NationStates Jolt Archive

After monitoring threads on the Middle-East for months I thought that it would be nice to know where people on NS stand on the issue. Please note that a debate is uncessesary, we have enough of those threads elsewhere :)

Poll upcoming

Pro-Israel. The palestinians have had their chance for a two party solution, but they were busy being... well, muslims.

It's a fake, like the moon landing. It's all being filmed at Area-51.

Poll up, get polling

My stance on this issue is my right leg slightly back and splayed outward.

ANOTHER Israel/Palestine thread...

ANOTHER Israel/Palestine thread...

This isn't an anybody-vs-everybody-ridiculous-debate-thread. I'd just like to know people's views.

This isn't an anybody-vs-everybody-ridiculous-debate-thread. I'd just like to know people's views.
Ah, but this is NS general. Thus, this thread will crash and burn into a troll/flame war. I hope I'm wrong this time.:rolleyes:

Ah, but this is NS general. Thus, this thread will crash and burn into a troll/flame war. I hope I'm wrong this time.:rolleyes:

I have pictures of kittens standing by to save this thread if need be

I have pictures of kittens standing by to save this thread if need be
:fluffle:

Give it to the Kurds. If you can't fix it as it is, take advantage of it and use it to fix another unrelated problem. *nod*

EBIL J00S! No Israel should exist. Its illegal and uncessesary


Yup. Cos opposing the state of israel makes you an anti-semite. Everyone knows that.

Yup. Cos opposing the state of israel makes you an anti-semite. Everyone knows that.

If you'd have read the option directly below it you'd see that I disagree with anybody who wants a single state in the region. I apologise, I had to infuse the poll with a little of my own opnion.

It’s not our problem. I say give 'em all our weapon, ammunition, tank, jet, ect. surpluses come back it fifty years and see who won.

Yup. Cos opposing the state of israel makes you an anti-semite. Everyone knows that.

exactly, immediatly into inane zero sum options. what option to the anti-zionist jews pick?

I reckon both sides should just grow the fuck up! People are dying for fuck's sake! It can't be enjoyable.

EBIL MUZL1MZ! The Palestinians have no claim to the land, its always been Jewish

This is the closest to my position, but I refuse to vote for it, since it's a ludicrously shallow characterization of my opinion.

I don't believe the land has always been Jewish. I also don't care. Titles to land are forfeit the moment that land is conquered by someone else. Why? Cause there isn't a single nation in the world whose borders weren't fixed by conquest. Hell, the Palestinians would have no claim to the land if their far-distant ancestors hadn't conquered from the ancient Israelites (who, BTW, conquered it from the Canaanites).

My solution is for the Israelis to grow a spine and start the process of repatriating the Palestinians into their ethnic homeland of Jordan, then erecting a wall and treating future breaches of their territorial integrity as an act of war. I don't support the two-state solution because Israel is not obligated to slice up its land for the benefit of stubborn squatters it doesn't have the political willpower to evict.

I'm for the final annexation of Gaza and the West Bank by Israel, and giving all Palestinian Arabs full Israeli citizenship and voting rights.

My actual ideological stance is: "The Palestinians have no claim to the land, its always been Jewish". But in terms of practical solutions, I support the two state solution, and think that the Palestinians are currently more of an obstacle to it than the Israelis are.

My actual ideological stance is: "The Palestinians have no claim to the land, its always been Jewish". Indeed. It's been 10% Jewish at times.

Indeed. It's been 10% Jewish at times.

And for the vast majority of it's history it's been 0% Arab. The Jews just left for a coupla millenia after that nasty business with the Romans. But now they're back, and they're not going to give up their nation again.

Indeed. It's been 10% Jewish at times.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1166660967-1166576065976773.b.jpg

Stop that right now

It’s not our problem. I say give 'em all our weapon, ammunition, tank, jet, ect. surpluses come back it fifty years and see who won.
that's pretty much what was done.... and it's been pretty much 50 years. at least someone gets their wish here. :)

Unfortunatly, with population increases, trying to exile or kill the other side is very impractacle.

Unfortunatly, with all the violence, its going to take two Ghandi's to stop it (hopefully born around the same time), and they don't come around too frequently.

its going to take two Ghandi's to stop it (hopefully born around the same time), and they don't come around too frequently.

and never in the middle east. Even Isa Ibn Maryam said (in translation) "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

I'm for the final annexation of Gaza and the West Bank by Israel, and giving all Palestinian Arabs full Israeli citizenship and voting rights.

That is the same scenario US faced itself with after taking West Germany after WWII. It's not feasible because you don't want to make population of a country with which you have such aniomosity all of a sudden having a say in your internal matters. You'd be inviting your enemy into your house. Probably the same as making Iraqies US citizens or Vietnamese... Or even Japanese after WWII. Palestinians do wage war on Israel, so it would be fundamentally stupid of Israel to give them any access to Israelie territory.

After monitoring threads on the Middle-East for months I thought that it would be nice to know where people on NS stand on the issue. Please note that a debate is uncessesary, we have enough of those threads elsewhere :)

Poll upcoming
I support the two-state solution: Both sides are going the wrong way

What....no debate?

George Bush could have been part of the solution but instead chose to be part of the problem.

Note to US electors....please elect a President with some diplomatic prowess.

I'm for the final annexation of Gaza and the West Bank by Israel, and giving all Palestinian Arabs full Israeli citizenship and voting rights.
Yeah, that will work. :rolleyes:

That is the same scenario US faced itself with after taking West Germany after WWII. It's not feasible because you don't want to make population of a country with which you have such aniomosity all of a sudden having a say in your internal matters. You'd be inviting your enemy into your house. Probably the same as making Iraqies US citizens or Vietnamese... Or even Japanese after WWII. Palestinians do wage war on Israel, so it would be fundamentally stupid of Israel to give them any access to Israelie territory.Same scenario? The USA was fully located in territory that was previously German?
Just let Israel extend to the borders it always wished and include all who live within those borders.

Yeah, that will work. :rolleyes:It would, trust me. As I have been lectured many times in this forum, all that Israel and the Palestinians really want is peace. Let them have it. Together.

This is the closest to my position, but I refuse to vote for it, since it's a ludicrously shallow characterization of my opinion.

I don't believe the land has always been Jewish. I also don't care. Titles to land are forfeit the moment that land is conquered by someone else. Why? Cause there isn't a single nation in the world whose borders weren't fixed by conquest. Hell, the Palestinians would have no claim to the land if their far-distant ancestors hadn't conquered from the ancient Israelites (who, BTW, conquered it from the Canaanites).

My solution is for the Israelis to grow a spine and start the process of repatriating the Palestinians into their ethnic homeland of Jordan, then erecting a wall and treating future breaches of their territorial integrity as an act of war. I don't support the two-state solution because Israel is not obligated to slice up its land for the benefit of stubborn squatters it doesn't have the political willpower to evict.


supporting Isreal by talking about the evils of 'stubborn squatters'!! :rolleyes: you really couldnt make it up.

how about we repatriate the Zionists to their ethnic homeland of Brooklyn?

i voted for the 'two state: everyone's an eejit' stance, but i'm not firm on that position. how about just one state and call it Palsrael or Israstine or just some made up name? then make it a completely secular state, full seperation of church and state, no single official religion or language and all that. full citizenship and voting rights for anyone and everyone who already lives there or who moved away when it all went tits up. obviously to keep everyone happy there'd need to be a new government set up with equal representation of all groups to start with, then after a term of office let it be a democratic free-for-all. and you couldn't let one group be the instigator of such a reform because then there'd just be accusations of reforms being made that benefit one group more than the other and so forth. so it'd have to be an organisation like the UN. oh yeah, and further, someone needs to point out to both sides that they're all semitic and making race destinctions based solely on religion is moronic, especially when you have non-religious people claiming those destinctions as well.

Stop that right now

Yeah, these threads do have a tendancy to snowball (rapidly too). Enjoy.;)

Yup. Cos opposing the state of israel makes you an anti-semite. Everyone knows that.

:rolleyes: The OP also put an 'EBIL MUZLIMS' option. He/she didn't suggest you have to hate Jews if you're anti-Israeli.

that's pretty much what was done.... and it's been pretty much 50 years. at least someone gets their wish here. :)

yea, but this time, wall the area off. no one is allowed in or out, and no press/media untill the day comes to take reopen the area.

I support a two-state solution. Jews get Israel. "Palestinians" go back to Jordan where they came from.

I support a two-state solution. Jews get Israel. "Palestinians" go back to Jordan where they came from.
Since when did Palestinians come from Jordan?

I support a two-state solution. Jews get Israel. "Palestinians" go back to Jordan where they came from.

But they didn't come from there in the first place....

After monitoring threads on the Middle-East for months I thought that it would be nice to know where people on NS stand on the issue. Please note that a debate is uncessesary, we have enough of those threads elsewhere :)

Poll upcoming

where is the poll option for.....Single secular state for everyone?

I support a two state solution, as soon as the Palestinians can get their act together and get a state working. Unfortunately for everyone, the Palestinians have failed at doing so repeatedly, and their states are usually shot through with corruption, incompetence, violence, weak command structures and poor leadership.

Trilby63;12149842']I reckon both sides should just grow the fuck up! People are dying for fuck's sake! It can't be enjoyable.
I agree. The biggest problems out there are the mentalities of racism/religious prejudice and the "need" for revenge against the other side. Physically, I think the Israeli wall was a particularly stupid move, because it damages the Palestinian economy.

Palestinian infighting is also a big contribution to the troubles. The ideologues should tone down and compromise with the moderates to work for peace in a two-state solution.

But they didn't come from there in the first place....

Nope, they came from all over the place.

Nope, they came from all over the place.In fact they were already there.

And for the vast majority of it's history it's been 0% Arab. The Jews just left for a coupla millenia after that nasty business with the Romans. But now they're back, and they're not going to give up their nation again.

You see that is a very big misconception. Many people think that Arabs...hmm? Must have all come from Arabia. That couldn't be furthest from the truth. Now let me explain to you how Arabization actually works or worked for that matter. You see when the children of Israel who by the way state they are descendants of Abraham, who by the way was born in Ur a city in ancient Iraq, fled Egypt what is now Israel was inhabited by a people called Canaanites.

If you read the bible and even historic texts you would come to understand that that these people were the forefathers to another group of people called the Philistines. Now we all know that the Jews conquered the holy land and captured Jerusalem(a Philistines city by the way). While the power had shifted towards the Children of Israel, the Canaanites and their descendants the Philistines never left the area.

Generations go by, Assyrians come and go, the Babylonians come and go, the Persians come and so do the Greeks. Eventually the Romans occupy the area. While all this is occurring (and mind you way before the arrival of Islam) people we could refer to as classical Arabs began settling in the area. Some of these new comers inter-married with the Philistines, but many did not. However, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, these people converted as well.

Now for the good part. When Islam entered on the scene the majority of the population in the Holy Land comprised of Philistines and some Arab tribes, mixed in with Greeks, Romans, and those Jews who didn't flee into diaspora. Now the Arabs who conquered the region will do something they continued to do in wherever they conquered, and latter enshrined by the Spanish who came after them. Their warriors took the females of the local population as wives.

Now how does Arabization work? you might ask. Simple. If your father is Arabic, so are you. But they also went one step further. You could also be considered an Arab by simply learning the Arabic language, and adopting the culture. Presto. That how people became Arabs. They didn't all come from the Arabian peninsula. In fact the vast majority of the people we call Arabs have ancestors who have absolutely no familial ties to the Arabia. This also explains why you could go to places like Syria and Lebanon and find people with blond hair, blue eyes who call themselves Arabs. And then you could travel to say Libya and find really dark skin people who also consider themselves Arabs.

So the argument that Jews where there first is sort of wrong. The present Palestinian population is for the most part descendants of the people of Canaan. But however, these two groups of people have been living together for thousands of years, many of those peacefully. And it is my opinion that there are external forces at work that do not want to see a peaceful solution to this problem. Mainly the the other Arab countries.

I say this because, if you think about it, it is in the interest of many of these regimes for there to be a constant struggle with Israel. Why? If there is ever peace, then those regimes are going to collapse because there would be no external factor to keep the restless people they govern at bay. Their anger and hatred would be turned on their leaders. So thats why these bastards are using the Palestinians as pawns in proxy war in order for them to hold on to power.

Ouch, that was a lot of writing. Feel free to correct me if I've made any mistakes. :cool:

I say we make the entire middle east into the 51st US state....Saudi Israelia

Nope, they came from all over the place.

The Israelis? The majority yes.

Pro Israel, but I support a Palestinian State with Gaza and the West Bank. East Jerusalem must remain Israeli though and the Golan Heights can't go to Syria (I've been there and giving that to Syria would be suicide)

Pro Israel, but I support a Palestinian State with Gaza and the West Bank. East Jerusalem must remain Israeli though and the Golan Heights can't go to Syria (I've been there and giving that to Syria would be suicide)

And why "must" Arab East Jerusalem go to the aggressor state?

supporting Isreal by talking about the evils of 'stubborn squatters'!! you really couldnt make it up.

how about we repatriate the Zionists to their ethnic homeland of Brooklyn?

I wonder if there has ever been a time when lefties' capacity for speaking without actually saying anything has surprised me.

And why "must" Arab East Jerusalem go to the aggressor state?

Israel wasn't the aggresor in taking that land. Jordan invaded Israel in 1967. Besides, those who live in East Jerusalem ARE Israeli citizens who vote in the elections.

There is also the matter that Jews get banned from going to their holy sites there whenever the Arabs are in control.

I propose that both sides be moved to the Ukraine, and then the area that Israel and Palestine be walled off, salted, and abandoned.

They can't learn to share the area peacefully, they don't get to have the area.

Israel wasn't the aggresor in taking that land. Jordan invaded Israel in 1967. Besides, those who live in East Jerusalem ARE Israeli citizens who vote in the elections.

There is also the matter that Jews get banned from going to their holy sites there whenever the Arabs are in control.

Ahem...Its Israel trying to seize it, its Israel thats the aggressor. Those that live there don't want to be Israeli citizens and wish that it would fuck off to its own side of the border.

Access to holy sites should be guaranteed to all versions of the invisible man.

Both sides have blood on their hands; both sides need to get their shit together; no side is innocent. Both sides have people genuinely interested in peace, and others interested in perpetuating the conflict for their own greedy purposes. Sadly, I do not think this conflict will ever be resolved in our lifetime, or ever.

:rolleyes: The OP also put an 'EBIL MUZLIMS' option. He/she didn't suggest you have to hate Jews if you're anti-Israeli.

My point was that the poll was biased and not indicative of many peoples' views. By putting the "ebil jooz" bit in he immediately has dismissed my political argument as any serious point of view that should be discussed or debated. It is an attempt to force opposing viewpoints away from the argument so we can have the same old stale, non-challenging arguments.

Don't got a stance. I try to learn about it from both sides.

Israel should nuke Palestine, Syria, Iran, etc. to smitherines.

Israel should nuke Palestine, Syria, Iran, etc. to smitherines.


Wow, you pwned the thread.

Ahem...Its Israel trying to seize it, its Israel thats the aggressor. Those that live there don't want to be Israeli citizens and wish that it would fuck off to its own side of the border.
Israel captured the land when counter-attacking Jordan. Jordan used the land to invade Israel and Israel in turn captured it to create a buffer zone. East Jerusalem can be given back on some conditions.

1. The Old City is to remain under Israeli control.

2. The Mount of Olives is not to be touched. Palestinians have desecrated the 150,000 graves on that mountain. They have built taken the tombstones and used them as building material and then built houses over the graves.
Access to holy sites should be guaranteed to all versions of the invisible man.

It should be, but history has proven that when under Arab rule, it doesn't occur.

Wow, you pwned the thread.
Tell me about it;)

I support the Palestinians, and Palestinians alone in the conflict. I would prefer all of Palestine, including all of Jerusalem to be return to Muslims. Where Jews would go after that is not my concern. The chance of this is low unfortunately, so if I have to pick, I'd say a two state solution with control of E. Jerus. solely with the Palestinians.

I liked the origional concept of Israel, is has just gone horribly wrong. I would like to think that the problems could be settled peacefully, but if only one state could last, I would have to support the Palestinians. The whole thing was poorly planned and managed, and nothing has changed, sadly.

I support the Palestinians, and Palestinians alone in the conflict. I would prefer all of Palestine, including all of Jerusalem to be return to Muslims. Where Jews would go after that is not my concern. The chance of this is low unfortunately, so if I have to pick, I'd say a two state solution with control of E. Jerus. solely with the Palestinians.

Who would control the Old City in your plan? (For the record, I wouldn't mind international control)

How about building on the Mount of Olives?

Who would control the Old City in your plan? (For the record, I wouldn't mind international control)


I wouldn't object to international control.

How about building on the Mount of Olives?
mount of olives?

One state, Arab and Jewish citizens.

One state, Arab and Jewish citizens.Indeed. Let Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank.

Don't Let Them Immanentise The Eschaton!

The first step in reducing the conflict is to end the cycle of 'retaliation'.
Which means one side is going to have to take a hit without returning one.

I believe that it is Israel, as the superior military force, as the force with the most power, who have to exercise the most restraint. The underdog can't stop first.

Don't Let Them Immanentise The Eschaton!

The first step in reducing the conflict is to end the cycle of 'retaliation'.
Which means one side is going to have to take a hit without returning one.

I believe that it is Israel, as the superior military force, as the force with the most power, who have to exercise the most restraint. The underdog can't stop first.

Israel's refusal to react to the rocket attacks that have occured daily for the past 2 weeks is ending the cycle of retaliation.

Israel has sat back and honored the cease-fire as they get attacked daily.

Of course the attacks against Israel make the cease-fire null and void and also give Israel the right to strike back in Gaza.

Israel can't sit back forever. They are a Democratic society and the people living within Qassam range are going to demand action at some point. The Israeli government's prime duty is to protect its citizens so we'll see what happens.

I was in Israel all of last week. I was there when that boy got hit on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see how long Israel sits like this.

I support a two state solution myself, I agree with Jerusalem being put under international control rather than splitting it in half as that could lead to some major problems especially with law enforcement. It could also provide a neutral meeting point for middle easter leaders to discuss problems.

Of course I voted for the happy land option because it appeals to my sense of humour.

Israel's refusal to react to the rocket attacks that have occured daily for the past 2 weeks is ending the cycle of retaliation.

Israel has sat back and honored the cease-fire as they get attacked daily.

Of course the attacks against Israel make the cease-fire null and void and also give Israel the right to strike back in Gaza.

Israel can't sit back forever. They are a Democratic society and the people living within Qassam range are going to demand action at some point. The Israeli government's prime duty is to protect its citizens so we'll see what happens.

I was in Israel all of last week. I was there when that boy got hit on Tuesday. It will be interesting to see how long Israel sits like this.

This is precisely my point. The Right To Retaliate.

Please note I'm not saying Israel Bad. I'm also not saying Palestine Bad.
Neither 'argument' is worth a damn in terms of ending the conflict.

I'm just saying that Israel as the superior military force needs to exercise the greater restraint.
You suggest they're doing that.
Good! It's a start. But only that.

This is precisely my point. The Right To Retaliate.

Please note I'm not saying Israel Bad. I'm also not saying Palestine Bad.
Neither 'argument' is worth a damn in terms of ending the conflict.

I'm just saying that Israel as the superior military force needs to exercise the greater restraint.
You suggest they're doing that.
Good! It's a start. But only that.

While one can say they need to exercise restraint, it can also be said that as a democracy they have the obligation of protecting those whom they serve. After all, security is the primary role of a government.

While one can say they need to exercise restraint, it can also be said that as a democracy they have the obligation of protecting those whom they serve. After all, security is the primary role of a government.

Yes they do have that obligation. No disagreement there.
I don't see restraint as being contradictory with that obligation, if it helps to end the conflict. Restraint on both sides.
Retaliation and tit-for-tatting hasn't increased the security of Israel or of Palestine, it just drags on interminably.
I'm certainly not saying Palestine should be allowed free shots, just that someone has to let the last shot be fired by the other side, and Israel is better able to take the lead.

This might also be where external UN involvement could help, by putting themselves in the middle, taking a few licks themselves, and letting both sides retreat without 'losing face'. Oversimplified of course...

Israel's refusal to react to the rocket attacks that have occured daily for the past 2 weeks is ending the cycle of retaliation.

Israel has sat back and honored the cease-fire as they get attacked daily.


Funny way of doing it....


Tuesday, 26 December 2006, 15:46
"The Israeli army attacked a medical center and abducted two Palestinian men and Israeli settlers destroyed Palestinian farm lands in three separate attacks in the southern West Bank city of Hebron on Tuesday. "
http://www.imemc.org/content/view/23366/1/


"The Israeli army bulldozers demolished a Palestinian house in Shu'fat refugee camp in Jerusalem city on Wednesday midday.

Israeli soldiers and police surrounded the camp and closed it totally while two Israeli army bulldozers demolished the house of Tayesser Al Julani. Eyewitnesses reported that troops forced the family away from the houses and leveled it without allowing the family members to remove their belongings out of the house.

Palestinian youth from the camp clashed with the Israeli soldier who fired tear gas and sound bombs at them. No injuries were reported.

"The Israeli authorities said that the house was built without building permits. The Israeli state never gave out any building permits to Palestinian residents of the camp, while at the same time building Israeli settlement blocks there for Israeli Jewish residents only, on lands confiscated from residents of Shu'fat refugee camp, residents of the camp reported."
http://www.imemc.org/content/view/23378/1/

"Making the law a laughingstock

By Haaretz Editorial
"Virtually not a week goes by without a new revelation, each more sensational and revolting than the previous one, about the building spree in West Bank settlements, in blatant violation of the law and in complete contradiction to official government policy. All this is happening with the knowledge of the defense officials responsible for enforcing the law in the territories, and with cooperation - by commission or omission - from the political echelon. The latest discovery does not rely on external sources such as Peace Now, which specializes in monitoring and documenting activity in the Land of the Settlers. Amos Harel's report in Friday's Haaretz about the 200 mobile homes that have been placed in the West Bank during the past six months quotes documents prepared by the Civil Administration - the body responsible for enforcing planning and construction laws in the area. "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807444.html

I said this in another thread and I'm going to say it again.....

....It's time Israel takes their restraints off and turn their defensive strategy to an offensive one in Full Force.

I said this in another thread and I'm going to say it again.....

....It's time Israel takes their restraints off and turn their defensive strategy to an offensive one in Full Force.

Because that has worked so well in the past, so it certainly will work well now :rolleyes:

I see no rational, pragmatic reason for the continued existence of the State of Israel.

I see no rational, pragmatic reason for the continued existence of the State of Israel.

They are a democratic state with the same right of existence that every other state enjoys. I don't see why they shouldn't exist.

Yeah, I support the two-state solution.

I support the two state solution. I'm voting for "everything's going just super!" because I like comedy options.

mount of olives?

A large Jewish graveyard. If I remember correctly much of it was desecrated by the Jordanians when they controlled the area.

I support a one state solution. Israel's existance is based on the continued exploitation and oppression of Palestinian Arabs and has proved itself to be a militiaristic aggressive state that seeks constant border expansion. It does not matter what party is voted into power because the Israeli war machine and the economic interests that back it are non-electable.
I support the right of the Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis to continue living in Palestine with full rights as Palestinian citizens, as many came to the country seeking asylum from persecution or have been born in Occupied Palestine. So yeah, a secular Palestine is what should be aimed for, then a socialist Palestine.

They are a democratic state with the same right of existence that every other state enjoys. I don't see why they shouldn't exist.
They are a liability to world peace and have not demonstrated any advantage to the world that would compensate for such a shortcoming. In fact, they've done just the opposite by exasperating their situation time and time again. It would serve the greater good were they to disband.

They are a liability to world peace and have not demonstrated any advantage to the world that would compensate for such a shortcoming. In fact, they've done just the opposite by exasperating their situation time and time again. It would serve the greater good were they to disband.

You can say exactly the same about Palestinians there instead and it would make perfect sense as well. You are an idiot.

You can say exactly the same about Palestinians there instead and it would make perfect sense as well. You are an idiot.
Nope. Moving the Palestinians would make a bunch of violent, radical and potentially dangerous militants very angry. Moving the Israelis would only make a bunch of CBS watching couch potatoes angry.
But thanks for the unnecessary insult to my intelligence.

Nope. Moving the Palestinians would make a bunch of violent, radical and potentially dangerous militants very angry. Moving the Israelis would only make a bunch of CBS watching couch potatoes angry.
But thanks for the unnecessary insult to my intelligence.

Oh, sorry for making them angry then.

Oh, sorry for making them angry then.

Hey, the Muslims are dangerous. Sometimes you have to make the pragmatic choice, even if it isn’t the “right” one.

Oh, sorry for making them angry then.

Who, the couch potatoes? Yes, let's tip-toe 'round the couch potatoes, shall we?






I like french fries.

I said this in another thread and I'm going to say it again.....

....It's time Israel takes their restraints off and turn their defensive strategy to an offensive one in Full Force.
I would think that a Christian should support a more peaceful solution... (or at least not gleefully dismiss them)

I see no rational, pragmatic reason for the continued existence of the State of Israel.
How would it be pragmatic for them to stop existing?

The fact that they're the most liberal country in the Middle East is a good enough reason.

Nope. Moving the Palestinians would make a bunch of violent, radical and potentially dangerous militants very angry. Moving the Israelis would only make a bunch of CBS watching couch potatoes angry.
That's not true. The IDF would be quite pissed, and they have a lot more firepower than Palestinians (who, despite stereotypes, are not all radicals).

The IDF would be quite pissed

We would see nuclear war.

Not "pragmatic."

They are a liability to world peace and have not demonstrated any advantage to the world that would compensate for such a shortcoming. In fact, they've done just the opposite by exasperating their situation time and time again. It would serve the greater good were they to disband.

Ok, let's disregard all idealism and notions of right and wrong for a moment and consider the situation in a purely pragmatic light:

Yes, getting rid of Israel might make the world safer in the short term. It would, however, send a dangerous message to radical muslims and terrorists that, if they are persistently very violent and disruptive, we'll cave in and give them whatever they want.

Do you really think this will lead to more peace in the long-term, or will it encourage more violence coupled with more extreme demands?

The Pacifist Womble: Truth of the matter is, as a Christian I do hope for a more peaceful solution, however, it has been attempted many times on the side of Israel and the Palestinians reject anything and everything that comes as a peaceful solution. The fact remains is that the Palestinians would love to have Israel destroyed. The fact remains that until the Middle East as whole will recognize Israel for the state they are, there will not be a peaceful solution in that particular area. Until the Arab Leaders stand up to these terrorists and the extremists there will be no Peace. I truly believe in order to have peace in the Middle East it must come from the Majority of the Arab nations. The Middle East as a whole is failing to live in Peace and to me it falls right at their feet. The Middle East is a very geographicly large land mass so to blame the Peaceless environment on Israel is just absurd. Bottom Line: Most of the Middle East will not have Peace until Israel is destroyed completely but that will never happen...conclusion: Peaceful solutions has been exhausted and now is the time that Israel plays hard ball.

The Pacifist Womble: Truth of the matter is, as a Christian I do hope for a more peaceful solution, however, it has been attempted many times on the side of Israel and the Palestinians reject anything and everything that comes as a peaceful solution. The fact remains is that the Palestinians would love to have Israel destroyed. The fact remains that until the Middle East as whole will recognize Israel for the state they are, there will not be a peaceful solution in that particular area. Until the Arab Leaders stand up to these terrorists and the extremists there will be no Peace. I truly believe in order to have peace in the Middle East it must come from the Majority of the Arab nations. The Middle East as a whole is failing to live in Peace and to me it falls right at their feet. The Middle East is a very geographicly large land mass so to blame the Peaceless environment on Israel is just absurd. Bottom Line: Most of the Middle East will not have Peace until Israel is destroyed completely but that will never happen...conclusion: Peaceful solutions has been exhausted and now is the time that Israel plays hard ball.As a Christian maybe your mind may be somewhat clouded, but it is just not true that there have ever been any attempts by Israel to achieve any peace with those whose territories they occupy, except one, and the protagonist of this peace attempt was assassinated and replaced with someone who was a guarantee that no further peace efforts would be made. Israel is and was a bag of shit even when it was just an idea and before it was proclaimed as the ultimate Jewish State and that will never change. They are the intruders and if peace must come it must come from them.
I say: let them fully annex the West Bank and Gaza and give Israeli citizenship and voting rights to Palestinian Arabs.

The Pacifist Womble: Truth of the matter is, as a Christian I do hope for a more peaceful solution
You really have an odd way of showing it, when so many others are here calling for a variety of peaceful solutions.

however, it has been attempted many times on the side of Israel and the Palestinians reject anything and everything that comes as a peaceful solution.
True, the Palestinians need to be more open-minded, but they have a lot of legitimate grievances that can be solved before deciding to go "hard ball".

The fact remains is that the Palestinians would love to have Israel destroyed.
And going 'hard ball' will change that? No population can ever be whipped into submission to your wishes like that, they will just become more angry and vengeful.

As a Christian maybe your mind may be somewhat clouded, but it is just not true that there have ever been any attempts by Israel to achieve any peace with those whose territories they occupy, except one, and the protagonist of this peace attempt was assassinated and replaced with someone who was a guarantee that no further peace efforts would be made. Israel is and was a bag of shit even when it was just an idea and before it was proclaimed as the ultimate Jewish State and that will never change. They are the intruders and if peace must come it must come from them.
I say: let them fully annex the West Bank and Gaza and give Israeli citizenship and voting rights to Palestinian Arabs.

Apparently your memory span is too short to remember 2000. Arafat refused to even make a counter-proposal. He just rejected a plan which gave him 97% of what he wanted.

Pro-Israel. The palestinians have had their chance for a two party solution, but they were busy being... well, muslims.

You know what's kinda sad, if someone said something like:

Pro-Palestine. The Israelis have had their chance for a two state solution, but they were busy being Jews.

They'd be branded a nazi anti-semitic KKK clan member.

But you can express the same bigoted nazi trash about Muslims, and no one even notices because Islamaphobia is becoming the norm. Much like Antisemitism was once the norm.

Then again, maybe no one notices because from you everyone around here has come to expect nothing BUT bigoted baseless trash so it's not worth commenting on when surprise, you pull another gem from your rectal cavity. Oh well.

To throw in my two cents, and probably not going to flow with the argument in the topic right now...

If there can be a one state solution peacefully, why not? Since that's highly unlikely, both sides should stop fighting each other, wake up and realize they are brothers on this planet, and give each other land and a piece of mind. There is no good when the cycle of Israeli bombing and Arab suicide bombing and Israeli retaliation and Arab retaliation just keeps going on and on and on.

Then again, maybe no one notices because from you everyone around here has come to expect nothing BUT bigoted baseless trash so it's not worth commenting on when surprise, you pull another gem from your rectal cavity. Oh well.
Yes, pretty much my thoughts on Potato Factory right there.

'Happy Land' seems to have the best chance of success. :)

'Happy Land' seems to have the best chance of success. :)

I agree, and it also sounds like it'd be the happiest solution.

Apparently your memory span is too short to remember 2000. Arafat refused to even make a counter-proposal. He just rejected a plan which gave him 97% of what he wanted.


Normally its 95% when this is trotted out. Where'd the two come from? And who walked at the last conference in 2002?

Speaking as a Brit who feels quite badly about how we more or less caused many of the problems currently around (Which we seemed to be very talented at) I tend to lean more towards supporting Palestine in general. As a general solution I feel both sides should be told that if they don't attend certain negotiations then the UN will appoint people to represent them. Negotiate a two state solution (probably based of 1967 borders) add a demilitarised zone down the middle and fill it with peacekeepers from nations as unrelated as possible to the conflict.

Apparently your memory span is too short to remember 2000. Arafat refused to even make a counter-proposal. He just rejected a plan which gave him 97% of what he wanted.

Arafat's not an issue any more, though.

He's slowly roasting on a spit over a flaming-hot skillet down in Hell. :)

Normally its 95% when this is trotted out. Where'd the two come from? And who walked at the last conference in 2002?

The deal was 97% of the pre 1967 borders. Israel just wanted to keep 3% of the land. It was the best deal the Palestinians were ever going to get and Arafat didn't even make counter-proposals. If he actually sat down and negotiated, he may have gotten 99 or 100% of his demands. Unfortunately, he just wanted to make a war.

The 2002 deal didn't work because Arafat was refusing to condemn or stop the terrorists.

He was able to keep close control of them if he wanted to.

The deal was 97% of the pre 1967 borders. Israel just wanted to keep 3% of the land. It was the best deal the Palestinians were ever going to get and Arafat didn't even make counter-proposals. If he actually sat down and negotiated, he may have gotten 99 or 100% of his demands. Unfortunately, he just wanted to make a war.

The 2002 deal didn't work because Arafat was refusing to condemn or stop the terrorists.

He was able to keep close control of them if he wanted to.

Firstly the proposal on Arab East Jerusalem was unworkable. Secondly the 2002 talks never resulted in a deal because Barak left the table.

The deal was 97% of the pre 1967 borders. Israel just wanted to keep 3% of the land. It was the best deal the Palestinians were ever going to get and Arafat didn't even make counter-proposals.
73% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza, and hopefully expanded to expand to 90% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem) within 10-25 years (http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm). In return Israel would give 3% of Negev. Sounds about right?

If he actually sat down and negotiated, he may have gotten 99 or 100% of his demands. Unfortunately, he just wanted to make a war.
But... but wait! You just said "It was the best deal the Palestinians were ever going to get", and the Israelis said that they could not reasonably offer more.

Why are you suddenly convinced that he could have gotten more if he just had made a counter offer?
The 2002 deal didn't work because Arafat was refusing to condemn or stop the terrorists.

He was able to keep close control of them if he wanted to.
But Barak left before the negotiations were concluded, so the point is moot.

Apparently your memory span is too short to remember 2000. Arafat refused to even make a counter-proposal. He just rejected a plan which gave him 97% of what he wanted.It did not. It would have given him partial autonomy, under Israeli political and military sovereignty. De facto an annexation of the West Bank without giving its inhabitants citizenship or voting rights. This "offer" was a trap. There was no need really to discuss this crap or make any counter-proposal, since the Israeli side obviously had no interest in any serious negotiations at all. Barak knew that, Arafat knew that, Clinton knew that, and everyone following this farce on CNN knew that as well.

It did not. It would have given him partial autonomy, under Israeli political and military sovereignty. De facto an annexation of the West Bank without giving its inhabitants citizenship or voting rights. This "offer" was a trap. There was no need really to discuss this crap or make any counter-proposal, since the Israeli side obviously had no interest in any serious negotiations at all. Barak knew that, Arafat knew that, Clinton knew that, and everyone following this farce on CNN knew that as well.

Funny because Clinton remarked later he was angry at Arafat's refusal to talk it over.

There was no need really to discuss this crap or make any counter-proposal, since the Israeli side obviously had no interest in any serious negotiations at all.

Despite this fact, Arafat did it anyway - at Taba.

Who walked away? Israel.

My stance is that, first of all, both sides need to stop thinking up excuses to murder people on the other side. It hasn't worked yet. It won't work this time.

Israel needs to end its colonial occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and its tacitly racist land, housing, and education policies within Israel proper.

The Palestinians need to accept that, for completely unjust but quite real reasons, they won't get any more than the 22% of their homeland contained within the West Bank and Gaza, and that no large quantity of refugees will be permitted to return to Israel.

Irrelevantly to the conflict, Israel needs to secularize and send the religious political camp down to permanent, devastating defeat. And a reversal of the neoliberal attacks on the social safety net would be nice to see, too.

Irrelevantly to the conflict, the Palestinians need to get rid of their own reactionary fundamentalist faction, and come up with a better solution to their social problems than "let the lunatic religious fanatics handle it."

My stance is that, first of all, both sides need to stop thinking up excuses to murder people on the other side. It hasn't worked yet. It won't work this time.

Israel needs to end its colonial occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and its tacitly racist land, housing, and education policies within Israel proper.

The Palestinians need to accept that, for completely unjust but quite real reasons, they won't get any more than the 22% of their homeland contained within the West Bank and Gaza, and that no large quantity of refugees will be permitted to return to Israel.

Irrelevantly to the conflict, Israel needs to secularize and send the religious political camp down to permanent, devastating defeat. And a reversal of the neoliberal attacks on the social safety net would be nice to see, too.

Irrelevantly to the conflict, the Palestinians need to get rid of their own reactionary fundamentalist faction, and come up with a better solution to their social problems than "let the lunatic religious fanatics handle it."As I said: let Israel annex Gaza and the West Bank and give full citizenship and voting rights to Palestinian Arabs. And all problems will be solved. One state.

And all problems will be solved.

Except the persistent one that neither side would ever agree to that option.

Except the persistent one that neither side would ever agree to that option.That's very unfortunate.

The only thing worse than being ignorant is not knowing how ignorant you are. That's Israel's problem. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about voluble lamebrains. Nevertheless, its provocateurs believe that it is its moral imperative to subject human beings to indignities. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to introduce an important, but underrepresented, angle on its disrespectful shell games. It's our responsibility to reveal the nature and activity of Israel's understrappers, who are legion, and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. That's the first step in trying to study the problem and recommend corrective action, and it's the only way to make this world a kinder, gentler place. When Israel was first found trying to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Israel is planning to promote promiscuity and obscene language, I'm downright terrified.

To put it crudely, Israel lectures us about gnosticism so often that it may soon become a major source of hearing loss. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Israel in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. Israel will stop at nothing to make people weak and dependent. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, Israel truly believes that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. It is just such obtrusive megalomania, out-of-touch egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Israel to intensify race hatred. I feel funny having to tell readers whom I presume are adults that Israel's forces are hardly strangers to pessimism. I bring that up solely to emphasize that I've known some big-labor bosses who were impressively pushy. However, Israel is vapid, and that trumps pushy every time.

While you or I might find it natural to want to unmask Israel's true face and intentions in regard to ruffianism, an organization that wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of its actions. Israel has never had that faculty. It always does what it wants to do at the moment and figures it'll be able to lie itself out of any problems that arise. As it turns out, I think that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Israel, in contrast, believes that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: The best thing about Israel is the way that it encourages us to denounce its perorations. No, wait; Israel doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that it says that inarticulate, deranged flibbertigibbets have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Yet it also wants to force me to undergo "treatment" to cure my "problem". Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that I shall not argue that Israel's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of its plan to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. Read them and see for yourself.

Israel's "compromises" are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that its trucklers once used to drag everything that is truly great into the gutter. To some extent, Israel operates on an international scale to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to keep our courage up. While it is reasonable to expect that I sometimes have to bite my tongue pretty hard to avoid saying what I really feel about Israel, it remains that if Israel is going to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, I am not content to watch my liberties slip away even as I write this letter. And second, every time it gets caught trying to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its companions always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they feel, it has the mandate of Heaven to censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. The world would be better off if Israel had never been created. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit.

Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and unquestionably influences legislators and policy makers, frightful and drossy, Israel's prevarications resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that it's Israel's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such tell-tale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that..."). I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a pathetic, untoward idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that it may seem difficult at first to fight tooth and nail against Israel. It is. But I have a plan to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. I call this plan "Operation give Israel condign punishment". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that Israel's illogical newsgroup postings cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to expose its taradiddles for what they really are. What do we owe Israel? Nothing, absolutely nothing. If it claims otherwise, we have to stand firm and point out that if Israel is victorious in its quest to pit people against each other, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.

This is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact. Israel's sentiments are not just about anarchism but also about interdenominationalism, but, as you know, Israel claims that we have too much freedom. Well, I beg to differ. Believe it or not, I really want to believe that Israel is a decent, honest organization. Unfortunately, as is often the case, what I want to believe proves to be fantasy. The truth is that Israel claims that it's okay if its litanies initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist.

I should note that Israel dreams of a time when they'll be free to portray impulsive cozeners as anthropophagi. That's the way it's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being. Whatever should be true of statutory and often ephemeral enactments in human jurisprudence, the fact remains that if I am correctly informed, Israel's shills don't want to make their own decisions but want Israel to do their thinking for them. In any case, the point at which you discover that as conscious, sentient beings aware of our actions and capable of response, we must create a world in which paternalism, immoralism, and neocolonialism are all but forgotten is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to deal summarily with pathological publishers of hate literature. And just let it try and stop me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that Israel is like a jellyfish in that you can't see its stings coming? Ignorance is bliss. This may be why Israel's lapdogs are generally all smiles. I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this letter short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that the only way that we can fight Israel, the only way we can beat it, is to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction.

I say we should give back the land to the Ottomans and make them deal with it.