NationStates Jolt Archive

Pretty simple, Bush thinks that a peace treaty which establishes a Palestinian state can be achieved before his term is over, and now is in the West Bank city of Ramala negotiating, question is: Do you think this is possible or will even happen?

What I think:
Jerusalem can be split between the Arab and Jewish quarters, Palestine can have the eastern side as their capital and Israel the western as their capital.

Israel must evacuate all settlements on Palestinian land deemed illegal under numerous previous treaties, and Israel must crack down on the fanatical Zionists who live in these settlements.

Fatah, with foreign air support and arms, should annex Gaza and destroy Hamas.

I also do not support any 'democratic' Palestinian state, although it could be democratic in name in practise all democracy does in Palestine is bring religious nuts into power. I support a one-party Fatah state preferably on the model of Syria or Egypt, may not sound like but it's the only way.

Fatah! I wonder what the translation of that word is, and whether it is similar in meaning to the Punjabi word?

Woo hoo I own you!

Pretty simple, Bush thinks that a peace treaty which establishes a Palestinian state can be achieved before his term is over, and now is in the West Bank city of Ramala negotiating, question is: Do you think this is possible or will even happen?

What I think:
Jerusalem can be split between the Arab and Jewish quarters, Palestine can have the eastern side as their capital and Israel the western as their capital.

Israel must evacuate all settlements on Palestinian land deemed illegal under numerous previous treaties, and Israel must crack down on the fanatical Zionists who live in these settlements.

Fatah, with foreign air support and arms, should annex Gaza and destroy Hamas.

I also do not support any 'democratic' Palestinian state, although it could be democratic in name in practise all democracy does in Palestine is bring religious nuts into power. I support a one-party Fatah state preferably on the model of Syria or Egypt, may not sound like but it's the only way.

I see the majority share my 'optimism'.

While it is possible, I don't see it happening before Bush is out of office.

While it is possible, I don't see it happening before Bush is out of office.

Sadly, I agree with you.

What I think:
Jerusalem can be split between the Arab and Jewish quarters, Palestine can have the eastern side as their capital and Israel the western as their capital.

Israel must evacuate all settlements on Palestinian land deemed illegal under numerous previous treaties, and Israel must crack down on the fanatical Zionists who live in these settlements.

Fatah, with foreign air support and arms, should annex Gaza and destroy Hamas.

I also do not support any 'democratic' Palestinian state, although it could be democratic in name in practise all democracy does in Palestine is bring religious nuts into power. I support a one-party Fatah state preferably on the model of Syria or Egypt, may not sound like but it's the only way.

What about the refugees from what are now Israeli lands currently residing in Palestine?

Why oh why couldn't Bush have had the stroke of genius seven or so years ago?

Maybe because in that time, numerous opportunities were destroyed by both sides of the conflict?

Why oh why couldn't Bush have had the stroke of genius seven or so years ago?

Maybe because in that time, numerous opportunities were destroyed by both sides of the conflict?
Yeah, but I don't really think much has changed since then.

No. They've been fighting over that clod of dirt for dozens of centuries. I honestly don't think there will ever be peace there as long as anybody lives there. But if there's any hope, it doesn't lie with Bush. :p

I think they should move everybody out and then nuke Jerusalem. The Wisdom of Solomon in action. *nod*

Yeah, but I don't really think much has changed since then.
Neither do I, which is why I voted 'No'...

The most practical solution would probably be to give Gaza back to Egypt and the West Bank back to Jordan, with East Jerusalem placed under international administration, and even that doesn't look very likely to work...

Yeah, but I don't really think much has changed since then.

I agree with you there.

Neither do I, which is why I voted 'No'...

The most practical solution would probably be to give Gaza back to Egypt and the West Bank back to Jordan, with East Jerusalem placed under international administration, and even that doesn't look very likely to work...
Unfortunately, the Palestinians would reject having to surrender East Jerusalem while Israel kept the rest, although I do think that some form of international trusteeship for (all) Jerusalem could be an unlikely long term solution if both sides were willing to give it up. Jordan and Egypt wouldn't touch Palestine with a ten foot barge pole, as they have enough problems of their own.

All I think is that in order to get a solution both sides have to be equally unhappy with it.

Jerusalem can be split between the Arab and Jewish quarters, Palestine can have the eastern side as their capital and Israel the western as their capital.


and the christians living on both sides....?

Sure. A functional Palestinian state on the other hand...

and the christians living on both sides....?
What about them?

I also do not support any 'democratic' Palestinian state, although it could be democratic in name in practise all democracy does in Palestine is bring religious nuts into power. I support a one-party Fatah state preferably on the model of Syria or Egypt, may not sound like but it's the only way.

It's pretty fucking cold in hell right now, because I actually kind of agree with you.

I think they should move everybody out and then nuke Jerusalem. The Wisdom of Solomon in action. *nod*
Shame they’re not arguing over a baby we can just cut in half.

I think they should move everybody out and then nuke Jerusalem. The Wisdom of Solomon in action. *nod*
This is probably the only solution that brings lasting peace to the region.

Even with a Palestinian state, there will still be constant violence.

Why don't we just send the "Palestinians" back to where they came from: Jordan, Egypt, and Syria?

Fatah! I wonder what the translation of that word is, and whether it is similar in meaning to the Punjabi word?

Woo hoo I own you!
I believe the Arabic "Fatah" means something like "stormfront".

I'm less comfortable dividing Jerusalem. It surely won't be divided along the old lines. But giving the Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians should work fine. From what I've read, they're practically a separate society anyway.

I doubt Bush can bring about a true Palestinian state within twelve months. But he might be able to achieve a breakthrough if he makes this a priority, which he just might do. It will take years to build the West Bank and Gaza Strip into a stable nation. But Bush has a long shot at cutting the ribbon at the Palestinian Embassy in Washington while he's still in office.

What I don't believe is that we should stop trying to make peace. We need to keep trying. Maybe the next generation will be able to do it.

Why don't we just send the "Palestinians" back to where they came from: Jordan, Egypt, and Syria?


O look, its post and run away man. Try explaining your remark in detail.

Or are you just posting for attention again?

Why don't we just send the "Palestinians" back to where they came from: Jordan, Egypt, and Syria?
It would require genocide.
It would require a large scale war in the Middle East.
It would be a global rallying point for islamists for generations.
You could argue the same thing for the Israelis.
I don't think very many of them were born in Jordan, Egypt or Syria.
Jordan, Egypt and Syria wouldn't take them.
It has no basis in international law.
It wouldn't solve anything.

No way. Bush has wasted any and all chances he has been presented on the topic of Palestine and Israel. This is just a death knell from him where he's desperately trying to secure himself a lasting legacy.

It won't work, unfortunately.

Bush is incompetent, and his role as "peacemaker" and mediator is worthless as his stated bias towards Israel make his words ring hollow in Palestinian ears. Not that Abbas has the power to follow through on any promises to crack down on terrorists and militants - then again, Olmert doesn't seem to have the ability or political will to follow through on his obligations either. Not that there's any pressure on him to do so, not from Bush. The president is obviously expecting greater concessions from the Palestinians than from Israel, and the (moderate) Palestinians have little reason to comply when they can't count on the president to propose any even-handed solutions to the problem.

So no. This will be another fuck-up that Bush will share the blame of.

Why don't we just send the "Palestinians" back to where they came from: Jordan, Egypt, and Syria?

...or Israel. Or your bedroom.

Look under your bed tonight!!:eek:

It would require genocide.
Deportation is genocide?
It would require a large scale war in the Middle East.
I'll give you that.
It would be a global rallying point for islamists for generations.
And that
You could argue the same thing for the Israelis.
In the land of ignorance maybe, but in the real world, the Israelis have perfectly legitimate claim to that land.
I don't think very many of them were born in Jordan, Egypt or Syria.
But their grandparents were.
Jordan, Egypt and Syria wouldn't take them.
So Israel has to?
It has no basis in international law.
And it has no basis in international law for them to squat like a bunch of illegal Mexicans.
It wouldn't solve anything.
It would end the issue and show who real Israeli Arabs are.

I'm not really here to debate, just to post my POV and now to answer your statements.

Why oh why couldn't Bush have had the stroke of genius seven or so years ago?

He didn't need it seven years ago. Now he's doing all he can to prevent himself from going down as one of the worst--if not the worst--U.S. President in history.

In the land of ignorance maybe, but in the real world, the Israelis have perfectly legitimate claim to that land.

And what claim would that be? Other than The League of Nations and the U.N. declaring that an area held by muslims since the 13th century was/is "national home for the Jewish people"

And what claim would that be? Other than The League of Nations and the U.N. declaring that an area held by muslims since the 13th century was/is "national home for the Jewish people"

That phrasing comes from Balfour, who also had no such right. :)

And what claim would that be? Other than The League of Nations and the U.N. declaring that an area held by muslims since the 13th century was/is "national home for the Jewish people"

heehee that sounds like sarcasm, but apparently it's not. haaha gave me a good chuckle.

heehee that sounds like sarcasm, but apparently it's not. haaha gave me a good chuckle.

It's not sarcasm, at the time of the creation of the modern state of Israel, the jews had no greater claim to the area than the muslims did, less in fact, since it had been held uncontested by the muslims for over 500 years.

Who cares about the Palistinian/Israeli problem? They are fighting over a bunch of sand and ruins!

and the christians living on both sides....?

What about them?

With Bush on the job, how could it fail to happen? :rolleyes: