MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Obama and the Israeli borders (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/439985/obama-and-the-israeli-borders/)

 
BadKosh May 19, 2011 01:29 PM
Obama and the Israeli borders
Obama: Palestinian State Must Be Based on 1967 Borders - FoxNews.com

Looks like the Prez has decided he doesn't need the "Jewish Vote." Perhaps he'd like to have the US border shifted to about 1864? What a JERK Obama is.
 
Big Mac May 19, 2011 01:39 PM
Yeah, but he's not much worse on the issue than his immediate predecessor. The last truly pro-Israel president was George H.W. Bush who said it's not in the interests of the United States to seek the creation of a "Palestinian" state.

One of the big problems is that the US and any other allies of Israel can't be stronger and more pro-Israel than Israel itself is. Israel brought many of these problems on to itself by going along with the Oslo Accords "peace" process, acting like the grandfather of terrorism Arafat, YM"SH, was a statesman and peace broker instead of a mass-murderer. This is the prize that has been won by the Israeli left-wing. Therefore, although Obama angers me with those policies, I can't really fault him too much given that he's continuing the foreign policy toward Israel established by Clinton and perpetuated with little modification by Bush (43) and based on the stupidity of past Israeli governments.

If Israel wants to start being respected again it has to announce that it's shifting course and is no longer going to accept calls for it to concede vital, historically Jewish land liberated in the defensive war of 1967. And if Egypt wants to renege on the peace treaty it has with Israel, Israel will recapture the Sinai as well.

Oh, and the majority of Jews will likely still vote to reelect Obama, pathetically enough.
 
olePigeon May 19, 2011 01:54 PM
Why is letting Palestine have a small state with a mutual land swap a bad idea?
 
Big Mac May 19, 2011 02:12 PM
Because they don't want a small state. They never even say they want a small state. The PA and Hamas are united, and Hamas continues to openly call for Israel's destruction while at the same time calling for it to withdraw just as Obama is doing. The foreign policy of the United States toward Israel is aligned with a terrorist organization, how novel. The fact that Hamas calls for the same withdrawal to 1967 while simultaneously continuing to voice its commitment to the destruction of Israel, it doesn't take a genius to realize that such a withdrawal is in the interests not of Israel but rather those who seek to destroy Israel.

Additionally, if they agree to borders for a "Palestine," it will merely be a springboard for yet more terrorism and yet more concessions from Israel. Another check box filled in their phased destruction strategy that Arafat switched to in the Oslo era. They will never be truly satisfied so long as any sovereign state of Israel exists. And that is a fact confirmed by the PA's choice to embrace Hamas once again, which makes it very clear where the unified "Palestinian" faction stands when it comes to Israel. Phased destruction. That's their game. What cannot be accomplished today by war against a strong enemy will be accomplished in the future by terrorism and political pressure to weaken the enemy until it can be overcome in a final war. It's part of the Hudna strategy in Islam.

What this type of plan is asking Israel to do is to give away vital land that is crucial to Israel's defensive strategy. Israel's security can't be based on empty promises on a worthless piece of paper. One of the reasons why the 1967 war occurred was because Israel was experiencing continued border terrorism coming from the territories when Jordan illegally controlled them. Those types of attacks would resume if Israel were to withdraw, and Israel would gain nothing whatsoever by withdrawing. To the contrary, a withdrawal would just about guarantee another war in which Israel would be compelled to take the territory back.

Moreover, the Arabs have demonstrably violated just about every term of the Oslo accords, yet Obama and others think it's a good idea to continue rewarding them with a new mini-terrorist country. To weaken Israel substantially based on a peace that one party (the chief belligerent) clearly has no desire whatsoever to make. A peace treaty that would openly be a sham and voided before the ink would have time to dry. For that Israel is supposed to capitulate, give away territory containing thousands of years of Jewish history, ethnically cleanse Jews from their land once again and once again live with indefensible, unsafe borders?

Finally, there is already a country of Palestine, as has been pointed out here many times. It's much larger than Israel, in fact. This country enjoys most of the Palestine Mandate land and was a country set aside as the Arab home in the region (even though originally it was supposed to be part of the future Jewish country). It's just not called Palestine.
 
olePigeon May 19, 2011 02:26 PM
Me and Obama? I didn't support one side or the other, I was just asked why it was a bad idea. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with Israel and Palestine other than what I read on Wikipedia.
 
Big Mac May 19, 2011 02:28 PM
Oh okay, sorry about that. It seemed like a rhetorical question.
 
besson3c May 19, 2011 02:29 PM
I've never really understood why the Israelites feel entitled to that land. "It is their homeland" can apply to many arguments for retaking land, not the least of which is right here in America with the whole native American thing. Here there ever been a displacement as contentious as this in our history?
 
SpaceMonkey May 19, 2011 02:41 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4078087)
I've never really understood why the Israelites feel entitled to that land.
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...2720776542.jpg
 
Big Mac May 19, 2011 02:41 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4078087)
I've never really understood why the Israelites feel entitled to that land. "It is their homeland" can apply to many arguments for retaking land, not the least of which is right here in America with the whole native American thing. Here there ever been a displacement as contentious as this in our history?
I've gone over it many times around here. I'll get you some links later because I don't have time to restate it all for your benefit.
 
The Final Dakar May 19, 2011 02:43 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey (Post 4078088)
..and then his account was locked.

(I feel certain he's asked that question, or some version of it before)
 
besson3c May 19, 2011 02:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey (Post 4078088)
:lol:
 
Shaddim May 19, 2011 03:50 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Big Mac (Post 4078089)
I've gone over it many times around here. I'll get you some links later because I don't have time to restate it all for your benefit.
He's either trolling, which is normal, or he brain farts every few months and forgets that he asked that question before. Not sure which.
 
Big Mac May 19, 2011 04:06 PM
That was my analysis, too.
 
Athens May 19, 2011 04:40 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by BadKosh (Post 4078069)
Obama: Palestinian State Must Be Based on 1967 Borders - FoxNews.com

Looks like the Prez has decided he doesn't need the "Jewish Vote." Perhaps he'd like to have the US border shifted to about 1864? What a JERK Obama is.
And what makes him a Jerk.
 
OAW May 19, 2011 04:43 PM
Given the Oslo Peace Accords .... the "Two State Solution" was always rooted in the 1967 borders as the baseline along with mutually agreed upon "land swaps" so Israel could annex its largest settlements in the West Bank. That has been the de facto deal for decades now. The only thing new here is an American President has explicitly called on Israel to accept it. Which, of course, it won't because the Israeli government wants to annex more land in the West Bank than the Palestinians are willing to give up in land swaps. So Israel will continue its illegal expansion activities in the West Bank until the settlements become too large and widespread to realistically dismantle ... creating "facts on the ground" that the international community will be forced to recognize. And you never know ... at some point Israel might even toss the Palestinians the scraps and bones of what's left. :err:

OAW
 
Athens May 19, 2011 04:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Big Mac (Post 4078081)
Because they don't want a small state. They never even say they want a small state. The PA and Hamas are united, and Hamas continues to openly call for Israel's destruction while at the same time calling for it to withdraw just as Obama is doing. The foreign policy of the United States toward Israel is aligned with a terrorist organization, how novel. The fact that Hamas calls for the same withdrawal to 1967 while simultaneously continuing to voice its commitment to the destruction of Israel, it doesn't take a genius to realize that such a withdrawal is in the interests not of Israel but rather those who seek to destroy Israel.

Additionally, if they agree to borders for a "Palestine," it will merely be a springboard for yet more terrorism and yet more concessions from Israel. Another check box filled in their phased destruction strategy that Arafat switched to in the Oslo era. They will never be truly satisfied so long as any sovereign state of Israel exists. And that is a fact confirmed by the PA's choice to embrace Hamas once again, which makes it very clear where the unified "Palestinian" faction stands when it comes to Israel. Phased destruction. That's their game. What cannot be accomplished today by war against a strong enemy will be accomplished in the future by terrorism and political pressure to weaken the enemy until it can be overcome in a final war. It's part of the Hudna strategy in Islam.

What this type of plan is asking Israel to do is to give away vital land that is crucial to Israel's defensive strategy. Israel's security can't be based on empty promises on a worthless piece of paper. One of the reasons why the 1967 war occurred was because Israel was experiencing continued border terrorism coming from the territories when Jordan illegally controlled them. Those types of attacks would resume if Israel were to withdraw, and Israel would gain nothing whatsoever by withdrawing. To the contrary, a withdrawal would just about guarantee another war in which Israel would be compelled to take the territory back.

Moreover, the Arabs have demonstrably violated just about every term of the Oslo accords, yet Obama and others think it's a good idea to continue rewarding them with a new mini-terrorist country. To weaken Israel substantially based on a peace that one party (the chief belligerent) clearly has no desire whatsoever to make. A peace treaty that would openly be a sham and voided before the ink would have time to dry. For that Israel is supposed to capitulate, give away territory containing thousands of years of Jewish history, ethnically cleanse Jews from their land once again and once again live with indefensible, unsafe borders?

Finally, there is already a country of Palestine, as has been pointed out here many times. It's much larger than Israel, in fact. This country enjoys most of the Palestine Mandate land and was a country set aside as the Arab home in the region (even though originally it was supposed to be part of the future Jewish country). It's just not called Palestine.
So whats your solution, lock them all up for life or exterminate them all?


Quote, Originally Posted by OAW (Post 4078118)
Given the Oslo Peace Accords .... the "Two State Solution" was always rooted in the 1967 borders as the baseline along with mutually agreed upon "land swaps" so Israel could annex its largest settlements in the West Bank. That has been the de facto deal for decades now. The only thing new here is an American President has explicitly called on Israel to accept it. Which, of course, it won't because the Israeli government wants to annex more land in the West Bank than the Palestinians are willing to give up in land swaps. So Israel will continue its illegal expansion activities in the West Bank until the settlements become too large and widespread to realistically dismantle ... creating "facts on the ground" that the international community will be forced to recognize. And you never know ... at some point Israel might even toss the Palestinians the scraps and bones of what's left. :err:

OAW
Careful, not agreeing to anything and everything Israel might get you branded as a Jew Hater....
 
OAW May 19, 2011 05:07 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Athens (Post 4078121)
Careful, not agreeing to anything and everything Israel might get you branded as a Jew Hater....
Only by the ignorant. :rolleyes:

Hey ... if it were up to me I'd give ALL the land to Israel. And at the same time I'd give ALL the land to the Palestinians. Just annex the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip ... create a SINGLE STATE called "The Palestinian State of Israel" or "The Israeli State of Palestine" or something ... make everybody living there a citizen ... grant everybody the right to vote ... and then just call it a freaking day.

Unfortunately, a simple concept like that won't be accepted either. Because the Israeli objective is not a "democratic state". It's a "democratic state for Jews."

OAW
 
SSharon May 19, 2011 05:17 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OAW (Post 4078127)
Because the Israeli objective is not a "democratic state". It's a "democratic state for Jews."
Are you implying that Arabs living in Israel don't get to vote? They serve in the Knesset for crying out loud! List of Arab members of the Knesset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
OAW May 19, 2011 05:22 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by SSharon (Post 4078133)
Are you implying that Arabs living in Israel don't get to vote? They serve in the Knesset for crying out loud! List of Arab members of the Knesset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that if the West Bank and Gaza Strip were annexed by Israel ... so that we no longer have two groups fighting over the same parcels of land ... and EVERYONE living there was given the right to vote then that would be a problem for Israel. Because the Israeli Arabs along with the Palestinian Arabs would threaten the Jewish majority in the resulting democratic state. If not now most definitely in the foreseeable future given the demographic trends. And then the identity of Israel as a "Jewish State" would be jeopardy.

The "interesting" thing about this entire conflict is that the single-state solution ... which again is simple "one person/one vote" democracy in the entire area ... is feared by the Israeli government even more than the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. Imagine that. :err:

OAW
 
imitchellg5 May 19, 2011 05:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Big Mac (Post 4078072)
Yeah, but he's not much worse on the issue than his immediate predecessor. The last truly pro-Israel president was George H.W. Bush who said it's not in the interests of the United States to seek the creation of a "Palestinian" state.

One of the big problems is that the US and any other allies of Israel can't be stronger and more pro-Israel than Israel itself is. Israel brought many of these problems on to itself by going along with the Oslo Accords "peace" process, acting like the grandfather of terrorism Arafat, YM"SH, was a statesman and peace broker instead of a mass-murderer. This is the prize that has been won by the Israeli left-wing. Therefore, although Obama angers me with those policies, I can't really fault him too much given that he's continuing the foreign policy toward Israel established by Clinton and perpetuated with little modification by Bush (43) and based on the stupidity of past Israeli governments.

If Israel wants to start being respected again it has to announce that it's shifting course and is no longer going to accept calls for it to concede vital, historically Jewish land liberated in the defensive war of 1967. And if Egypt wants to renege on the peace treaty it has with Israel, Israel will recapture the Sinai as well.

Oh, and the majority of Jews will likely still vote to reelect Obama, pathetically enough.
You see an issue that is largely grey as black and white. It's like you don't want there to be peace. Yet for peace to occur, there has to be justice. ON BOTH SIDES. Israel has committed atrocities and so have Palestine.

Also, the argument that the land is historically Jewish is absolute bullshit. The conflict isn't about whose land is whose, it's about basic sustenance such as water rights, fertile land, etc. If you created a Palestinian or Israeli popluation in the Negev, which is "historically" "Palestinian," then you'll still have the same conflict there is now. When you're having car bombs go off, I don't care if you're Israeli or Palestinian, you're not going to give a crap about who settle where first thousands of years ago. Not to mention the fact that most Israelis are still of largely European descent. My family originally came from the north of Britain, but I don't walk around calling myself English.
 
besson3c May 19, 2011 06:20 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4078104)
He's either trolling, which is normal, or he brain farts every few months and forgets that he asked that question before. Not sure which.
If I did ask that question before I'd be flattered that you remembered!

I believe that the magic of an online career comes from improv and being in the moment. Do you think that if Abe were still alive and came back that he'd renew his outrage over Anna Benson christening cities?
 
Athens May 19, 2011 08:39 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by OAW (Post 4078127)
Only by the ignorant. :rolleyes:

Hey ... if it were up to me I'd give ALL the land to Israel. And at the same time I'd give ALL the land to the Palestinians. Just annex the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip ... create a SINGLE STATE called "The Palestinian State of Israel" or "The Israeli State of Palestine" or something ... make everybody living there a citizen ... grant everybody the right to vote ... and then just call it a freaking day.

Unfortunately, a simple concept like that won't be accepted either. Because the Israeli objective is not a "democratic state". It's a "democratic state for Jews."

OAW
Totally 100% agree
 
Dork. May 19, 2011 09:04 PM
Is the Israeli Borders one of the ones going out of business after the bankruptcy? All Obama might want is to get the Twilight books for cheap.
 
Chongo May 19, 2011 09:21 PM
This is the problem with the "67 borders" It leaves the entire population vulnerable to rocket attacks from the "West Bank" and the makes it much easier to cut the country in half in the event of a military invasion.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ps/borders.gif
 
OAW May 19, 2011 10:59 PM
Well consider this ...

1. The West Bank hasn't been the source of any significant rocket attacks in quite some time. Besides, Hezbollah can launch rockets against Israel from Lebanon. The Revolutionary Guard can launch rockets against Israel all the way from Iran.

2. The last few times the Arabs attacked Israel they got their asses handed to them ... even with the pre-1967 borders.

Sorry. Not buying it. The Israelis don't like the idea of the pre-1967 borders because they want the land for their continued settlement activities. :hmm:

OAW
 
imitchellg5 May 19, 2011 11:25 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4078199)
This is the problem with the "67 borders" It leaves the entire population vulnerable to rocket attacks from the "West Bank" and the makes it much easier to cut the country in half in the event of a military invasion.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ps/borders.gif
The idea is that a two-state solution will mean the end of violence between the two...
Quote, Originally Posted by OAW (Post 4078217)
Well consider this ...

1. The West Bank hasn't been the source of any significant rocket attacks in quite some time. Besides, Hezbollah can launch rockets against Israel from Lebanon. The Revolutionary Guard can launch rockets against Israel all the way from Iran.
And Israel can do the same if they want.
 
Athens May 19, 2011 11:56 PM
How many rocket attacks occurred prior to 1967?
 
ebuddy May 20, 2011 06:47 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by BadKosh (Post 4078069)
Looks like the Prez has decided he doesn't need the "Jewish Vote." Perhaps he'd like to have the US border shifted to about 1864? What a JERK Obama is.
I don't think this will impact the Jewish vote at all quite frankly. They're locked into the left and it has absolutely zero to do with support for Israel. I mean, there are of course differences among its Orthodox adherents, but they're no match for the New Deal-loving reformists finding FDR in every (D) on the ballot.
 
ebuddy May 20, 2011 07:14 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by OAW (Post 4078127)
Unfortunately, a simple concept like that won't be accepted either. Because the Israeli objective is not a "democratic state". It's a "democratic state for Jews."

OAW
You've seen the region around Israel correct? You know Israel is approximately the size of New Jersey, the 5th smallest State in the US right? You're of course also familiar with the ethnic makeup of the lands North, South, East, and West of Israel? How, knowing all this can you conclude that it is Jewish imperialism at play here? By this logic I should have your kitchen and if you don't give it to me you're just being selfish. I've appreciated the use of your refrigerator, but now that I'm moving into your kitchen I'm afraid I can no longer allow you to use it. Thanks though.

The facts simply never matter in this discussion. History doesn't matter. While even the atrocious white man in America can see fit to grant its Native Americans a reservation four times the size of Israel, we should be concerning ourselves more with the Palestinian pawns created by surrounding Arab hostility that would not take them in if their lives depended on it. Jews fault! Jewish imperialism! Jewish unfairness!

Suffice it to say, I couldn't possibly disagree more.
 
P May 20, 2011 08:01 AM
This is one of those cases where I just don't understand how certain American politicians think. As I see it, we'd all like peace in the region, right? Not only because peace is better than war or because of the humanitarian disaster, but because the conflict in the area threatens the west as well. Altruism would be nice, but even from an egoist perspective, this has to make sense.

Peace means that both sides agree to something. It has to be acceptable to everyone, or it is peace only in name. The current situation, where Israel is occupying everything, is obviously not acceptable to the palestinians. What other options are there? One state of everything is one option, but as OAW detailed above, that won't fly in Israel - the Jews would simply be outvoted. Either you divide it somehow, or you make it an international protectorate. Anyone feel like providing the peacekeepers for a neverending mission?

The 1948 borders (which were suggested by the UN and accepted by what became Israel but not by the Arab nations) means an even smaller Israel than the 1967 borders, and without Jersalem, so that's also a no go. Anything else? We can march back through history past a British protectorate, the Ottoman empire, the Crusades and all the way back to the Roman Empire if you'd like - I don't think that you'd find a better division to start from.

So, if you don't like the proposal to divide it starting from the 1967 borders, what is your idea? Slice it some other way? Not divide it at all? Put your fingers in your ears and pretend all is well now that that nasty Usama guy is dead?

We're out of the good solutions here - we have been out of them for a long long time. We're down to trying to scrounge up something acceptable, and if anyone has a better idea, I'd love to hear it.
 
imitchellg5 May 20, 2011 09:02 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4078270)
You've seen the region around Israel correct? You know Israel is approximately the size of New Jersey, the 5th smallest State in the US right? You're of course also familiar with the ethnic makeup of the lands North, South, East, and West of Israel? How, knowing all this can you conclude that it is Jewish imperialism at play here? By this logic I should have your kitchen and if you don't give it to me you're just being selfish. I've appreciated the use of your refrigerator, but now that I'm moving into your kitchen I'm afraid I can no longer allow you to use it. Thanks though.

The facts simply never matter in this discussion. History doesn't matter. While even the atrocious white man in America can see fit to grant its Native Americans a reservation four times the size of Israel, we should be concerning ourselves more with the Palestinian pawns created by surrounding Arab hostility that would not take them in if their lives depended on it. Jews fault! Jewish imperialism! Jewish unfairness!

Suffice it to say, I couldn't possibly disagree more.
I think you're forgetting that Israel was created specifically as a Jewish state. Only 10 years before 1948, just 3% of Palestine (now Israel's) population was actually Jewish.
 
OAW May 20, 2011 11:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by imitchellg5 (Post 4078294)
I think you're forgetting that Israel was created specifically as a Jewish state. Only 10 years before 1948, just 3% of Palestine (now Israel's) population was actually Jewish.
And therein lies the rub. My friend ebuddy takes issue with my analysis. Yet he resorts to the same old argument about how Israel is so tiny surrounded by the big bad Arab "neighborhood". That is utterly and completely beside the point. First of all, if I as an African-American bought a house in the middle of Chinatown and moved my family in I can't then turn around and b*tch and moan because I'm surrounded and outnumbered by people who are different from me. Moreover, if I uh ... "acquire" the upper level of said house because the city government ordered it so, regardless of the fact that there was a Chinese-American family already living in both levels ... well it seems pretty obvious to me that the Chinese-American family isn't going to take too kindly to that proposition. Neither the ones that are now in the lower level nor the ones that were living in the upper level and are now displaced. And quite frankly, the "They can just move in with one of their neighbors!" argument doesn't hold a lot of water. Why? Because the issue is not that it's a Chinese-American neighborhood. The issue is that particular house belonged to that particular family which is now dispossessed of its property.

So what do you do? Well some say divide the house. My family on the upper level. And the Chinese-American family on the lower level. The only problem is ... I keep sending my kids downstairs and moving them into some of the those bedrooms. Then I invite my cousin to move in with me, but instead of putting him up in one of the upstairs areas ... I send him downstairs to take one of those bedrooms too. Because, you know ... I just got it like that. ;) And I justify it to myself by saying that my black ancestors who were slaves built that entire area ... long before different groups moved in and out and it eventually became Chinatown. So now the Chinese-American family is huddled up in 2 bedrooms when they started out with 5 on that level. And that has led to conflict.

So others then say share the house. My family plus the Chinese-American family have the run of the entire place. The only problem is ... it's a bunch of those little fockers running around the spot because the Chinese are most definitely quite good at multiplying. And so when it's time to have a house meeting ... my family still runs the show for now, but fairly soon we will get out voted. And me and my people just ain't having that. :hmm:

So then my family decides to keep the upper level while steadily encroaching upon even more of the lower level. And amazingly, we wonder why some of us end up with a kung-fu kick in the face every now and again while we are just chilling watching TV. :err:

OAW
 
olePigeon May 20, 2011 11:45 AM
Chinese built Chinatown.
 
OAW May 20, 2011 11:46 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by olePigeon (Post 4078358)
Chinese built Chinatown.
It was an analogy. Just roll with me here. :lol:

OAW
 
Chongo May 20, 2011 12:07 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4078270)
You've seen the region around Israel correct? You know Israel is approximately the size of New Jersey, the 5th smallest State in the US right? You're of course also familiar with the ethnic makeup of the lands North, South, East, and West of Israel?
Quote, Originally Posted by OAW (Post 4078337)
And therein lies the rub. My friend ebuddy takes issue with my analysis. Yet he resorts to the same old argument about how Israel is so tiny surrounded by the big bad Arab "neighborhood".

OAW
This puts it in perspective.
http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/si...pw_sign_22.gif
 
The Final Dakar May 20, 2011 12:12 PM
That strikes me as poor reasoning. A 5 year-old taking a 15 year-old's lunch money isn't ok just because there's such a difference in size.
(Metaphor not meant to be a comparison/interpretation to actual events occurring)

Anyway, when you put it in that perspective, it's hard to convince me anything other than annexing an entire country really gives them any real increased sense safety.
 
Athens May 20, 2011 01:47 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ebuddy (Post 4078270)

The facts simply never matter in this discussion. History doesn't matter. While even the atrocious white man in America can see fit to grant its Native Americans a reservation four times the size of Israel, we should be concerning ourselves more with the Palestinian pawns created by surrounding Arab hostility that would not take them in if their lives depended on it. Jews fault! Jewish imperialism! Jewish unfairness!

Suffice it to say, I couldn't possibly disagree more.
Oh so let me get this straight, when a family is booted out of their home, its bulldozed to the ground and settlers take over the land thus making that family homeless they are considered Pawns for a surrounding Arab state?

I think the biggest problem every one has is lumping every one together into 2 camps. Israel side and the Palestinian side.

All the Israelis are murders and settlers, all the Palestinians are murders and terrorists.

The Palestinian family who is evicted from their land has a legitimate complaint about being displaced.
The Israel family and the Palestinian family who loses a loved one from indiscriminate retaliations have legitimate complaints. Both sides are losing innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Palestinian militants fire rockets into Israel, Israel responds with indiscriminate and unproportional attacks in return.
Israel blockades and limits access to resources, commerce and freedom in the west bank and Gaza in a attempt to cripple the militants but at the same time creating massive hardship for the people who are not militants resulting in desperate people with nothing to lose.

The Palestinians see all Israelis as settlers, land thieves and fault them all for causing the hardship they suffer. All Israelis see Palestinians as terrorists and a threat. I think this is a problem the lumping of every one into a couple groups.

I really would like to see a 1 state solution under one state. Israel province with the 1967 border and Palestine Israel province. Jerusalem being a independent district from the 2 provinces and the national capital. 1 Military, 1 National Police force which operates in both provinces. A senate system similar to the US with 2 representatives for each electoral district. Equal political status for each electoral district with out given the Palestinians majority control since they do out number the Israelis. No more check points, no more fences. Every one free to move and live where they want. With so much spilled blood would never happen but its still nice to dream of a peace
 
besson3c May 20, 2011 01:54 PM
What Native American reservation is four times the size of Israel, ebuddy?
 
ShortcutToMoncton May 20, 2011 02:24 PM
I just assumed he meant total area.
 
besson3c May 20, 2011 02:53 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton (Post 4078418)
I just assumed he meant total area.

You mean of all reservations in America combined?
 
OAW May 20, 2011 02:56 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4078373)
This shows that you are being willfully blind to the fundamental point. Not only is that map incorrect in the sense that it does NOT represent the "Arab" world ... it doesn't even represent the "Muslim" world. But in any event, the issue here is what has already taken place and what continues to take place in land known as Palestine. The fact that the indigenous population of Palestine is Arab and the indigenous population of Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Lebanon is also Arab is neither here nor there. The Palestinians were the ones who go jacked for their land ... not the Saudis! :stick:

OAW
 
sek929 May 20, 2011 03:50 PM
Eh, Israel should've been allowed to take whatever land they wanted by force, side-stepping all these ridiculous treaties and boundaries that have done nothing over the last 70 years but incite more bloodshed.

Easy to sit back here on our wonderful continent and demand the Jews give in to, what is essentially, a terrorist-state's demands...but if the US were in a similar situation, we would've annexed the land by force and imposed our will a long, long time ago.

I think Israel shows massive restraint with this issue, mostly because pussy liberals feel for the poor Palestinians so much and keep them on a leash.

I'd like to see two things. First: Stop giving aid to either side, entirely, since it funds terrorism will US tax dollars and Israel is a big boy and can stand on its own.

Second: Let the Israelis deal with their borders the way they want to, and stop meddling in Europe;s goddamn problems like we can actually fix anything. No amount of treaties or pussy-footing around will solve the problems in the middle east. If Israel wants those lands let her take it by force and impose their rule, end of story. Then, if the rest of the Arab world isn't still hung up on exterminating the jews, maybe they can focus on creating a proper society for themselves instead of breeding an atmosphere of violence and ignorance.
 
BadKosh May 20, 2011 03:53 PM
Yeah, it was their land....except they weren't always there. Most migrated to where better water, and food was available. None of these people stayed for any length of time. Who's to say who's land is was?

If somebody attack you with a knife, and you kicked their butt and took their knife, should you keep the knife as punishment/reminder of what happened? (Especially if they were bigger than you)
 
nonhuman May 20, 2011 03:54 PM
Who used to live where is pretty immaterial at this point. People are where they currently are so either they stay there or they are forced from their homes and made to live somewhere else. (There is probably a valid case to be made that the settlements should be an exception, but that is an exceptional point that should be dealt with as an addendum to an overall solution.)

Additionally, all solutions need to keep one thing in mind: Israel was created for a reason. That reason is still valid. This does not mean that all other parties do not also have a valid reason, but no solution which does not respect and accomodate the need for a Jewish homeland is unacceptable. I would like to believe, but have yet to be convinced, that the Palestinians will accept a solution that accommodates this goal, but indications seem to be otherwise which means that there can be no compromise and no workable solution until that is resolved.
 
Athens May 20, 2011 04:14 PM
Thats what I assumed. You know the situation between North American and Natives is very similar but with out the violence of whats going on in the Middle east. Just we did it 150 years ago. Even today some native groups get some what violent and the military has been called out a few times to assist police in some of the issues. One native publication is pretty militant, even has a article about gorilla tactics

Warrior Publications | Purpose: To promote warrior culture, fighting spirit, and resistance movements | Page 3
 
OAW May 20, 2011 04:23 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by nonhuman (Post 4078443)
Additionally, all solutions need to keep one thing in mind: Israel was created for a reason. That reason is still valid. This does not mean that all other parties do not also have a valid reason, but no solution which does not respect and accomodate the need for a Jewish homeland is unacceptable. I would like to believe, but have yet to be convinced, that the Palestinians will accept a solution that accommodates this goal, but indications seem to be otherwise which means that there can be no compromise and no workable solution until that is resolved.
Well the "reason" was because European Christians couldn't get it together and accept European Jews amongst them. And the Palestinians had Europe's "Jewish Problem" solved at their expense. So let's just be clear about that. Now having said that, the State of Israel is a fait d'accompli at this stage in the game. It's not going anywhere. So the Jewish homeland already exists. That's no longer the issue. The issue now is the Palestinian homeland. Whether one will exist or not. And the entity preventing that from happening right now is the State of Israel because it is not satisfied with the homeland that the UN granted to it in 1948. There are really only a few options here:

A. Israel expels all the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza and annexes the lands by force.

B. Israel formally annexes the West Bank and Gaza and creates an apartheid system where the Palestinians are legally second-class citizens ... thereby maintaining Israel's status as a "Jewish State" regardless of their numbers.

C. Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza and creates a "one person/one vote" democracy for all the residents of the land historically known as Palestine. A "single state solution" that would eventually result in the country no longer having a Jewish majority.

D. Israel gives up the West Bank and Gaza as a starting point in order to have a "two state solution" thereby maintaining Israel as a "Jewish State". Land swaps may occur to accommodate large Israeli settlements in the West Bank that are geographically closer to the existing Israeli border.

E. Israel continues the occupation of the West Bank indefinitely. Continually expanding its settlement expansions until option B is the de facto reality. Sowing the seeds for continued militancy among the occupied Palestinian population.

Which one most accurately represents "compromise"? :err:

OAW
 
Chongo May 20, 2011 04:38 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 4078412)
What Native American reservation is four times the size of Israel, ebuddy?
It's closer to three times and that would be the Navajo Nation. 67,000 km2 (26,000 sq mi) to Israel's 22,000 km2 (8500 sq mi)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...map_en.svg.png
 
Chongo May 20, 2011 04:59 PM
http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/si...pw_sign_22.gif
Quote, Originally Posted by OAW (Post 4078425)
This shows that you are being willfully blind to the fundamental point. Not only is that map incorrect in the sense that it does NOT represent the "Arab" world ... it doesn't even represent the "Muslim" world. But in any event, the issue here is what has already taken place and what continues to take place in land known as Palestine. The fact that the indigenous population of Palestine is Arab and the indigenous population of Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Lebanon is also Arab is neither here nor there. The Palestinians were the ones who go jacked for their land ... not the Saudis! :stick:

OAW
It doesn't represent the "Arab" world. It says Muslim lands, not world. That would include Indonesia and a few other countries in the east. Palestine is the name given the area by the Romans after the Philistines, one of ancient Israel and Judea's enemies.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...30_map.svg.png
 
OAW May 20, 2011 05:32 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4078460)
http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/si...pw_sign_22.gif

It doesn't represent the "Arab" world. It says Muslim lands, not world. That would include Indonesia and a few other countries in the east.
OMG ... now you want to sit here and quibble over the term "lands" vs. "world"? Indonesia is nearly 90% Muslim. In fact, it's the largest Muslim country in the world. How then is it not considered "Muslim land"? :stick:

Hence my point that the map is inaccurate. And we'll just note that you ignored the larger point that the size of the Muslim land/world relative to the size of Israel doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in China. :rolleyes:

Quote, Originally Posted by Chongo (Post 4078460)
Palestine is the name given the area by the Romans after the Philistines, one of ancient Israel and Judea's enemies.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...30_map.svg.png
Ok ... now I'm going to have to ask you to start paying attention. The term "Palestine" in the context of this discussion is in reference to the geographical region subject to the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_1947.svg.png

Do try to stay in the relevant century if that's not too much trouble. :err:

OAW
 
Athens May 20, 2011 06:34 PM
Can some one explain to me the logic in why the Arab state and the Jewish State are carved up in such a way... you figure it would make more sense for the lower left yellow to be orange and the upper right orange to be yellow...

Side note no one has answered this, how many rocket attacks occurred before 1967?
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:59 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2