NationStates Jolt Archive

...although probably unintentional.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm
It is basically this:
"If you [Europeans] committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?

"This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the US, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said.

Disregarding for a second the issue of ancient Israel having a connection with modern Israel, and people really wanting to hold on to a bit of desert more out of principle than out of rationality, I think he makes a fair point about whose responsibility this whole thing is.

I found this essay, originally written for the Spiegel in Germany (and meant to be a strange mix of cynical and sarcastic) in the Tehran Times...except that maybe the readership won't get it.
You'll like it I think:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=12/14/2005&Cat=2&Num=003
Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s suggestion to move Israel to Germany is not as absurd as it sounds. If you consider the idea impartially, you can see a historic land reform concept which can be advantageous to all parties.
:p

Personally I would just like to add that I'd welcome anyone if they wanted to live in Germany, and found their own little country. As long as they opened their borders, such that trade and free traffic of persons is okay, Israel can have Schleswig Holstein if they want it. Afterall, last time Germany opened its borders to Jewish refugees, it was set on the road to become the most powerful empire of its time.

Yes, why don't we go with that brilliant idea the Nazis first came up with, and ship the Jews to Madagascar. We all know what happened when that idea panned out.

They already have a country, and they already live there, and they already have the ability to hold it.

Unless you want to start a war, and kill Jews in the process, I fail to see the practicality of your idea.

Israel can have Schleswig Holstein if they want it.

No, Denmark has dibs there already.

Gee, isn't it nice that one of the most vehemently fundamentalist, historically anti-Israeli (for all the wrong reasons) figures in Iran is so concerned for the well-being of the people he hates?

It must be the spirit of the season... all that "peace on earth, good will to men" stuff must have gotten to him. It just melts my heart.

The majority of what is now Israel was legally acquired from absentee landlords in Egypt and Syria. They like to make a lot of noise about how the British "gave" the land to the Jews, but the people they got it from had no problem giving it to them as long as they got paid for it. Fellow Arabs sold the Palestinians out.

Fellow Arabs sold the Palestinians out.

Perhaps, but that is an interesting question to look at in restrospect. Would it really have made any difference to the world powers at the time of the decision if they had set aside a part of Germany for the jews? Would we see the same kind of strife in the Middle East today if Israel has actually occupied a chunk of land not there but in Europe?

Its a what if at this point, since it would be impractical for it to be carried out now, but still something interesting to think about.

The majority of what is now Israel was legally acquired from absentee landlords in Egypt and Syria. They like to make a lot of noise about how the British "gave" the land to the Jews, but the people they got it from had no problem giving it to them as long as they got paid for it. Fellow Arabs sold the Palestinians out.
Not to mention the half-assed attempts by neighboring Arab nations to help out the Palestinians. Looks like the Egyptians gave up, the Jordanians never really wanted to help, and the Syrians have a military that is only good for target practice (my favorite is the loss of the entire Syrian Air Force in three days when Israel invaded Lebanon - some aircraft shot down as they retracted their landing gear as they took off, and the other is two Israeli tanks, both damaged and immobile, destroying over 100 Syrian tanks in the Golan Heights - old Centurion tanks used by the Israelis destroying what was then the latest T-62s).

We could put the Jews in Scotland, Scotland's just a big hell-hole of people who say they want independence but are fucking stupid and would never survive on their own.

I wouldn't mind having Israel share part of the continental US. We've still got quite a bit of land that's not being used. Somehow I get the feeling they won't want to move though.

I wouldn't mind having Israel share part of the continental US. We've still got quite a bit of land that's not being used. Somehow I get the feeling they won't want to move though.

Sure we have lots of desert area's in the SW that could be used. How about we put them on the border with Mexico. Somehow I think that the illegal immigration problem might be solved.

I wouldn't mind having Israel share part of the continental US. We've still got quite a bit of land that's not being used. Somehow I get the feeling they won't want to move though.
Don't do that, the spare space is in the south with those whacko Christians, who will hang the Jews for herecy.

Don't do that, the spare space is in the south with those whacko Christians, who will hang the Jews for herecy.
Israeli Jews would kick the crap out of the racist rednecks.

Israeli Jews would kick the crap out of the racist rednecks.
But the racist rednecks would become suicide bombers.

The other problem with moving Israel, is they would no longer have any reason not to nuke the middle east.

We could put the Jews in Scotland, Scotland's just a big hell-hole of people who say they want independence but are fucking stupid and would never survive on their own.

So that's a flame and you're out of this conversation. Thanks for stopping by! :)

That's ok, I think. Aren't you being a bit harsh? You could just delete the message.

That's ok, I think. Aren't you being a bit harsh? You could just delete the message.

Is that person even a moderator?

Is that person even a moderator?
I dunno

Maybe he's just Scottish. I can still speak at any rate.

I simply do not uderstand the propagation of this fantasy of somehow relocating Israel that you have undertaken Leonstine. HOW can you propose this as realistic? Even at the time of Israel formation (1948) such a move would have been impossible - the settlement of Jews had already taken place. It has been explained to you in previous threads that the idea of locating Israel elsewhere was brought up in earlier zionist circles, and that idea did not hold water.

Why do we even bother to talk about stark impossibilities, the merest ill-informed fantasy, and quote a raving anti-semite at that while doing it, when there are so many real challenges that face the middle east?

I guess I can't say this enough times: Israel's existance, and its location is essentially legitimate. No-one gave the Jewish settlers one square inch they didn't pay for in money, work, and blood. Israel is there to stay.

No, but it was a blatant flame on the Scottish people, and I could easily report that to Moderation - but I just want to know what exactly it is you have against the Scottish, since that seemed to have come out of nowhere? :p

No, but it was a blatant flame on the Scottish people, and I could easily report that to Moderation - but I just want to know what exactly it is you have against the Scottish, since that seemed to have come out of nowhere? :p
You could report it to moderation, but they'd probably (I'm not COUNTING on this) do nothing or just delete it.

You could report it to moderation, but they'd probably (I'm not COUNTING on this) do nothing or just delete it.

Especially since if I reported it, they'd tell me to go away. Well, except Euro. *hugs Euro* :p

I simply do not uderstand the propagation of this fantasy of somehow relocating Israel that you have undertaken Leonstine. HOW can you propose this as realistic?

He's German, what do you expect :P

He's German, what do you expect :P
Maybe he's trying a reductio ad absurdum argument.

If you wanted to move Israel, just give them Florida.

...and they already have the ability to hold it.
No they do not...
Not without US Billions$$ of welfare Aid.

If you wanted to move Israel, just give them Florida.I vote for Rhode Island

Maybe he's trying a reductio ad absurdum argument.Ah. So he's is in fact suggesting that this reflects Ahmdanejan's weak understanding on every topic? I'm not sure which direction you're intending to take the absurd.

No they do not...
Not without US Billions$$ of welfare Aid.
From what I've heard, the amount of military aid to Israel has declined over time, especially during the Clinton Administration. Not that they don't get our weapons, but they pay for them.

Why don't you ask the Palestinian Authority what happened to the tens of billions of dollars that were given to Arafat to help the Palestinian people, if we're going to talk about foreign aid?

Why don't you ask the Palestinian Authority what happened to the tens of billions of dollars that were given to Arafat to help the Palestinian people, if we're going to talk about foreign aid?
Well, I can't say I'm exactly on first name terms with them..

Well, I can't say I'm exactly on first name terms with them..
I'll give you a hint...

Arafat spent most of it on himself.

The rest he spent on his cronies, to bribe them and keep himself in power.

Needless to say, the EU went through a lot of handwringing over that, and then wrote him another check.

Nice villas he bought, though.

...although probably unintentional.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm
It is basically this:


Disregarding for a second the issue of ancient Israel having a connection with modern Israel, and people really wanting to hold on to a bit of desert more out of principle than out of rationality, I think he makes a fair point about whose responsibility this whole thing is.

I found this essay, originally written for the Spiegel in Germany (and meant to be a strange mix of cynical and sarcastic) in the Tehran Times...except that maybe the readership won't get it.
You'll like it I think:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=12/14/2005&Cat=2&Num=003

:p

Personally I would just like to add that I'd welcome anyone if they wanted to live in Germany, and found their own little country. As long as they opened their borders, such that trade and free traffic of persons is okay, Israel can have Schleswig Holstein if they want it. Afterall, last time Germany opened its borders to Jewish refugees, it was set on the road to become the most powerful empire of its time.
In case you were wondering if I was going to rip you to shreds for posting this- here I come:D

The whole idea that the creation of Israel was somehow Europe's doing and responsibility is quite laughable. You see, nobody asked the Europeans where they wanted to put Israel. Nobody asked them whether they wanted it to come into existence, either. It was the Jewish people who realized their need for independent statehood, and it was them who chose the land of Israel for the state of Israel. The Europeans had about as much say in the matter as they had in where to place Egypt or Syria. All they did were half-hearted post-factum endorsements of what was by that time a fait accompli despite their vain efforts to sabotage it.

So, speaking as the local representative of Israel, I am honored to show the middle finger to every single fool rambling about "moving" Israel elsewhere.

If I was president of Mexico, or had been back in those days, I would seriously consider the possibility of giving part of Baja California or Sonora or some area bordering both the US and the Pacific, to Israel. Sure, the Mexican people would hate me for a while, but after all that wealth starts being generated they'd realize just how good a plan that is.

So, speaking as the local representative of Israel, I am honored to show the middle finger to every single fool rambling about "moving" Israel elsewhere.

Well said. The Israelis have actually made some something of the land they live in, rather than the Arabs who spend all their money (which they only have thanks to a quirk of geography) buying fast cars and building absurdly tall buildings.

Israeli Arabs have a helluva lot more rights and freedoms than Arabs living in any Arab state.

In case you were wondering if I was going to rip you to shreds for posting this- here I come:D

The whole idea that the creation of Israel was somehow Europe's doing and responsibility is quite laughable. You see, nobody asked the Europeans where they wanted to put Israel. Nobody asked them whether they wanted it to come into existence, either. It was the Jewish people who realized their need for independent statehood, and it was them who chose the land of Israel for the state of Israel. The Europeans had about as much say in the matter as they had in where to place Egypt or Syria. All they did were half-hearted post-factum endorsements of what was by that time a fait accompli despite their vain efforts to sabotage it.

So, speaking as the local representative of Israel, I am honored to show the middle finger to every single fool rambling about "moving" Israel elsewhere.
*sneers* what a poor education you've had, how pitiful.

*sneers* what a poor education you've had, how pitiful.
Show me yours, and let us compare.

In the meanwhile, here's a middle finger for you too.

Well said. The Israelis have actually made some something of the land they live in, rather than the Arabs who spend all their money (which they only have thanks to a quirk of geography) buying fast cars and building absurdly tall buildings.

Israeli Arabs have a helluva lot more rights and freedoms than Arabs living in any Arab state.
Israeli GNI per capita: US $17,380 (World Bank, 2005)
Palestinian GNI per capita: US $1,120 (World Bank, 2005).
Also, your comment is remarkably racist.

Don't do that, the spare space is in the south with those whacko Christians, who will hang the Jews for herecy.

And look where they are now. Surrounded by a bunch of psycho Muslims.

Show me yours, and let us compare.

In the meanwhile, here's a middle finger for you too.
You've run out of middle fingers now; what a relief. Well, for a start, it is a grammatical rule not to place 'and' after a comma.

And look where they are now. Surrounded by a bunch of psycho Muslims.
^^

Israeli GNI per capita: US $17,380 (World Bank, 2005)
Palestinian GNI per capita: US $1,120 (World Bank, 2005).
Also, your comment is remarkably racist.

Of course, all Arabs claim that they sympathise with their Palestinian brothers, but they never give them a penny of their vast oil wealh. If they did care, Palestinian GNI wouldn't be so low.

How is my comment racist?

You've run out of middle fingers now; what a relief. Well, for a start, it is a grammatical rule not to place 'and' after a comma.

You must have a strong argument if you're reduced to criticsing someone's grammar.

You've run out of middle fingers now; what a relief. Well, for a start, it is a grammatical rule not to place 'and' after a comma.
:rolleyes:

For one, I'm fairly sure you're bullshitting the audience and there's no such rule. But if there is, no big deal. English isn't my first language anyway, so I can afford to make as many grammatical errors as I damn well please.

Now, did you have anything smarter to say?

Of course, all Arabs claim that they sympathise with their Palestinian brothers, but they never give them a penny of their vast oil wealh. If they did care, Palestinian GNI wouldn't be so low.

How is my comment racist?
I'll tell you
rather than the Arabs who spend all their money (which they only have thanks to a quirk of geography) buying fast cars and building absurdly tall buildings.

You said 'Arabs' generically, as if to suggest that all Arabs waste money.

:rolleyes:

For one, I'm fairly sure you're bullshitting the audience and there's no such rule. But if there is, no big deal. English isn't my first language anyway, so I can afford to make as many grammatical errors as I damn well please.

Now, did you have anything smarter to say?

There is such a rule.

I'll tell you


You said 'Arabs' generically, as if to suggest that all Arabs waste money.

I never said that they waste money. All I said was that rather than spending the money improving the lives of their fellow Arabs, those with wealth spend it all on themselves.

In case you were wondering if I was going to rip you to shreds for posting this- here I come:D

The whole idea that the creation of Israel was somehow Europe's doing and responsibility is quite laughable. You see, nobody asked the Europeans where they wanted to put Israel. Nobody asked them whether they wanted it to come into existence, either. It was the Jewish people who realized their need for independent statehood, and it was them who chose the land of Israel for the state of Israel. The Europeans had about as much say in the matter as they had in where to place Egypt or Syria. All they did were half-hearted post-factum endorsements of what was by that time a fait accompli despite their vain efforts to sabotage it.

So, speaking as the local representative of Israel, I am honored to show the middle finger to every single fool rambling about "moving" Israel elsewhere.

The only reason you have your country is the U.N. and the U.S.

I never said that they waste money. All I said was that rather than spending the money improving the lives of their fellow Arabs, those with wealth spend it all on themselves.
You just did it again. You said that no wealthy Arabs help eachother, as if it were a genetic trait.

The only reason you have your country is the U.N. and the U.S.

Rubbish. They have their country because they fought for it, and refused to give in against overwhelming odds. Besides, what relevance does that have? Israel exists, arguments about whether it should or not should be debated as a historical issue.

Where do you come from?

The only reason you have your country is the U.N. and the U.S.
The US had no share in the creation of Israel. None whatsoever. And the UN merely signed the birth certificate- but the baby sure as hell wasn't theirs.

You just did it again. You said that no wealthy Arabs help eachother, as if it were a genetic trait.

Of course there are exceptions, but Arab treatment of women, religious minorities, gays etc. hardly suggests that they are a massively egalitarian or philanthropic people (on the whole).

Rubbish. They have their country because they fought for it, and refused to give in against overwhelming odds. Besides, what relevance does that have? Israel exists, arguments about whether it should or not should be debated as a historical issue.

Where do you come from?
They have their country because the U.S. has always been only to pleased to dump hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons in the Israelis' hands.

Of course there are exceptions, but Arab treatment of women, religious minorities, gays etc. hardly suggests that they are a massively egalitarian or philanthropic people (on the whole).
Who is this? Robert Kilroy Silke? If you are going to generalise about treatment of women, either say "Arab states" or "muslims", not "Arabs".

They have their country because the U.S. has always been only to pleased to dump hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons in the Israelis' hands.

And the Soviet Union didn't do the same with Arab countries?

So are saying that in principle, it was wrong of the United States to help defend a democratic state against unstable despotic neigbours?

Who is this? Robert Kilroy Silke? If you are going to generalise about treatment of women, either say "Arab states" or "muslims", not "Arabs".

Very well, I'll be more specific.

Muslim Arabs (generally) have a backward view on the rule of women and the rights of minorities.

If you're going to dispute me, please provide evidence to the contrary.

Very well, I'll be more specific.

Muslim Arabs (generally) have a backward view on the rule of women and the rights of minorities.

If you're going to dispute me, please provide evidence to the contrary.
I didn't dispute what you were trying to say; I was simply disputing the way you phrased it.

And the Soviet Union didn't do the same with Arab countries?

So are saying that in principle, it was wrong of the United States to help defend a democratic state against unstable despotic neigbours?
The Soviet Union was never really equal with the U.S. in terms of technology, it just had nukes and so was a big threat.

Also, Israel's use of the weapons has never been, what might be called 'democratic'.

I didn't dispute what you were trying to say; I was simply disputing the way you phrased it.

So if you don't dispute what I say, why do you insist on attacking the only Middle Eastern state where those terrible conditions do not apply?

The whole idea that the creation of Israel was somehow Europe's doing and responsibility is quite laughable. You see, nobody asked the Europeans where they wanted to put Israel. Nobody asked them whether they wanted it to come into existence, either. It was the Jewish people who realized their need for independent statehood, and it was them who chose the land of Israel for the state of Israel. The Europeans had about as much say in the matter as they had in where to place Egypt or Syria. All they did were half-hearted post-factum endorsements of what was by that time a fait accompli despite their vain efforts to sabotage it.

Well, I think a distinctio nshould be made regarding the creation of Egypt and Syria from that of Israel's ceation. The entire region (as you know) of Syria, Jordan, and present-day Israel was simply a tract of land called "palestine" under british mandate. Egypt was under a french mandate. The decision of the jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian borders was a European descision - or their puppet rulers and muftis. Israel is unique in that the people actually placed the borders by winning a war. Israel's border's weren't carved by Europe, but I think Jordan and Syria's were.

So if you don't dispute what I say, why do you insist on attacking the only Middle Eastern state where those terrible conditions do not apply?
Because it is in breach of international law and I disagree vehemently with its creation.

The Soviet Union was never really equal with the U.S. in terms of technology, it just had nukes and so was a big threat.

Also, Israel's use of the weapons has never been, what might be called 'democratic'.

Please, don't believe American propaganda about the backwardness of the USSR. Besides, any marginal weakness in technology should have been made up by the fact that the Arabs greatly outnumbered the Israelis.

So defending national territory is not in accordance with democratic principles?

Please, don't believe American propaganda about the backwardness of the USSR. Besides, any marginal weakness in technology should have been made up by the fact that the Arabs greatly outnumbered the Israelis.

So defending national territory is not in accordance with democratic principles?

Of course it is, but that is irrelevent.

Because it is in breach of international law and I disagree vehemently with its creation.

How can you disagree with it's creation? It's a historical fact.

Of course it is, but that is irrelevent.

Then why did you bring it up?

How can you disagree with it's creation? It's a historical fact.
I think that creating it was wrong... you knew very well what I meant.

Then why did you bring it up?
You did

Also, Israel's use of the weapons has never been, what might be called 'democratic'.

I think you'll find you brought it up.

Anyway, you're are obviously anti-Israeli in principle, rather than due to thorough factual reasoning. Debating with you is therefore pointless, so I'll leave this thread to you. Good day!

Well, I think a distinctio nshould be made regarding the creation of Egyp and syria from that of Israel's ceation. The entire region (as you know) of Syria, jordan, and present-day Israel was simply a tract of land called "palestine" under british mandate. the decision of the jordanian and Syrian borders was a european descision - or their puppet rulers and muftis. Israel is unique in that the people actually placed the borders by winning a war. Israel's border's weren't carved by europe, but I think Jordan and Syria's were.
Carving borders is irrelevant here. Many a state had its borders carved by external forces. The point is that it was the Jewish people, and they alone, whose decision it was to establish a Jewish state, and it was them, and them alone, who had the power to decide where this state was to be created. The rest of the world could assist or obstruct the work, they could offer options (like the Uganda option offered by Britain), they could try to force the Jews into a territory of their choice (like the Soviet Union tried to do with their "Jewish autonomous region" project in South Siberia)- but they could not decide what the Jewish people wanted and what they would find acceptable. A Jewish state ANYWHERE could not have been established without the will of the Jewish people to create it there and then.

I would just like to make the general comment that members of this board are partial to the most outlandish solutions to what they percieve as "the Israeli problem". Notably, outright genocide of the palestinians (thanks Kimchi), the creation of one state for both Jews and Palestinians (Kimchi again), and the relocation of israel to a neutral location (Leonstein and Armhadenejad collaberated in the R&D for that one).

It strikes me that no-one is too keen to talk about the political and security issues that are the real sticking points, but would rather squabble over history. I can see how it might be more exciting to fantasize about hypothetical causes and means and woul-be's - what I fail to see is how you all take yourself seriously while conveniently ignoring the real progress that is occasionally made in the fields of cooperation, negotiation, and diplomacy. I guess that stuff is just boring and hard to learn about.

I think you'll find you brought it up.
Invading and colonising another country's land is more than the defence of your own land.

Carving borders is irrelevant here. Many a state had its borders carved by external forces. The point is that it was the Jewish people, and they alone, whose decision it was to establish a Jewish state, and it was them, and them alone, who had the power to decide where this state was to be created. The rest of the world could assist or obstruct the work, they could offer options (like the Uganda option offered by Britain), they could try to force the Jews into a territory of their choice (like the Soviet Union tried to do with their "Jewish autonomous region" project in South Siberia)- but they could not decide what the Jewish people wanted and what they would find acceptable. A Jewish state ANYWHERE could not have been established without the will of the Jewish people to create it there and then.We are agreeing on this point -I was just disputing the comparison to Syria and Egyypt, which I believe are rather different cases.

How can you disagree with it's creation? It's a historical fact.
Some people disagree with facts.

The true depth of intelligence of Conscribed Comradeship is well reflected in his long, thoughtful, elaborate posts, filled with facts and logic.;)

I would just like to make the general comment that members of this board are partial to the most outlandish solutions to what they percieve as "the Israeli problem". Notably, outright genocide of the palestinians (thanks Kimchi), the creation of one state for both Jews and Palestinians (Kimchi again), and the relocation of israel to a neutral location (Leonstein and Armhadenejad collaberated in the R&D for that one).

It strikes me that no-one is too keen to talk about the political and security issues that are the real sticking points, but would rather squabble over history. I can see how it might be more exciting to fantasize about hypothetical causes and means and woul-be's - what I fail to see is how you all take yourself seriously while conveniently ignoring the real progress that is occasionally made in the fields of cooperation, negotiation, and diplomacy. I guess that stuff is just boring and hard to learn about.

Whatnow? I love talking about viable solutions.

Some people disagree with facts.

The true depth of intelligence of Conscribed Comradeship is well reflected in his long, thoughtful, elaborate posts, filled with facts and logic.;)
In those respects, your quote, yeah, ^ right above ^ is very similar to mine.

I would just like to make the general comment that members of this board are partial to the most outlandish solutions to what they percieve as "the Israeli problem". Notably, outright genocide of the palestinians (thanks Kimchi), the creation of one state for both Jews and Palestinians (Kimchi again), and the relocation of israel to a neutral location (Leonstein and Armhadenejad collaberated in the R&D for that one).

It strikes me that no-one is too keen to talk about the political and security issues that are the real sticking points, but would rather squabble over history. I can see how it might be more exciting to fantasize about hypothetical causes and means and woul-be's - what I fail to see is how you all take yourself seriously while conveniently ignoring the real progress that is occasionally made in the fields of cooperation, negotiation, and diplomacy. I guess that stuff is just boring and hard to learn about.

I think that best solution would be to integrate the Palestinians into Israel, and grant them citizenship,voting rights etc. Of course that would have massive opposition in both camps, but I think the two-state solution is extremely short termist.

Some people disagree with facts.

The true depth of intelligence of Conscribed Comradeship is well reflected in his long, thoughtful, elaborate posts, filled with facts and logic.;)
I don't disagree with the fact that it happened, I just think it was all badly handled.

Whatnow? I love talking about viable solutions.
Perhaps the affection is there, but it is the capacity which you lack.

I think that best solution would be to integrate the Palestinians into Israel, and grant them citizenship,voting rights etc. Of course that would have massive opposition in both camps, but I think the two-state solution is extremely short termist.
I must say I thought you'd left, but that is a sideline issue. You might just as well turn Israeli's into citizens of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as convert Arabs into Israelis.

Perhaps the affection is there, but it is the capacity which you lack.
No, I dispute that. I should be more than happy to discuss viable solutions.

I must say I thought you'd left, but that is a sideline issue. You might just as well turn Israeli's into citizens of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, as convert Arabs into Israelis.

Why would Israelis want to become part of states that lack democracy, human rights and a chance of economic prosperity? That's an entirely irrational suggestion.

I think that best solution would be to integrate the Palestinians into Israel, and grant them citizenship,voting rights etc. Of course that would have massive opposition in both camps, but I think the two-state solution is extremely short termist.This is one of the fanatsies I was referring to - it is esthetically pleasing perhaps, to imagine a beautifully integrated society from the Jordan river to the sea. However, it is the farthest thing from a pragmatic solution.

You yourself say it would face massive opposition in both camps. Why do you think a solution which virtually no-one that actually LIVES there desires has staying power??? Israelis do not want to be flooded with hostile palestinians. palestinian want their own independance. The opposition to a bi-lateral state would be so great that in fact it could never take place, or be stable if someone was shortsighted enough to join the two regions on paper. A simple recipe for civil war.

This is one of the fanatsies I was referring to - it is esthetically pleasing perhaps, to imagine a beautifully integrated society from the Jordan river to the sea. However, it is the farthest thing from a pragmatic solution.

You yourself say it would face massive opposition in both camps. Why do you think a solution which virtually no-one that actually LIVES there desires has staying power??? Israelis do not want to be flooded with hostile palestinians. palestinian want their own independance. The opposition to a bi-lateral state would be so great that in fact it could never take place, or be stable if someone was shortsighted enough to join the two regions on paper. A simple recipe for civil war.

what do you suggest?

Why would Israelis want to become part of states that lack democracy, human rights and a chance of economic prosperity? That's an entirely irrational suggestion.
So is your own, actually. What makes you think that the Palestinians want to be "integrated" into another nation's state, or that the Israelis want to "integrate" them?

This is just like the thinking of those who believe that Israel can be just "moved". Guess what: both the Israelis and the Palestinians have their own will to decide, and no "generous" outsider will ever impose onto them a solution that neither side is willing to accept.

Why would Israelis want to become part of states that lack democracy, human rights and a chance of economic prosperity? That's an entirely irrational suggestion.
"Chance of economic prosperity" I think even George Bush would dispute that.
Heard of oil? More to the point, why would the Palestinians want to become part of a country which oppresses them, runs over their houses with tanks and bulldozers and then builds settlements on them?

So is your own, actually. What makes you think that the Palestinians want to be "integrated" into another nation's state, or that the Israelis want to "integrate" them?

This is just like the thinking of those who believe that Israel can be just "moved". Guess what: both the Israelis and the Palestinians have their own will to decide, and no "generous" outsider will ever impose onto them a solution that neither side is willing to accept.
I like you :).

So is your own, actually. What makes you think that the Palestinians want to be "integrated" into another nation's state, or that the Israelis want to "integrate" them?

This is just like the thinking of those who believe that Israel can be just "moved". Guess what: both the Israelis and the Palestinians have their own will to decide, and no "generous" outsider will ever impose onto them a solution that neither side is willing to accept.

Perhaps there can be no solution. Is that the uncomfortable truth?

"Chance of economic prosperity" I think even George Bush would dispute that.
Heard of oil? More to the point, why would the Palestinians want to become part of a country which oppresses them, runs over their houses with tanks and bulldozers and then builds settlements on them?

It is true that every country has a chance of some description, but the standard of living in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon is much lower than Israel.

Perhaps there can be no solution. Is that the uncomfortable truth?
Until the inevitable decline of religion finally finishes.

Until the inevitable decline of religion finally finishes.

What makes it so inevitable?

what do you suggest?My suggestion is the most boring one of all: each nation should rule itself independently in a soverign state with secure borders. Despite the fact that achieving this is painful, drawn-out, and seems impossible at times, it is the ONLY solution. One may cite the fact that this approach has already failed, but I see no alternative to simply plodding on, maintaining communication, talking to palestinian leaders that can be resoned with, and in the meanwhile, fighting terror and pulling out of the west bank. You won't see anything origional here - you'll see hard work and commitment to priciples established long ago.

The main problems with making a Palestinian state, are Jerusalem and what Arafat called "kissing points". There is no way of getting around that one of the states, Israeli or Palestinian will have to be divided in two, or Israel has a big corner cut off it, which isn't likely.

What makes it so inevitable?
Common sense, democracy...

Common sense, democracy...

Switzerland is probably the closest country to pure democracy. Is religion dead there?

Switzerland is probably the closest country to pure democracy. Is religion dead there?
No, but common sense is. The wonderful thing about this is that it's purely my opinion upon which the rule has to be decided.

The main problems with making a Palestinian state, are Jerusalem and what Arafat called "kissing points". There is no way of getting around that one of the states, Israeli or Palestinian will have to be divided in two, or Israel has a big corner cut off it, which isn't likely.
Most Israelis are resigned to the fac that most of the settlements in the West bank will be dismantled, and that this territory will be given up. Israel will not be cutting itself in half, since the territories were never part of the State of Israel in the first place.

Your comment that "one of the states" will have to be cut in half makes no sense - there is no palestinian state *to* be cut in hlf at htis point. If what you are referring to is geopgraphic contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank, that is somehting a Palestinian state will have to live without. However, reasonable transportation arrangements are completely within the realm of negotiation.

Your comment that "one of the states" will have to be cut in half makes no sense - there is no palestinian state *to* be cut in hlf at htis point. If what you are referring to is geopgraphic contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank, that is somehting a Palestinian state will have to live without. However, reasonable transportation arrangements are completely within the realm of negotiation.
I know there is not one, at this point. I was discussing the issues "with making a Palestinian state".

Perhaps there can be no solution. Is that the uncomfortable truth?
There is no point giving up Maelog. I have not, and Israel certainly has not.

I know there is not one, at this point. I was discussing the issues "with making a Palestinian state".
fine. Feel free to respond to my actual point.

It's a shame that some evidence can't be found that the Jerusalem holy to Jews and the Jerusalem holy to Muslims are not in different places...

fine. Feel free to respond to my actual point.
Which was?

There is no point giving up Maelog. I have not, and Israel certainly has not.

But it seems that there is no solution that can ever be satisfactory to both sides...

Perhaps when the Arabs finally outbreed Israelis the problem will solve itself.

But it seems that there is no solution that can ever be satisfactory to both sides...

Perhaps when the Arabs finally outbreed Israelis the problem will solve itself.
I wonder whether the Palestinians would rather have the West Bank and Gaza, or Israel.

I wonder whether the Palestinians would rather have the West Bank and Gaza, or Israel.

They want all of it.

They want all of it.
But if they could only have one, which would they rather?

Which was?

That geographic discontinuity is far from unsolvable, and need not be the reason a two-state solution fails. Do I really need to post everything I say twice, in masticated form, for you to be able to digest it?

That geographic discontinuity is far from unsolvable, and need not be the reason a two-state solution fails. Do I really need to post everything I say twice, in masticated form, for you to be able to digest it?
How is it solveable? Either Israel has the bottom right corner cut off it, 'Palestine' will be in two parts, or there is some sort of highway, with a tunnel under it, so both states are connected. OOOHH, U.N. ZONE!!!

How is it solveable? Either Israel has the bottom left corner cut off it, 'Palestine' will be in two parts, or there is some sort of highway, with a tunnel under it, so both states are connected. OOOHH, U.N. ZONE!!!perhaps. A road surrounded by a fence seems like the easiest to me.

If a particularly liberal Israeli leadership gets in, then maybe a U.N. zone will work.

It's a shame that some evidence can't be found that the Jerusalem holy to Jews and the Jerusalem holy to Muslims are not in different places...You forgot Poland..

Jerusalem is also Holy to me.

You forgot Poland..

Jerusalem is also Holy to me.

"One cannot forget, what one has never known"

He's German, what do you expect :P
Harsh.

In case you were wondering if I was going to rip you to shreds for posting this- here I come:D
Awesome!

The whole idea that the creation of Israel was somehow Europe's doing and responsibility is quite laughable. You see, nobody asked the Europeans where they wanted to put Israel. Nobody asked them whether they wanted it to come into existence, either. It was the Jewish people who realized their need for independent statehood, and it was them who chose the land of Israel for the state of Israel.
This was my central point, namely that the Palestinians are suffering in one way or another because Europe couldn't be bothered to sort this out properly.
Britain just wanted the colonials to shut up so it could rebuild, the rest of Europe has all these refugees that they didn't want, and Germany caused the whole mess in the first place.
So they pushed for this quick solution, an "out of sight, out of mind" sort of thing.
Don't you think that Europe would have to take some sort of responsibility in sorting out a solution?
As for my Schleswig-Holstein comment...it's a nice place (probably nicer than Israel weather-wise and so on), it relatively less densely populated, and I think Germany would do well with a large group of motivated individuals helping. So of course this is unrealistic, simply because no one would consider because of religious etc reasons...but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.

All they did were half-hearted post-factum endorsements of what was by that time a fait accompli despite their vain efforts to sabotage it.
I don't think you can generalise there. Some Europeans worked against it, others helped. Just this week there's an issue in Britain about giving nuclear materials to Israel back in the days.

So, speaking as the local representative of Israel, I am honored to show the middle finger to every single fool rambling about "moving" Israel elsewhere.
Have you ever been to Germany? Maybe you'll like it. :p

I would just like to make the general comment that members of this board are partial to the most outlandish solutions to what they percieve as "the Israeli problem". Notably, outright genocide of the palestinians (thanks Kimchi), the creation of one state for both Jews and Palestinians (Kimchi again), and the relocation of israel to a neutral location (Leonstein and Armhadenejad collaberated in the R&D for that one).
W00t!

It strikes me that no-one is too keen to talk about the political and security issues that are the real sticking points, but would rather squabble over history.
Before anything really new happens in that area, we'll have to wait for the elections in both countries. Al-Aqsa's been complaining violently, and more and more ex-Likud people are going with Sharon, essentially turning the party into Likud II.
My guess would be that nothing much at all changes.

Israel is NOT responsible for the Mideast conflict.

Neither are the Arabs.

In my view, the blame falls on the Europeans, mainly the British and Roman empires.

Romans kicked Jews out of Israel. British screwed up the Middle East BAD.

Now, as the Romans are gone, we can only blame the Brits.

Perhaps Britain should pay reparations to all people hurt by the conflict it created.

Oh, and France gave Israel nuclear technology. A decade later, they gave Iraq nuclear technology.

So, Ahmadinejad has a point - Europeans created almost every aspect of the Middle East conflict.

I support a tunnel connecting the West Bank and Gaza. Who should build the tunnel? The British and French - they did a good job with the Chunnel, so I doubt anyone will dispute their abilities to build large underground tunnels.

I also had an idea to solve the problem of defensible borders: Create a Palestinian state - then create a mutual defense pact between Israel and Palestine. Israel keeps early warning radars in West Bank (and Palestinians get access to them), while the Palestinians are secure knowing they have a nuclear power to defend them.

By the way, I found an interesting interview with an "Iran Expert" about why Ahmadinejad keeps saying these things.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,390338,00.html

As for defensible borders, I have my doubts whether Israel would want to spend any money on Palestine. And with the way the West Bank Settlements are placed, any Palestinian state would end up some sort of fractured province, incapable of being a country, while Israel will still hold the ability to do whatever it wants there.

Even if a peace treaty was declared tomorrow, and final borders declared, there would be some guy with a bomb trying to blow up Israelis. And in response, Israelis will bomb Palestine, borders or not.

It's the same sort of thing Austria used in 1914 - some guy from Country A did something, so we blame Country A for not preventing it. I think that sort of thinking needs to end too...the Palestinian Authority will never be able to make enough of an impact to stop Terrorism if it's seen that the Israelis do as they like in Palestine. There needs to be a lot more dialogue and cooperation.

From what I've heard, the amount of military aid to Israel has declined over time, especially during the Clinton Administration. Not that they don't get our weapons, but they pay for them.

Didn't Israel demand and get several billion USD when they pulled back those settlements? As far as I can tell, they're still getting handouts.

All they did were half-hearted post-factum endorsements of what was by that time a fait accompli despite their vain efforts to sabotage it.


Mmhmmm, and the Jewish people formed Israel all by themselves without support or aid from the other countries I suppose? Somehow, I very much believe that without the aid of Europe and America, if the Jews had simply been dumped in Juraselam, they wouldn't be there anymore. Not as a nation anyways.

-snip-


Interesting article. I heard substantially the same thing on the BBC a few hours ago. Apparently he is losing a great deal of support among middle class iranians.

It just confirms my theory that he is mad.

No they do not...
Not without US Billions$$ of welfare Aid.

The only major engagment that the US government gave Israel military aid for was the Yom Kippur War and thats because it was a surrogate war with the Soviets who were giving mountains of military aid to Sadat and his Syrian allies. Look at their war for Independence in 1948 or the Six Days War. The US pretty much tried to avoid them from getting any military supplies. Several fake businesses had to be set up by Zionest for them to obtain their war materials.

Didn't Israel demand and get several billion USD when they pulled back those settlements? As far as I can tell, they're still getting handouts.



Mmhmmm, and the Jewish people formed Israel all by themselves without support or aid from the other countries I suppose? Somehow, I very much believe that without the aid of Europe and America, if the Jews had simply been dumped in Juraselam, they wouldn't be there anymore. Not as a nation anyways.

There really wasnt aid for when they founded Israel. It was more of ppl trying to sell off exess military equipment from WWII. The Jews had to pay for what they got and got put thru lots of red tape to.

:rolleyes:

For one, I'm fairly sure you're bullshitting the audience and there's no such rule. But if there is, no big deal. English isn't my first language anyway, so I can afford to make as many grammatical errors as I damn well please.

Now, did you have anything smarter to say?
Not a hard and fast rule; merely a style.

You can say either "dogs, cats, and horses"
or
"dogs, cats and horses".

Israel is NOT responsible for the Mideast conflict.

Neither are the Arabs.

In my view, the blame falls on the Europeans, mainly the British and Roman empires.

Romans kicked Jews out of Israel. British screwed up the Middle East BAD.

Now, as the Romans are gone, we can only blame the Brits.

Perhaps Britain should pay reparations to all people hurt by the conflict it created.

Oh, and France gave Israel nuclear technology. A decade later, they gave Iraq nuclear technology.

So, Ahmadinejad has a point - Europeans created almost every aspect of the Middle East conflict.

I support a tunnel connecting the West Bank and Gaza. Who should build the tunnel? The British and French - they did a good job with the Chunnel, so I doubt anyone will dispute their abilities to build large underground tunnels.

I also had an idea to solve the problem of defensible borders: Create a Palestinian state - then create a mutual defense pact between Israel and Palestine. Israel keeps early warning radars in West Bank (and Palestinians get access to them), while the Palestinians are secure knowing they have a nuclear power to defend them.
Indeed. You took the words right out of my mouth...

Thanks for the support. It just feels better when someone else agrees with your new idea, no matter how intellectually sound you think it is.

The Israel-Palestine conflict reads like a case of child abuse.

The Israelis were enslaved, marginalized, and almost exterminated. Now they want to do it to the Palestinians.

Israel is NOT responsible for the Mideast conflict.

Neither are the Arabs.

In my view, the blame falls on the Europeans, mainly the British and Roman empires.

<snip>This is just silly. Jews ARE responsible for conflict in the middle east, as are Arabs. Yes, Europe had a part in shaping the history and present reality of the region, but the resident populations did too. There is a point in time when you call a spade a spade, and stop pointing fingers at old invaders, opressors, school-yard bullies, and asshole principle who gave you detention, and take your fate into your own hands. The Jewish people have learned this lesson with a vengeance and taken it to heart. You will not find many Israelis who would thank you for offloading responsibility for their problems onto now-obsolete Europeans. It is time all the members of the region took ownership of the land, and dilemas they posess. Simply pointing fingers and allocating blame will not help anything. Move on.

About the tunnel, that is reasonable. But why should foreigners pay for it? Again, this is Israel and palestine's problem - not theirs. if they wanted to help, they could start by ending the ridiculous boycotting campaign that are all the rage in fashionable European circles these days.

It's a non-issue, they wouldn't move, and Europe wouldn't take them.

This was my central point, namely that the Palestinians are suffering in one way or another because Europe couldn't be bothered to sort this out properly.
Britain just wanted the colonials to shut up so it could rebuild, the rest of Europe has all these refugees that they didn't want, and Germany caused the whole mess in the first place.
So they pushed for this quick solution, an "out of sight, out of mind" sort of thing.
Don't you think that Europe would have to take some sort of responsibility in sorting out a solution?
You are still missing the point. The solution wasn't theirs to find. Neither was it their responsibility.

What do you think would happen if Britain, the UN or anybody else tried to tell the Jews in 1948 that they shouldn't have their own state where they want to, but only where they are told? Answer: the Jews would have shown them the middle finger.

Get it through your head: however big a share external forces may have contributed to the work of founding Israel, they had no power to decide on whether or not to create it or where to place it. It wasn't the Europeans who came in hundreds of thousands to found city after city and kibbutz after kibbutz in the land of Israel, it wasn't Europe who worked the land, it wasn't Europe who decided that the Jewish people should go and do any of that. The choice, the ultimate power to decide was always that of the Jewish people.


As for my Schleswig-Holstein comment...it's a nice place (probably nicer than Israel weather-wise and so on), it relatively less densely populated, and I think Germany would do well with a large group of motivated individuals helping. So of course this is unrealistic, simply because no one would consider because of religious etc reasons...but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.
It's an insulting idea, and I think you know it.


I don't think you can generalise there. Some Europeans worked against it, others helped.
Some Europeans did. But the European states did not.

Just this week there's an issue in Britain about giving nuclear materials to Israel back in the days.
That was after the attempt to destroy Israel, with active British help to the point of RAF actually fighting for the Arabs on some occasions, failed and Britain realized that since Israel isn't going anywhere, they would do well to at least try getting on friendlier terms.


Have you ever been to Germany? Maybe you'll like it. :p
My family lives in Germany. I visit there for about one month each year. It's a lovely place, very good to live in- but it is most certainly not the place where I belong. It feels foreign to me. Israel never felt alien to me, even though I wasn't born here.

And now to the latest idiocy courtesy of Non Aligned States:

Mmhmmm, and the Jewish people formed Israel all by themselves without support or aid from the other countries I suppose? Somehow, I very much believe that without the aid of Europe and America, if the Jews had simply been dumped in Juraselam, they wouldn't be there anymore. Not as a nation anyways.
Dear audience, please notice the word "dumped", because that is the detail that betrays something important about Non Aligned States' way of thinking.

"Dumped", mind you. Nevermind the Jews actually came to Jerusalem on their own free will, worked hard and built themselves a country- they were apparently just "dumped" there by others? Non Aligned States, my silly friend, who in the bloody hell do you think we Jews are? This world's communal slaves, who have no will of their own and whose consent isn't necessery for deciding their fate? Toy that others can move from room to room and from house to house as they please, but who cannot themselves act on their own desires? It puzzles me, it really does. What kind of outrageously patronizing and dehumanized image of the Jews do you have in your head? What unbelievable arrogance does it take to say this kind of things?

AAAH, it's Conscribed Comradeship and I've been banned for no reason!!!

I'll tell you


You said 'Arabs' generically, as if to suggest that all Arabs waste money.

OMG...we got ourselves a PC Nazi....Dude, lets look at something...hes the one sitting here laying down the facts for his arguement...so what he said that arabs generically do whatever...its true...look it up for yourself. And anyway, my advice, instead of picking apart someones grammer and correcting his political correctness, why not actually form an arguement so counter his, so you dont look so blatantly stupid. If not, well thats cool too, I mean this is an internet forum so you will never actually meet the people who know you as that idiot who spends his days correcting other peoples arguements.....

*Coughs* LOSER! *Coughs*

As I mentioned earlier, the FRENCH gave Israel nuclear materials. They later gave Iraq nuclear materials as well.
France also sold large amounts of weapons to Iraq and Israel. In fact, during the 1970s, France was Israel's chief arms supplier. Most Israeli pilots flew Mirage fighter jets. France simultaneously helped Israel survive and aided in what could have been its destruction.

Conculsion? The French are neither pro-Arab nor pro-Israel. They are arms merchants. After all, the Arabs have oil, the Israelis have cash, and the French have weapons.

Whatever you may say about the French army, they are at least well-equipped.

And the Jews DID move to Israel of their own accord. They didn't displace the Arabs. What they did was buy the land from wealthy Arab landowners who didn't mind giving up the land, especially when the Jews were willing to pay big bucks for it.
Most Arabs living in what became Israel left at the start of the War of Independence. Not because the Israelis drove them out, but because they (quite sensibly) didn't want to get caught in a war zone, and they (quite sensibly) expected the Arabs to wipe the floor with Israel, so they could return later. Of course, the Arabs lost, and the Palestinian Arabs didn't want to live in a Jewish state. Their homes were (in most cases) used to house Jewish immigrants.

Dear audience, please notice the word "dumped", because that is the detail that betrays something important about Non Aligned States' way of thinking.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I offend you? Because if I did, I don't really care. Perhaps you would have preferred it if I used the term "Abandoned"? Because if nobody decided to provide any form of support, whether bought or otherwise, it would have been abandonment, no two ways about it.

Either way, it does not devalue my point. Without the arms and armament from Europe and America, bought or given to Israel, it wouldn't exist. Not today.

Non Aligned States, my silly friend, who in the bloody hell do you think we Jews are?

Very easily offended people apparently. Are you Holy Womble? You sound a bit like him.