|
FAO Anti-Zionists. Serious question (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Compensation how? Palestinians won't accept payment - they won't accept anything short of full access to returning to their homes. They might not actually move back, but it's that fundamental right that they demand, and the principle of the thing has bogged down negotiations for the past sixty years.
Palestine won't agree to anything that doesn't include the right to return, and Israel will certainly never consider granting it due to demographic concerns.
Aquifers aren't the biggest issue here - but do you really think Israel would simply cede control of the region's largest water supply, setting the stage for Syria and/or Palestine to cut off Israel's access? That's like handing someone a pair of scissors and pulling down your pants.
Never going to happen. Demarcation between East and West has fueled the intifadas in the past. Who gets the religious sites? The Temple on the Mount and the Dome of the Rock are in the exact same spot. You don't think ownership of that real estate is contentious enough to cause a war on its own?
If you think the oppression of Palestinians or suicide bombings are the main issues here you are sorely mistaken. |
i agree, what's your solution? one that might actually work? especially considering neither side has shown any willingness to budge from a position. |
|
|
| Zild |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
:)
well in my present condition I think a 9year old lil girl could kick my ass....
walking pneumonia sucks!!
I have been cooked up in my house all week and it really sucks....
can't breath, can't smoke and my woman is sad cause I can't ... well focking takes allot of 02 and well... :( |
When I had pneumonia I crawled to the bathroom and passed out. |
|
|
| CHRles |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
"Move the population of the Gaza Strip to the Sinai peninsula" :wtf:
This is another one of your great solutions! Love it!
|
Can't really take the credit for it:
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=11691
"The Israelis believe that Cairo backs Hamas, despite its suspicions of the Muslim Brotherhood [MB] to which the movement belongs, in order to pressure Israel constantly and hold the threads of the game. In reply to Cairo, unofficial warnings came from Tel Aviv advocating settling some Palestinians in Sinai, similar to the Palestinian camps in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. It is not difficult for us to understand Israel's desire to export the problem to Egypt because it wants the latter to be a party in the crisis and not just in the solution.
But it is the dangerous actions of Hamas that are hard to justify. With its futile rockets, the movement made Israel blockade Gaza and turn it into a disaster area and pushed the population toward the Egyptian borders for the same purpose. Practically, Hamas and Israel conspired against Egypt for totally different reasons. I believe that the disaster will be repeated. Hamas will bombard, Israel will attack, the Palestinians will flee toward Egypt, and the crisis becomes bigger. As it happened in Lebanon and Jordan, Egypt will be forced to intervene and I expect it to restore the Palestinian Authority [PA] to Gaza.
Hamas must remember that, as an MB movement, it would not have governed anywhere else in the Arab world were it not for the PA which accepted it in order to unite the Palestinian rank. The irony is that Hamas split the rank and expelled Fatah. Once again, Hamas designed the recent crisis so as to impose its calculations on Egypt and everyone without making any concession. It rejects the demands of the PA in Ramallah, refuses to hold early elections, wants to bombard Israel, and at the same time cries over the blockade and asks the Egyptians to pay the price. " |
|
|
| CHRles |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
what's your solution? one that might actually work? |
Here's what the West is suggesting:
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=12219
"The western politician resumed talking about the possibility of Mahmoud Abbas's resignation at the end of this year and said that if that were to happen then all parties will reach deadlock. He elaborated, "This is why there is international and European pressure Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to reach an agreement with the Palestinian people. The Americans and Europeans want Israel to go back to the 1967 borders so that the three settlements, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel would be part of Israel but the rest of the settlements will be dismantled. There is intense pressure from the White House on Israel; US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits Israel every two weeks and the week in which she does not visit, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni heads to Washington. As for the refugees, the suggested plan is to reach a certain 'quota'; if the agreement with Abbas is to repatriate 50,000 to the West Bank then he must ensure that houses are built and job opportunities are created.
With regards to Jerusalem, "American ex-president Bill Clinton's proposal is still valid. He had proposed that the Islamic and Armenian districts should belong to the Palestinians while the Christian and Jewish districts would be Israel's. Al-Aqsa Mosque will belong to the Palestinians while the Western Wall will be Israel's," and concluded, "this solution could work out if the Islamic world backed Mahmoud Abbas."
But what will be the fate of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon? He answered, "Settling the Palestinians is a subject that is under discussion. Around 60 percent of the Palestinians in Lebanon who are under 30 years of age and who have been born in Lebanon consider it to be their home. There had been talk about offering them the opportunity to travel to Australia or Canada but what state would want Osbat al Ansar to live on its land? They are staying in Lebanon and Lebanon has changed."
"So why doesn't Israel withdraw from the West Bank and hand it over to the international forces? My source said that he had pondered this before and drawn the conclusion that Israeli's experience with the international forces in southern Lebanon was a bad one whereas in Sinai and in the Golan there had been no trouble because Egypt and Syria are committed to the treaties with Israel."
"He added, "Israel is examining the idea of invading some areas in Gaza – but not occupying them. There are presently studies being conducted to assess the damages. Ideas are more focused upon partial invasions, such as the northern part of the Gaza Strip, in addition to identifying a buffer zone to put an end to the missiles."
"According to my source, the situation today reminds him of the situation in Lebanon at the end of the 1970s when the south transformed into 'Fatah Land' in which the Palestinians used to 'arrest' the Lebanese in the south and launch Katyusha missiles into Israel and hide. During that time Israel executed an operation in 1978 but failed.
This is why there was a need for a comprehensive invasion in 1982," he said, "this is also why it seems that the only solution to the problem in Gaza is a military one. There might be a Palestinian interlocutor and a deliberations course; however, Hamas's presence means that there can be no real hope for a full Palestinian recognition of Israel. That is why the sentiment in Israel is that there is no solution but to invade Gaza. There is support for military intervention and there is a prevalent understanding of the price to be paid." |
|
|
| D-res |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
You said, "I'd eliminate the desert dogmas and any other major monotheisms and polytheisms (are there any left) and expose them for the fallacies they pedal as truth."
You think this hasn't been tried before???:conf: :haha: :conf:
I wonder what D-res's gulag/re-education camps might look like...:p :p |
Of course it has. I'm just saying, if I had ABSOLUTE power. In other words if I could absolutely prove otherwise.
And my camps would be filled with a mix of fat marijuana+crack rock spliffs rolled in bible paper, tedious study of philosophical and scientific texts, and lastly, orgies as far as the eye can see. Just the thought gives me a warm tingly feeling inside. |
|
|
| CHRles |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I know this wasn't directed at me but I'm having fun in an Israel/Palestine thread that has made it 4 pages without descending into chaos!
Only to the West Bank and Gaza, not to Israel. They will be housed in evacuated Jewish settlements or in new "swanky" settlements built by the West and Israel
Palestine will have full control over its own energy resources but will be forbidden, by international agreement between Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Syria (who all have access to, rely on and can affect the water supply of the Jordan Valley) of doing anything to affect the water supply of the Jordan Valley
Joint administrative district controlled jointly by Israel and Palestine (no settlement to be built by either side) |
Once again, George is one of the few guys to make sense!
BTW, when I wrote "deal with it" I meant that many in the Arab world still don't want to recognize Israel as a state. Well, Israel exists and they need to deal with it.
Lastly, in case people were wondering about who Hezbollah's allegiance is to, well it's certainly not to the people of Lebanon:
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=12794
Read carefully as that former Iranian embassador to Syria, who helped create Hezbollah, puts all the blames of the Middle East on Israel. It's also mentioned that Amal's first leader was Iranian, and that after the Islamic Revoultion in 1979 in Teharn, the Israeli embassy was changed to a Palestinian embassy.
You can also get a better understanding of where the strong bond between Syria and Iran comes from. |
|
|
| CHRles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kinezi
Israel messed up whole Middle East and noone else. |
http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=10670
"During the Clinton administration one could have argued that solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would have contributed to the stability of the region. However, the strategic landscape has changed after 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, the Shia-Sunni tension that erupted as a result, and the collapse of the situation in Lebanon.
Another factor that fundamentally changed the strategic equation is the potential of a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to the survival of Israel - it is not simply a border issue. Also, in the past there was no sharp division between Gaza and the West Bank and there was no Arab Peace Initiative signed by some 22 states in the 2002 Beirut Summit. "
"First we have to recognize that the strategic prize for the US, Israel, and even some of Arab states, is to stabilize Iraq and contain Iran and prevent the latter from becoming a nuclear state. In this regard, Israel and the US need the 22 Arab nations that agreed to the Arab Peace Initiative as allies in any upcoming eventuality against Tehran. This can only happen if we move away from the narrow focus of a Palestinian-Israeli truce to an Arab-Israeli settlement. "
"It is also important for the Palestinians to know that they have a choice between a state and the right of return; they cannot get both even from the most dovish Israelis. Also, it is important that the Israelis understand that having a legal settlement with the Palestinians does not mean an end to the Qassam rockets. However, it could contribute significantly after a settlement when Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States condemn Hamas for launching rockets at Israel. Arabs would do well to give up on the idea of a ‘just and comprehensive peace’. No settlement in the history of international conflicts was just. " |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
If I had absolute unlimited pull, I'd convince the masses that religions are enslaving humanity more than uniting it. I'd eliminate the desert dogmas and any other major monotheisms and polytheisms (are there any left) and expose them for the fallacies they pedal as truth. Then once the riots and mass suicides die off, I'd push for humanity to move forward as a group of equals, where we'd focus on technological advancements and an elimination of illnesses - physical, mental and basic ignorance due to lack of proper education - with a strong emphasis on progression.
EDIT: I suppose this is more a solution to all (religious) conflict, not just the ones going on in the middle east |
Well for a start it's not "religion" that's the problem, but a certain extreme form of religion (on both sides). I don't think anyone on here will doubt that extreme forms of religion need eliminating (altho some will tell you that those on "their" side aren't actually the extremists - they're wrong!)
But...
The Israel/Palestine conflict is often portrayed as a "religious conflict" which pretty much ignores its history. Israel at its inception was to be a socialist state. The Palestinians they faught from the PLO commando groups were also hard core Marxists who hate, and still hate, religious groups. Only relatively recently since the 80s has both sides become infested with religious fundamentalists as we see the rise of the right in Israel in the late 70s and the rise of Hamas in the 80s have we seen the religious extremists come to the fore (altho they've always been lurking in the background)
I don't think it helps anything to look at this conflict purely in terms of "religion" as for the most part, it's not actually been about religion and therefore to look at it as a religious conflict ignores many many important factors that keep the conflict raging |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Compensation how? Palestinians won't accept payment - they won't accept anything short of full access to returning to their homes. They might not actually move back, but it's that fundamental right that they demand, and the principle of the thing has bogged down negotiations for the past sixty years.
Palestine won't agree to anything that doesn't include the right to return, and Israel will certainly never consider granting it due to demographic concerns. |
Give them the option to move to either West Bank or Gaza and build modern settlements for them. I completely agree that they should not be resettled in Israel as it's just out of the question for a number of reasons. Their new settlements and the economic investment by Israel and the West can be their "compensation"
| quote: | | Aquifers aren't the biggest issue here - but do you really think Israel would simply cede control of the region's largest water supply, setting the stage for Syria and/or Palestine to cut off Israel's access? That's like handing someone a pair of scissors and pulling down your pants. |
Palestine won't "control" the water supply, other than the reserves under Palestinian soil (currently exploited by Israel). Syria, Palestine, Israel and Jordan all physically touch the Jordan water supply so no water needs to pass through another's territory. Syria tried before to block the water supply to Israel and were humiliated when Israel bombed the out of their dams, that would happen again (and worse for Syria, or Palestine for that matter). But Jordan was once the sworn enemy of Israel, yet those two countries have an international agreement over the water supply so there is no reason why in the future Syria and Palestine could not become party to that agreement
| quote: | Never going to happen. Demarcation between East and West has fueled the intifadas in the past. Who gets the religious sites? The Temple on the Mount and the Dome of the Rock are in the exact same spot. You don't think ownership of that real estate is contentious enough to cause a war on its own?
If you think the oppression of Palestinians or suicide bombings are the main issues here you are sorely mistaken. |
Settlements on the eastern side of Jerusalem must be evacuated, then the city centre, encompassing ALL religious sites, will come under joint sovereignty of both Israel and Palestine with both populations free to visit or worship anywhere in the city limits |
|
|
| Lira |
| No one suggested rave parties on the desert!? |
|
|
| emc^2 |
I wonder how many people here or in the world in general would be so concerned about the Jews if the situation was reversed. Israel would still be mostly desert with ing huts, palestinians would still be middle-eastern gypsies that would be opressed by someone else, chances are the palestine (erm Israel) itself would be split between joined countries - syria, jordan, egypt. I doubt you'd have "Palestine" as even their own don't consider palestinians as natives of the land (which in all reality, they are not).
I just find it ironic that many of the closet antisemites here hide their hatred and agenda behind "zionist" and "jewish niazzis" statements - it's ing sick. they fool noone, I'm afraid.
I dare you to name the last time Israelis went into a Palestinian settlement and blew themselves up in a public place, killing dozens. Please do tell when was the last time Israeli force had to move in UNPROVOKED. Sure, you'll say that - well, they are there now but again - we'll be beating the same ing dead horse, trying to convince one another that egg came before the chicken or chicken before the egg.
I highly doubt that an organization like Hizbollah would be dismantled after Israel returned Golan Heights - they are too good of a weapon in Iran's middle eastern ambitions. Why stop at Israel when you can dominate Syria and Lebanon... and why the not Jordan... and Egypt. Make no mistake about it - Iran won't stop at Israel, if one day by some chance Israel seized to exist.
Also, Hamas went on the record number of times and officially proclaimed that they will NEVER recognize Israel, they may have a temporary truce but Israel is their eternal mortal enemy. Correct me if I'm wrong. Besides, we can see how well the dismantlement of settlements worked out for them - it gave them a closer proximity from where to fire upon Israel.
And let's finally get to the interesting core that no one quite mentions here - even if Palestine existed as a state, it would be torn by civil war by its own factions, much like Iraq is today. These people can't even live in peace with each other. Anyway, back to reality. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i agree, what's your solution? one that might actually work? especially considering neither side has shown any willingness to budge from a position. |
As a precursor to peace, some basic concessions need to be made. Until both sides are willing to bend, talks will continue to end in deadlock. I tend to agree with George's plan as an ideal, but I am a bit pessimistic about the reality of getting both sides to agree. Israel is paranoid with fear and is unlikely to give up any security (demographic balance, resources, etc.) without a major assurance from Palestine, which isn't forthcoming with Hamas in power.
So I don't have a plan, largely because I'm not convinced the time is ripe for one. |
|
|
|
|
