I know that served over there, the fact that Shin Bet kidnapped and murdered an Irish soldier on duty over there probably led to an attitude of who gives a ****.
Btw Sandwich, like to get an explanation for this:
"When Rehoboam came to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, and the tribe of Benjamin, a hundred and eighty thousand chosen warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam the son of Solomon." (1 Kings 12:21 RSV)
-
this whole thing started 'cos both the palestinians and the post WW2 displaced Jews were promised the same patch of land. But it's a friggin' desert. Just sand and a few rocks (and militant Muslims)
What they should have done was give the Jews Bavaria. Lovely place (Hitler had his villa there, near the Alps) much bigger than modern-day Israel (11.000sq. mlies v 70,000) plenty of natural resources and it would have plenty pissed post war Germany.
and congrats on the Gold Medal Sarney.
-
Umm, the palestinians were already there, they werent promised anything, they already had it. Jews legally owned 7% of the land that copmposed the Jewish state in 1948, the rest was got by driving out the palestinians.
-
yeah, but Palestine (at the time) was ruled by the Uk. They both recieved assurances from the Allies about the contested lands.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Umm, the palestinians were already there, they werent promised anything, they already had it. Jews legally owned 7% of the land that copmposed the Jewish state in 1948, the rest was got by driving out the palestinians.
Too ****ing bad for them, then. ;)
-
I thought it was four percent-ish. Anyway, this is the land bought up by the Jewish National Fund on behalf of Jews worldwide (with money from wealthy donors in the Diaspora). Sure, they paid high prices for it, but if want to get legal about it, that the legally owned land.
At this point, bringing Israel's existance into question simply isn't valid. No one can really expect them to pick up and move, nor should they. But IMHO, an effort should be made to compensate the displaced Arabs (as for example Germany is doing to those persecuted during WW2) and to come to a solution that ackowledges both Israel's right to exist, and the Palestinian's claims to the land.
-
Well if it were up to me, I'd give the entire region a six month notice (to pack up and leave, Israeli's and Palestinians alike), after which I would submerge the whole territory under water. Nobody gets it. You can visit your old home in a tourist submarine if you wish so.
Simple. None of the sides really have any justification for obtaining the land. On one hand Israeli's don't have the right to it, just simply because "it was ours" phrase is inane. Palestinians don't have the right to it, because they're obviously too weak to defend it.
Just split it down the middle. If you can't have it peacefully, nobody gets to have it. Bam.
-
Palestinians don't have the right to it, because they're obviously too weak to defend it.
Last I checked this was not the Stone Age. :wtf:
-
If you could expand on that thought, I'd be grateful.
-
Originally posted by BD
If you could expand on that thought, I'd be grateful.
Well lets give you a similar arguement. If the jews hadn't been so weak they wouldn't have gotten slaughtered by the nazis. So they didn't deserve a homeland in the first place.
See what a crap argument might makes right is?
-
Yes, that is a crap argument, and it doesn't have anything to do with what I've said. You've deviated.
-
'Weakness' is defined by those around you, and when those around you deliberately keep you downtrodden, whilst themselves being bolstered from outside, you have no choice but to appear weak.
-
...and are therefore weak.
Facts are facts.
-
Indeed, but in that case, the Kuwaitis, who were too weak to defend themselves from Saddam should rightfully be part of Iraq right now, after all, he invaded, they lost. Facts are Facts.
-
So whoever is weak deserves to be oppressed, killed and generally pushed about? In that case, the Holocaust was just nature asserting itself, as were Stalin's purges, as was the Armenian massacre, the Indonesian one, Pol Pot, Rwanda and so forth.
Thats just stupid. We hjave laws so that it does not have to come down to who is stronger.
-
Which was exactly the point I made.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So whoever is weak deserves to be oppressed, killed and generally pushed about? In that case, the Holocaust was just nature asserting itself, as were Stalin's purges, as was the Armenian massacre, the Indonesian one, Pol Pot, Rwanda and so forth.
Thats just stupid. We hjave laws so that it does not have to come down to who is stronger.
No, whoever is weak does not _deserve_ it. It's just how nature is.
I'm sorry, but didn't you just contradict yourself? Your "laws" (which I obviously never heard about, since we do not have universal laws apart from the ones nature gives - governments and states are different) are obviously failing, considering how many atrocities have been commited. Stalin died of old age/natural causes, not because "laws" were implemented on him, and so on and so on.
See the reality clearly.
Originally posted by karajorma
Which was exactly the point I made.
No, you didn't make a point. You made jibberish. Rictor on the other hand, made my point.
-
Civilization is not nature. The establishment of a society requires that we behave contrary to many of our natural instincts. Murder, rape, theft, torture, bigotry; they're all part of how we want to behave, but we do our best to contain them for the purpose of maintaining our society, and society certainly does not end at national borders. You're absolutely right that the law of "might makes right" is how nature works, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed to play out.
To quote an episode of Seinfeld, "We're trying to have a civilization here!"
-
Its how nature works, but who ever said that whatever comes natural is right. For that matter, I disagree with your claims that it is human nature to commit murder, rape etc. I think its more pacifism and power-worship than anything else. This all depends heavily on the times and the circumstances, but an ordinary individual living a normal life would rarely, if ever, condone killing or oppression. People either support it out of fear or hatred", or do nothing to stop it.
Sure, most Americans supported the war in Iraq, but if you put a gun into their hand and put and Iraqi in front of them and told them to shoot, how many of them would do it? Thats why its important to not dehumanize and sterlize wars and attrocities. Show them the gory pictures, with the limbs missing and the blood and the dead children. Then we'll see how many support war.
Yes, nature works on the prinicpal of might makes right. But human morality does not, and it is the job of those who favour peace and freedom to make sure that morality is not relegated to the sidelines as it so often was in history. Its generally understood that it is "natural" to play by the law of the jungle, there's no need to repeat that. But what I'm much more interested in is whether you support that, or whether you support a more civilized, lawful, if you will - moral, approach.
-
Originally posted by BD
Yes, that is a crap argument, and it doesn't have anything to do with what I've said. You've deviated.
It's called an analogy. Feel free to look the concept up in a dictionary if you don't understand the word.
-
It's sort of like saying that the thousands of people who are dying in Ethiopia or the Sudan deserve what is coming to them because they are weak, when the whole world sits around and knows that what is happening there is wrong.
The killer is not strength or weakness on their part, it is self-centred Apathy on our own.
-
Sure, most Americans supported the war in Iraq, but if you put a gun into their hand and put and Iraqi in front of them and told them to shoot, how many of them would do it? Thats why its important to not dehumanize and sterlize wars and attrocities. Show them the gory pictures, with the limbs missing and the blood and the dead children. Then we'll see how many support war.
This is where age is a factor. All governments need the military to be a tool in their hands, so they rely on testosterone and youthful delusions of immortality to dehumanize the enemy. There's a reason they have to catch us when we're young; they need to get to us before we acquire enough common sense to tell the recruiters to go to hell.
Also, if you overdose on the graphic imagery, it can have the opposite effect. After a while, the brain adjusts to it and becomes desensitized. There's a reason that police officers can stand around murder scenes and basically munch on their breakfast without flinching.
-
Well, I'm not out there, so I don't seek to judge either Israel or Palestine, but personally I think Pride and Stubborness has built a wall that will probably take years to be torn down between the two factions now :(
No peace plan created by an Israeli is going to be accepted by Palestine, no peace plan suggested by Palestine is going to accepted by Israel, and no peace plan suggested by anyone else is going to be accepted by either.
The UK has had wars with France and Spain and Germany and even the little countries inside the UK were at each others throats a lot of the time. Although we all get along, more or less, these days, I don't think that pride or stubborness ever ended, I just think some people got smart enough to rise above it.
-
I honestly don't think it makes sense to evaluate humanity as being "good" or "bad", we created those standards in the first place; we are what we are. But I do believe that there is a Nazi in all of us. Germany didn't suddenly decide to massacre the Jews because it's a country populated by bad people. Like always, a groups of people came along who knew better than most how easy it is to tap into the inertia of mass psychology. The German people were unhappy as it was; it was a matter of artful speaking and buzz words to turn the people against the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, trade unionists, etc. It wasn't because the population was evil; it was because once they had an objective in sight, they naturally chose to ignore what was being done, or convince themselves that it was for the better. And like I said, testosterone and youthful energy only helps. This is how large groups of people work. Once they're given a nudge by someone who can appeal to them, there is no limit to the atrocities that they will ignore, appease, or even commit. The only counteracting force is the individual mind, but the individual requires constant effort to exist.
-
[Q]But the thought of the UN enforceing something is simply laughable.[/Q]
Like all those resolutions your country ignored Sandwich... we don't enforce them because... oh that's right. The US vetos all of them to maintain your nation's relationship to them as a client state. There have been countless peace offers negotiated by arabs and jews alike throughout the 20th century and every one has been either ignored or derailed because of one of two attitudes:
1 - It doesn't suit US regional interests.
2 - Israel thinks it can get more in the long run by fighting.
This latest "peacemap" is quite frankly a joke - dismantle the only authority barely representing the Palestinian People? Turn Jordan into a Palestinian state? (I'd be a bit worried about seeing any bulldozers in my life again if I lived in Jordan right now.)
Your people were on the receiving end of this bull**** once before, you'd think you wouldn't put other people through it on some notion of a religious belief that is just as fanatical and as valid as Nazi based Fascism. Yes, you read that right - I'm saying you have no holy right to that land any more than the Arabs do or anyone else for that matter - and the over-zealous responses to Palestinian acts are no better than rounding up villagers and shooting them in mainland Europe for hiding Jews from the Death Heads.
As for you friends - I am sorry, and no-one should lose friends to war. However, if you want someone to blame or to ask why - don't look at the UN soldiers who would have been court martialled for acting, don't look at the UN for failing to get involved when it was YOUR MAIN ALLY who wouldn't let them, don't look at the Palestinians who are doing whatever they can to get out of the ghetto like cities they have right now (erm, sound familiar?) - look at your own government before you question the actions of others.
You think this is about holy land anyway? It's not, it's about the upper classes of both our countries man - always exploiting people like us - giving us enemies to fear and to kill, and to blame everything on - and all the while making money and gaining power from our own suffering, pain, loss and sacrifice.
Learn from the past, or be doomed to repeat it's mistakes.
Hegemony is not survival.
Damn, I gotta sleep.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Civilization is not nature. The establishment of a society requires that we behave contrary to many of our natural instincts. Murder, rape, theft, torture, bigotry; they're all part of how we want to behave, but we do our best to contain them for the purpose of maintaining our society, and society certainly does not end at national borders. You're absolutely right that the law of "might makes right" is how nature works, but that doesn't mean it should be allowed to play out.
To quote an episode of Seinfeld, "We're trying to have a civilization here!"
Yes that's true probably. At least it is my belief that there would be tons and tons of murderors, rapists, thieves, torturers and bigots if there weren't any reprecussions. The reason most of us are safe today since our childhood, is because of that (well....some of us anyway).
However, I can also quote you how civilization itself sucks in many ways. Maxim gun for one thing, and the start of "Europe goes to Africa for the first time" movie everyone knows about. Colonialism, Imperialism, hell even Fascism, and all those nice ideas, are all ideas strung from civil minds. Because it is "civil" to shoot someone in the head from afar, instead of fighing equally like some.....ANIMAL. It was civil to work a black man to death as a slave. All of those were civil things. You live and you learn, but civility today is shaky at best when it comes to idealism.
Originally posted by karajorma
It's called an analogy. Feel free to look the concept up in a dictionary if you don't understand the word.
Thank you oh mighty interperter. Sorry that I can't direct you to a dictionary or any similar type of media, since they will not tell you that your "analogy" sucks and is incorrect. I however will. You should thank me.
Originally posted by Flipside
It's sort of like saying that the thousands of people who are dying in Ethiopia or the Sudan deserve what is coming to them because they are weak, when the whole world sits around and knows that what is happening there is wrong.
Yes, it's like saying that. Now I'm not too happy about all those people there dying, and yes, it's not a baby's fault that they're born with AIDS or that they are opressed since they were born, but the fact is that when it comes to disease - it's the parent's fault for not being knowledgable, and when it comes to opression, it's not a monster from hell that's doing the opression, it's just a regular guy with power where he can utilise his ideas (usually puppets of people with money - these are basic facts anyway).
Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it all that "mistifying" or strange or even unbelievable either. After all, nobody is a saint.
Coming back to my original point - yeah, if you're weak, chances are high you will be dominated. Who's to judge the guy who does the dominating? Other powerful people. And no-one else.
So back to topic - and my idea consequently. To reiterate.
Palestinians do not deserve their land because they lost. They are losing. The only thing that stands in the wake of complete and total annihilation from Israel's side is the fact that the eyes of the world are on that conflict, and you can't be a brute barbarian decimating another race/country/people/whatever.
However - I doubt it very much that Israeli's would be supported in going back to that land _in the first place_, if they stated "Okay, we need a place to live, Germans didn't do us good, and foreign countries probably won't as well, off you go Palestinians because I'm stronger." - it's much better to say "It was mine to begin with, you are the bad person, give me back."
That is why the statement is inane, insane and ludicrous.
In any case - my solution = water. Bye, bye piece of land. For a war that has lasted this much, and where there is still no end in sight, both nations/countries/whatever should just simply be made to walk away. The most peaceful solution.
-
[q]Palestinians do not deserve their land because they lost.[/q]
****ing. Hell. You. Nazi.
-
However, I can also quote you how civilization itself sucks in many ways. Maxim gun for one thing, and the start of "Europe goes to Africa for the first time" movie everyone knows about. Colonialism, Imperialism, hell even Fascism, and all those nice ideas, are all ideas strung from civil minds. Because it is "civil" to shoot someone in the head from afar, instead of fighing equally like some.....ANIMAL. It was civil to work a black man to death as a slave. All of those were civil things. You live and you learn, but civility today is shaky at best when it comes to idealism.
There are no civil minds and uncivil minds, there are only human minds. The idea of civilization is by definition perfect; its goal is to counteract the destructive aspects of human nature, and all of human history has been our endless attempt to reach that goal. Wherever you see some atrocity committed, that is not civilization; it is the absence of civilization; it is primal nature winning out against society. If society did not exist, there would be no such thing as "good" and "evil." This is what humans are: Beings torn right down the middle between our instincts and our idea of perfection.
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]Palestinians do not deserve their land because they lost.[/q]
****ing. Hell. You. Nazi.
Wow. Just simply - wow. I've got nothing to that.
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
There are no civil minds and uncivil minds, there are only human minds. The idea of civilization is by definition perfect; its goal is to counteract the destructive aspects of human nature, and all of human history has been our endless attempt to reach that goal. Wherever you see some atrocity committed, that is not civilization; it is the absence of civilization; it is primal nature winning out against society. If society did not exist, there would be no such thing as "good" and "evil." This is what humans are: Beings torn right down the middle between our instincts and our idea of perfection.
Yes, you can be a philosopher about it, but when it comes down to it, time dictates what is civil and what isn't. Until yesterday, black people were forced to work for no wages at all, and that was the way of the world. That was the idea of civility. While there were disagreements, that was the norm. We now have the rule that it is wrong, but are you seriously saying that civilzation at any point during our history was perfect - or almost within the reach of it? That will never happen because things change all the time, sometimes not for the better.
The whole idea was flawed in the first place as far as I'm concerned. Perfect ideals thought up by man who is not perfect himself. It's easily comparable to expecting a Gorilla to know Quantum Physics as soon as it gets out of the mother's womb.
I'd go for effectivness and preservation of the entire human species (black, white, yellow, orange, red - they're ALL needed if we're ever going to survive) becase we should be qualified by our natural instincts to move in that direction, and cut the inane bull**** of semantics and power struggle. It's not like we weren't given time to establish who should be in power. This is just a huge waste of time.
-
It's the age-old question, simply because we can do a thing, does it follow that we must do a thing.
The choice really is with us, we know, apart from a few sad exceptions, what an ideal world 'should' be like, the mistake we always make is when we get to the word 'world'. The 'world' for a large number of people is about 100 square miles with it's centre on themselves. Anything else is just backdrop and doesn't count.
You are 100% right BD, in that mankinds nature is to abuse and exploit and destroy. Ford is 100% right in saying that mankind knows what it wants but never sets out to achieve it.
The sad fact is that if you asked an individual person whether they would be prepared to accept a slight drop in wages and standard of life to create a slight increase for someone far worse off, most people would at least consider the idea. However, if you asked the 'people' big, scary, instinct-led beast that it is, they would say a resounding No. We like our comfort too much, and a million tiny little prejudices and self-centred assumptions come boiling to the surface and find strength in numbers :(
-
I don't believe we've ever come close to perfection, and I'm not saying that it's an attainable goal. All I'm saying is that that's what civilization is; our attempt to reach perfection. I don't believe human beings have ever really changed, so I would go so far as to say that bigotry has never truly been considered civil. It has been accepted because people create moral loopholes around it; "They're animals, they're tainted by sin, we have no choice because our economy depends on it, etc," but I believe that people have always understood on some level that things like slavery cause suffering. We commit them anyway because, like I said, our nature compels us to ignore that ever-present idea of civilization.
-
The fact of the matter is that, had slavery been generally and unquestionably accepted as civilised then it would still be going on today. But, at first, a few brave people spoke out against in, they were generally persecuted, more so because people knew they were right. But with time and courage that movement grew. Only the people who profited from slavery condoned it, but I don't think they didn't consider it 'wrong', merely allowed their greed to over-ride their morals.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I don't believe we've ever come close to perfection, and I'm not saying that it's an attainable goal. All I'm saying is that that's what civilization is; our attempt to reach perfection. I don't believe human beings have ever really changed, so I would go so far as to say that bigotry has never truly been considered civil. It has been accepted because people create moral loopholes around it; "They're animals, they're tainted by sin, we have no choice because our economy depends on it, etc," but I believe that people have always understood on some level that things like slavery cause suffering. We commit them anyway because, like I said, our nature compels us to ignore that ever-present idea of civilization.
I am actually of the opinion that people are genuinly stupid. Brain controls everything. An idiot redneck wouldn't believe that "slavery causes suffering" because he thought black people are THE DEVIL anyway, and not "normal" humans (look at how FAR the human mind goes to justify such an act) so they pretty much deserved it on their account. He was civil. He knew how to pick up a fork, spoon and eat his meal properly. He knew how to dress, how to look and act like a gentleman. He was civil in the areas of his life. He went to church, obeyed God. Fact he had people dying in the back yard because he was working them to death, didn't really matter to him, did it?
Yes, some knew and felt it, I agree. But how do you classify those that didn't? Civilzation itself is a moot point. Nobody's idea of it is the same. That is why it will always fail time and time again.
-
But my point is that everyone understands, on some level, that oppression causes suffering. Our nature isn't all destructive; we may be cursed with bigotry and hatred, but we're also endowed with empathy. Suffering is universal, and thus all humans can understand it when they see it, but we're compelled by our natural desires to ignore it.
I'm not talking about cultural differences; those are specific to a different definition of civilization. Ultimately, the overlying goal of all civilizations is the same: to contain people's destructive impulses so they can coexist.
-
Which leads to a dead end - doesn't it?
As you said, even though people know others are suffering, personal desires negate all that. Exactly. A pedophile will know he is molesting and phisically/mentally hurting whoever his prey is, but that will be negated by the fact he has a desire.
Civilzation covers the aftermath to a point. It does not go all the way in a huge number of cases. The system which is supposed to be perfect is conflicting with itself. How can perfection ever be attanied?
It's an endless loop. Unless civilzation is removed and replaced with something more a) normal, b) better, c) actually attainable - it's all just a waste of time.
You can say Trial and Error works to our advantage, we learn, we grow. But at what cost?
-
We trust our governments and media to supply our opinions.
Our current version of civilisation is far from complete or even correct, as you say, we are a worldwide organism with a tribal culture, a dangerous mix. Add to that the suppression and mob-derision of people who say things that question the Status Quo.
What do people really want? They want today to be pretty much like yesterday.
My own opinion is that mankind is reaching an 'envelope' in thinking. As fewer and fewer people are able to understand the truly high end of science, the less there is for 'normal' people to discover and create, the more nonchalant and ignorant we allow ourselves to become because we start to feel like our lives are pointless, going round and round in the work-sleep-work cycle.
It's like you say, today we walk around saying 'Oh, that business in the Sudan, it's so terrible', I can see people walking around saying 'Oh, those poor slaves, it's terrible'.
It's not weakness or strength that is killing these people, it is greed and apathy. We know it is wrong, and if people could develop a world-wide conscience, something would be done.
It IS the way things are, but it isn't the way the world must continue to be, we really and honestly have that choice sitting in all our laps, but we will always delay it or put it to one side because we are comfortable and scared of change.
-
You may be correct that perfection is unattainable, but there is no "replacement" for civilization. Whatever we do to keep ourselves in order will, by definition, be civilization.
Civilization is the same thing as spiritual elevation; it is something that humanity reaches for because to find it would be the ultimate triumph, so my response to your assertion that it is a waste of time is this: What else is there to find? Like those who spend their lives searching for God, there is nothing wrong with trying.
-
There are more ways getting from A to B. Yes, any different path we do choose that follows a similar purpose will be in fact civilization. But the fact that there are different ways to go about it is a place to start.
However I am willing to admit that I am in no way capable to decide for everyone on this planet, which path should be taken. I don't have enough knowledge yet. Not insofar to give credible examples, because I can't base them on much anyway. I may have an opinion on how individual matters should be dealt with, but considering I'm not the only one walking this earth, it'd be good to hear many more people what they have to say on the matter.
I am however endowned enough to know that the ways of today - stink. Heavily. Will I have the guts, knowledge and power to beat it? We'll see. I'm still only eighteen. God willing, I have a good ten years in front of me.
-
Well, I would say that if you think the situation we're in now sucks, it's because of people behaving in a primal manner.
-
Okay, here's my two cents. I know a number of Palestinians living in the West Bank (not Palestinian-Americans) and a number of true-blue Israelis, so here's the feeling I'm getting from my friends.
As far as the PA goes, it's all the Palestinians have right now. Many of them see Arafat as their great leader and want him to be at the head of their government. On the other hand, some see him as a symbol of the corruption of the PA, but they are the minority.
Of course, in any final solution, the terrorism/freedom fighting has to end. Naturally, if a solution is achieved that is acceptable to Palestinians, the terrorism from that side will end because they will have obtained their freedom. As for Israel, one would assume that they will abide by a true peace agreement.
As far as Jordan being recognized as the Palestinian state is concerned, I think that's crap. The way I see it, Palestinian nationalism is at an all-time high. My Palestinian friends insist that they have a state already. They don't want to be absorbed into Jordan because they are citizens of Palestine. They have a flag, a national anthem, a passport, etc. In my opinion, they don't currently have a state but in any solution, I think a Palestine does need to be established.
As far as Gaza goes, I think that it should either return to Egypt or be a part of a Palestine. The people who live there identify themselves as Palestinians, so they would want to be a part of Palestine but their distance from the West Bank would create a separated state. It might be easier to have Gaza absorbed into Egypt, but I don't know exactly how well tha would work out. Why does Israel want Gaza anyway?
In terms of refugees, I think that some sort of rehabilitation is in order. At the very least, I think some sort of compensation should be payed to the refugees after they fled/were kicked off their land back in the beginning of this mess.
Peace and normalization will happen naturally. I believe that right now, the biggest problem is the refugee situation. I asked one of my Palestinian friends if she would settle for peace right now if Palestine was recognized as a state and the IDF withdrew and she said no. She told me that she would only accept peace if the refugees were allowed to return to their homes in Israel. She said she doesn't care if her father and brothers are killed in the process, but it is important to her that the Palestinians living in refugee camps have their lives improved. Only then will she make peace.
So, Jordan? Forget about it. This proposal sucks. It sounds like it might be a bit of a landgrab for Israel and I don't understand why Israelis would want sovereignty over areas that are almost 100% Palestinian. That doesn't make sense to me.
-
Someone humor me, if you will. A good chunk of the Arab world likes to speak extensively of the "plight of the Palestinians".
Someone earlier was having the 'weak' argument regarding Kuwait, who got backing from the west to drive off the Iraqi invasion, something they would have failed to pull off had they been left to their own devices.
The big question is, if so many people are so pissed about the Palestine thing, how come the only people who seem to step up and do something about (albeit as unconstructively as possible) is Osama Bin Laden?
Serious question, btw. No mockery indicitive of my usual behavior intended.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
The big question is, if so many people are so pissed about the Palestine thing, how come the only people who seem to step up and do something about (albeit as unconstructively as possible) is Osama Bin Laden?
Cause any idiot can unilaterally decide to pick up a gun and think that killing Americans is somehow achieving his goal.
The rest of us try to change the world through diplomacy. The fact is that the 1st step on the road to peace is to pursuade Americans that they need to stop supporting Israel regardless of whatever it does.
At the moment no president is ever going to stop supporting Israel unless it starts nuking Palestine because it would make him too unpopular. The only time this will change is when there are enough people who feel strongly about the other side of the argument.
There are plenty of people trying to alter the situation but the problem is that most of them are Europeans trying to solve an internal political problem in America.
Personally I lay the blame for this continuing situation at the feet of Tony Blair. He had the Americans over a barrel at the start of the war in Iraq yet when Bush humiliated him by shooting down his plan for peace he still trotted around like a lapdog at Bush's feet.
What he should have done is set his peace plan as the price for helping America in the war instead he backed down and got Britain involved in a stupidly executed war without getting a single f**king thing in return from America (well except for the enjoyment we got watching him having to make a humiliating climb down on his middle-east peace plan).
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, I'm not out there, so I don't seek to judge either Israel or Palestine, but personally I think Pride and Stubborness has built a wall that will probably take years to be torn down between the two factions now :(
Wait...hang on... you're getting confused. Israel built the illegal wall between the two factions. An easy mistake to make though.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Wait...hang on... you're getting confused. Israel built the illegal wall between the two factions. An easy mistake to make though.
:lol:
-
Every year I understand less and less. Why are we, the teaming mass of humanity, stuck on the same little rock, with our gigantic frontal lobes, so willing to kill over a strip of land i wouldn't even want to take a **** on? Is there any sane reason why Iseral should be fighting, why India and packistan have nukes pointed at each other, why NK has a million man army and a starving population? We reallllly need to get out of the nation-state phase of our development. I something doesn't change quickly (within 200 yrs) we'll be screwed. Civilization can't take another fall. When (not if) the west falls to conflict, resourse strangulation, enviromental problems, what ever, it will make the dark ages look like spring break. The system is comming to an end one way or another, Lets just hope (or make) that end a unified civilization and not crash back to random tribes.
Although that would be kinda cool, just let me find a vault and some power armor.:D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Personally I lay the blame for this continuing situation at the feet of Tony Blair. He had the Americans over a barrel at the start of the war in Iraq yet when Bush humiliated him by shooting down his plan for peace he still trotted around like a lapdog at Bush's feet.
You're not the first person I know who blames the war on Tony Blair. Intresting argument, which I'm inclined to agree with.
-
[q]The big question is, if so many people are so pissed about the Palestine thing, how come the only people who seem to step up and do something about (albeit as unconstructively as possible) is Osama Bin Laden?[/q]
Mainly because whenever someone tries to do something at the UN, they're blocked by either US or one of it's allys. (Sadly us a few times).
-
Example.
-
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11418&Cr=middle&Cr1=east
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-09-20-mideast-un-resolution_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3882175.stm
Should keep you busy for a while :)
-
Just give everyone Flight and Mechanized Transport and some luxuries, in return ask for Military Alliance against PA and crush it, stacking enough troops to prevent culture flip into cities.
War weariness is 0 in 49 years anyways, unless you have Universal Suffrage.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Wait...hang on... you're getting confused. Israel built the illegal wall between the two factions. An easy mistake to make though.
Flipside is right though, that is the biggest mental hurdle. Nobody wants to step down because it would be a loss of face.
Originally posted by Janos
Just give everyone Flight and Mechanized Transport and some luxuries, in return ask for Military Alliance against PA and crush it, stacking enough troops to prevent culture flip into cities.
War weariness is 0 in 49 years anyways, unless you have Universal Suffrage.
Har har har. If only life was Civilization III, right? That would make things simple...
-
Originally posted by Janos
Just give everyone Flight and Mechanized Transport and some luxuries, in return ask for Military Alliance against PA and crush it, stacking enough troops to prevent culture flip into cities.
War weariness is 0 in 49 years anyways, unless you have Universal Suffrage.
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Har har har. If only life was Civilization III, right? That would make things simple...
you are serious you scare me plz lets just be friends :(
-
Originally posted by Janos
you are serious you scare me plz lets just be friends :(
[heavy sarcasm]
-
Originally posted by Corsair
[heavy sarcasm]
<3<3<3<3<3
-
Originally posted by Gank
That arguement is incredibly dumb sandwich.
:wtf: Dude, it's a fact, not an "argument". Palestinian livelihood is based on being part of the Israeli workforce. If you want to argue against facts, go right ahead and make a fool of yourself. I'd advise against it.
Originally posted by Gank
Btw Sandwich, like to get an explanation for this:
Uhh... what about it? Kingdom of Israel fighting with the Kingdom of Judah. :confused:
-
You know, I find it amazing how brazen people are on the Israel/Palestine thing, especially against someone who doesn't need to read the latest crap on the internet about it: he can point outside his window.
I can't tell if it's bravery or stupidity. Simple amazing.
:wtf:
-
The thing is that people are dying both sides of the divide, it's wrong that people should be dying either side of the divide.
I'm not here to point fingers, never have been, both sides obviously believe they are in the right, and both sides are in the right from a certain point of view. I am certainly in no position to even begin to suggest a solution, but I know that no solution at all will work until the killing stops and the talking starts, on both sides :(
-
Originally posted by ionia23
You know, I find it amazing how brazen people are on the Israel/Palestine thing, especially against someone who doesn't need to read the latest crap on the internet about it: he can point outside his window.
So if we had a palestinian on the board would you not tell him he was wrong if he expressed an opinion you didn't agree with?
The fact that some people can just look out of the window to see the what's going on may actually mean that they are too close to the problem to see the full picture.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Uhh.... no. With Israel gone, the Palestinians would collapse. Remember, it's the Palestinians who travel back and forth to Israel for work. And if all the "cheap labor" of the Palestinians was cut off, then yeah, it'd be hard, but Israel does have over 10% unemployment.
If Israel completely cut the Palestinians off from entering Israel, they would be in deep dish doodoo. As has been said here already, it seems like the state of Israel is more worried about the Palestinians plight than any of their so-called Arab friends in the surrounding nations.
You missed the point Sandwich. I'd already assumed that the Palestinians were in deep doodoo. I was saying what would happen in Israel if they wiped the palestinians out.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:wtf: Dude, it's a fact, not an "argument". Palestinian livelihood is based on being part of the Israeli workforce. If you want to argue against facts, go right ahead and make a fool of yourself. I'd advise against it.
Eh, its not a fact, its an incredibly dumb statement. You're saying that if the state of Israel ceased to exist the palestinians would be fukked because theyd had no jobs. I shouldnt really need to point out whats wrong with that mate, but I could start off by saying the palestinians would most likely take the jobs the Israelis left aye?
Originally posted by Sandwich
Uhh... what about it? Kingdom of Israel fighting with the Kingdom of Judah. :confused:
Mkay, so jews |= kingdom of Israel then? Kinda ****s all over your christian zionist beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Eh, its not a fact, its an incredibly dumb statement. You're saying that if the state of Israel ceased to exist the palestinians would be fukked because theyd had no jobs. I shouldnt really need to point out whats wrong with that mate, but I could start off by saying the palestinians would most likely take the jobs the Israelis left aye? Mkay, so jews |= kingdom of Israel then? Kinda ****s all over your christian zionist beliefs.
Israel ceases to exist. Israeli jobs cease to exist right along with it. No Israeli jobs for the Palestinians to take. duhhhh.
-
Well, should one infrastructure collapse, another would form in it's place, if Israelis aren't providing factories and offices, you can pretty much be certain that someone else, be it Western or Eastern interests will come along and make some more. Nature abhors a vacuum.
That said, let's have less talk of either side being wiped off the face of the planet, that solves absolutely nothing ;)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Well, should one infrastructure collapse, another would form in it's place, if Israelis aren't providing factories and offices, you can pretty much be certain that someone else, be it Western or Eastern interests will come along and make some more. Nature abhors a vacuum.
That said, let's have less talk of either side being wiped off the face of the planet, that solves absolutely nothing ;)
I remember stating some time ago that I believe a signifigant percentage of both sides of the Israeli/Palestine conflict truly want a 'peaceful' co-existence, but there are groups on both sides who are hell bent on preventing that.
So who stands to lose from peace?
-
Those who profit from war...
-
Because War only costs money, Peace costs a sense of responsibility. Many people everywhere find that too high a price to pay. :(
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Israel ceases to exist. Israeli jobs cease to exist right along with it. No Israeli jobs for the Palestinians to take. duhhhh.
Thats right, I forgot about the Israeli monopoly on work :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Because War only costs money, Peace costs a sense of responsibility. Many people everywhere find that too high a price to pay. :(
:nod:
Sorry is the hardest word, and all that.
(actually, supercalifragilisticexp....ah, **** it.... is the hardest word. But in this case, sorry is)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You missed the point Sandwich. I'd already assumed that the Palestinians were in deep doodoo. I was saying what would happen in Israel if they wiped the palestinians out.
In what way? Politically? Workforce-wise?
Originally posted by Gank
Eh, its not a fact, its an incredibly dumb statement. You're saying that if the state of Israel ceased to exist the palestinians would be fukked because theyd had no jobs. I shouldnt really need to point out whats wrong with that mate, but I could start off by saying the palestinians would most likely take the jobs the Israelis left aye?
"...take the jobs the Israelis left..." :wtf: If Israel ceased to exist, there would BE no jobs here. I'm finding it hard to understand what the situation related to employment is over here that would give you reason to think otherwise. Please elaborate.
Originally posted by Gank
Mkay, so jews |= kingdom of Israel then? Kinda ****s all over your christian zionist beliefs.
Again, you're gonna have to explain that one a bit better (preferably without the vulgarities). And what does any of it have to do with Christian Zionist beliefs?
Originally posted by Gank
Thats right, I forgot about the Israeli monopoly on work :rolleyes:
Let me try to explain the employment situation here, ok? A significant amount of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs (I'm not going to say "most", because I truly don't know the numbers. It's quite common, however...) hold jobs in Israel. They are employed by Jewish construction companies, farming whatevers, municipality-employed street sweepers, and basically any other job that, to be blunt, is for some reason too "menial" for a "Jew" to perform (a situation I am not supportive of, but I'm explaining, not agreeing).
They (the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs) support their families through these jobs - I remember many times when as a soldier I was ordered to close a checkpoint for a time, and how they would plead with me to let them through, they're just trying to support a family. It's a rough situation, but think about it. They prefer to go through the hassle of working less-than-ideal jobs, crossing through the major headache of checkpoints every day, etc etc - why? Why not work in the PA-controlled areas?
Because there ARE no jobs there. WHY there are no jobs, you'd have to ask Mr. Arafat.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Because there ARE no jobs there. WHY there are no jobs, you'd have to ask Mr. Arafat.
:yes:
The fact that Hamas and Al-Aqsa pay signifigant bounties to the families of suicide bombers does not help matters at all. If you've got squat for a job, or a job you can't get to, and one single act can have your family taken care of for life, I can see the desperation. Israel's fault? Not by a long shot.
-
Y'alls are just as bad as the politicians who just go back and forth. You don't even listen and try to learn. For one second, everybody take a step back and try to see things from the other side's point of view.
Deep breath.....
Okay. Continue.
-
Hmmmmmmmm... Well, I suspect 'everyone' and 'no-one' is to blame ;)
It presents a tricky situation :-
Israel, with good relations with the US recieves support and backing from the US and flourishes. Not to mention the Jewish were pretty well off when they arrived in Israel.
The Palestinian lands, coupled with their leaders atrocious spending regimes, which I have mentioned before, have a distrust of America, partly through the formation of Israel and through various real or imagined deeds later. They recieve little or no support and struggle.
Therefore opportunitists on the poor side use Israels wealth and support from America to generate hatred against Both Israel and America.
However, in retaliation for this, both America and Israel begin 'incursions' which are high in civilian life-cost, and which generate even more poverty, death and self-justified hatred.
You can see where this is going round and round in a circle alas :(
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
"...take the jobs the Israelis left..." :wtf: If Israel ceased to exist, there would BE no jobs here. I'm finding it hard to understand what the situation related to employment is over here that would give you reason to think otherwise. Please elaborate.
:wtf: Are you honestly that stupid that you think the palestinians would not be able to provide work for themselves without Israeli help? Wtf do you think they did before you invaded and took over their country, sat around scratching their balls all day?
Originally posted by Sandwich
Again, you're gonna have to explain that one a bit better (preferably without the vulgarities). And what does any of it have to do with Christian Zionist beliefs?
The whole Jesus is going to come because God has restored the kingdom of Israel deal, If what is now Israel is actually the restored kingdom of Judea then your end time prophesies havent been fullfilled. Or do you have some way of getting around this as well.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Because there ARE no jobs there. WHY there are no jobs, you'd have to ask Mr. Arafat.
LOL, blame it on a man Israel has kept a prisioner in his compound for years. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by ionia23
:yes:
The fact that Hamas and Al-Aqsa pay signifigant bounties to the families of suicide bombers does not help matters at all. If you've got squat for a job, or a job you can't get to, and one single act can have your family taken care of for life, I can see the desperation. Israel's fault? Not by a long shot.
(as an aside)
Israel also pays large sums of money to Palestinians to become informants. IIRC Amnesty International has criticised this because the money is so vastly in excess of normal Palestinian wages that it could be construed as placing undue/unfair pressure & coercion.
(These people often end up horribly tortured and killed along with family members when they are 'found out').
-
Gank, I'm just curious. What would be your solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Forget about the history of it...how would you fix it NOW?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
(as an aside)
Israel also pays large sums of money to Palestinians to become informants. IIRC Amnesty International has criticised this because the money is so vastly in excess of normal Palestinian wages that it could be construed as placing undue/unfair pressure & coercion.
(These people often end up horribly tortured and killed along with family members when they are 'found out').
Oh crap. One of the things to add to my list of things I didn't know :(. Thanks for filling me in. I'm going to have to think about this.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
In what way? Politically? Workforce-wise?
Re-read the thread. Some one said that Israel was showing restraint by not wiping out the palestinians.
It's not showing restraint to not cripple your own economy. It's shoing common sense.
The simple fact that is obvious to almost anyone not in either country is that both Israel and Palestine are acting like spoilt children, blaming each other for their problems.
Since Israel is the bigger child who should "know better" it gets the lions share of the criticism. But I doubt that there are many people from outside both countries who don't think that both of you need to grow up a little.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
Gank, I'm just curious. What would be your solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Forget about the history of it...how would you fix it NOW?
Ship everyone who wasnt born or whose parents werent born in the region back to wherever they came from. Then make the rest into one country and hold democratic elections.
Re the Palestinian economy:
Real per capita GDP for the West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) declined by about one-third between 1992 and 1996 due to the combined effect of falling aggregate incomes and rapid population growth. The downturn in economic activity was largely the result of Israeli closure policies - the imposition of border closures in response to security incidents in Israel - which disrupted labor and commodity market relationships between Israel and the WBGS. The most serious social effect of this downturn was rising unemployment, which in the WBGS during the 1980s was generally under 5%; by 1995 it had risen to over 20%. Israel's use of comprehensive closures during the next three years decreased and, in 1998, Israel implemented new policies to reduce the impact of closures and other security procedures on the movement of Palestinian goods and labor. These changes fueled an almost three-year-long economic recovery in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; real GDP grew by 5% in 1998 and 6% in 1999. Recovery was upended in the last quarter of 2000 with the outbreak of violence, which triggered tight Israeli closures of Palestinian self-rule areas and severely disrupted trade and labor movements. In 2001, and even more severely in 2002, Israeli military measures in Palestinian Authority areas resulted in the destruction of much capital plant and administrative structure, widespread business closures, and a sharp drop in GDP. Including Gaza Strip, the UN estimates that more than 100,000 Palestinians out of the 125,000 who used to work in Israel, in Israeli settlements, or in joint industrial zones have lost their jobs. In addition, about 80,000 Palestinian workers inside the Territories are losing their jobs. International aid of $2 billion in 2001-02 to the West Bank and Gaza Strip prevented the complete collapse of the economy.
From the CIA factbook.