Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Israel-Palestine: The One State Solution
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 1 of 16 (466828)
05-17-2008 12:19 PM


For as long as I can remember I've supported the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It has always seemed reasonable to agree with the United Nations General Assembly that the solution must involve the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, withdrawal of Israel to its 1967 borders, and the formation of Jewish and Arab states.
Recently I have started to reconsider this view.
First, it does not seem in line with my view of a democratic state that it should be based on ethnic or religious segregation (i.e. Jewish versus Arab). It doesn't seem healthy at all.
Second, I am not sure that the 1967 borders are particularly valid. I really don't see how the 1948 invasion was justifiable so I suppose I don't really see how Israel has the right to exist (other than by making facts on the ground, that it DOES exist, so its citizens have the right to continue living in the land which I view to have been occupied illegitimately in 1948, but upon which they happen to have been born).
Third, with the building of the "security wall" and the fact that a future Palestine appears to occupy non-contiguous space, I do not feel very hopeful that that a two state solution is even logistically possible.
My current thinking is that a two-state solution might have been possible in 1967-1987, but Israel has essentially ruined its own hopes by its continued expansion into and destruction of Palestine in the intervening time. This expansionism has made a the prospect of a viable independent Palestinian state recede drastically. Palestine is so screwed up, now, that the two-state solution is no longer going to be a realistic outcome.
This has led me to reconsider the one-state solution. Sadly, the one state solution is basically what existed before the second world war, where jews and arabs lived (relatively) happily together. It doesn't seem very politically practical, since Israel is bent on a curiously ethnocentric definition of the Nation and fear demographic "swamping" by the Palestinians. However the one state solution might better live up to the dreams of the Zionists that they find a safe and happy homeland. It is an interesting fact that, as a Jew, the most dangerous place to live in the world right now is Israel. What a failure of the Zionist project.
I was just wondering if anybody else has any ideas about the viability of the one state solution. I know that it is an idealistic dream but doesn't it seem in principle the "best" outcome?
Cheers
Mick
Possibly for the coffee house, or social issues forum. Not strictly evo-creo related but presumably involves debate between the religious and the rational () community
Edited by mick, : No reason given.
Edited by mick, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by IamJoseph, posted 05-19-2008 9:33 AM mick has replied
 Message 8 by VirtuousGuile, posted 05-29-2008 6:10 AM mick has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 16 (466849)
05-17-2008 2:23 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 3 of 16 (467051)
05-19-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
05-17-2008 12:19 PM


quote:
I was just wondering if anybody else has any ideas about the viability of the one state solution. I know that it is an idealistic dream but doesn't it seem in principle the "best" outcome?
Its hardly idealistic, and more like another death demand. By rights, even the establishment of Jordan, the first 2-state, was a great attrocity, and perpertrated for 30 barrels of oil, when the jews were at their most helpless. Great Britian played the ultimate Judas role here.
A one-state is another means of destroying Israel by overwhelming her with millions of muslims. The world should, but never has and never will, demand:
The restoration of the Balfour, and Britain should be taken to task for it. Jordan is in violation of the only condition of its creation. Consider these declarations made before the world:
'IT WILL BE A HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE ARABS' - Churchill.
That was hardly a compromise by britain. In fact, Britain allocated masses of lands to those who would sign oil contracts, then granted fake swampland owners perspnal possession of those lands. This is the cause of all terrorism today. The Kurds and copts, like the Jews, were forsaken - and all of these people predate islam and the Arab race.
The reason this attrocity is not exposed, is because of this fact:
'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN IF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* - BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope Oh So Pious.
It is also the reason the name Palestinians has been hijacked, after the Pope shook hands with Arafat in the 60's. The arabs hated that name then, exactly as they do zionists today - because it was referred exclusively to jews for 2000 years - or did the Pope forget history?
Further, the demand today is not a 2-state, but a 3-state. Israel is now occupying 12% of the land originally allocated to her in the Balfour. The pretend pals are the world's least effected refugees, with more options and facilities than any other - but their agenda is hardly nore land, but the jew factor which stirs their innards, and everyone pretends not to know this blatant fact. The real refugees were the jews from Arab lands - greater than the combined arab refugees [UN archives], and another crime why their plight is not equally mentioned.
The arabs are demanding the only thing they don't need, and they only thing Israel does not have: LAND.
I doubt they need a new golf course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 05-17-2008 12:19 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mick, posted 05-20-2008 2:47 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 4 of 16 (467183)
05-20-2008 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by IamJoseph
05-19-2008 9:33 AM


Hi Joseph,
Thanks for your reply. I must admit I found it difficult to understand but I will make what I can of it. If I may start in reverse order:
You make much of the Balfour declaration, though you fail to make a political or ethical case why we should concern ourselves with the internal political decisions of an imperial European country regarding the fate of an occupied territory in the Middle East. One claim I must take issue with is the following -
Israel is now occupying 12% of the land originally allocated to her in the Balfour
The Balfour declaration makes no comment on the quantity of land to be allocated to a future Israeli national home (it doesn't even mention a state). Here is the declaration itself:
The 12% value you cited must have been plucked from the air, or your citation is incorrect. Note that the promise is also conditional on protection of the civil and religious rights of non-Jews, a condition that has not been met.
Furthermore:
The pretend pals are the world's least effected refugees, with more options and facilities than any other - but their agenda is hardly nore land, but the jew factor which stirs their innards, and everyone pretends not to know this blatant fact.
I don't know what "pretend pals" are. If that is what you call the indigenous Palestinians then it is hard to understand what you mean when you say that they have more options and facilities than any other group of refugees, since it is well-known that the Palestinians were betrayed by all of the Arab states who have provided them with lots of belicose propaganda but little economic or political aid in the years since the foundation of the Israeli state. I am ready to admit a great deal of anti-Israeli and indeed anti-semitic feeling amongst these refugees, which is bolstered by a sense of national humiliation as well as the appalling behaviour of the Israeli state in contemporary times.
The arabs are demanding the only thing they don't need, and they only thing Israel does not have: LAND.I doubt they need a new golf course.
It may be the case that the Arabs do no "need" land, though the conditions of the Gaza strip are notoriously overcrowded. I think it is very important if this problem is to be solved that all sides are treated with a modicum of respect, and it is tasteless of you to joke that the Palestinians want a golf course - as far as I can see they want exactly what the Israelis want, access to their homeland. The Palestinian case is only the stronger since it was their golf course a few decades ago, rather than a few millenia. In any case, any right-thinking person would find the accusation that the Palestinian desire to return is as decadent as the desire for a golf course in the desert, unpalatable to say the least.
I skip over your comments regarding the betrayals and other activities of the British government, whose unpleasantness we can probably agree on, doubtless for different reasons.
Its hardly idealistic, and more like another death demand. A one-state is another means of destroying Israel by overwhelming her with millions of muslims
I'm glad that you address my main point. If the loss of an exclusively Jewish state is a death demand, it is a demand that is being made by the Israeli state by their continued efforts to render impossible the two-state solution. Virtually all of the contested territory is now directly occupied or economically controlled by Israel. My understanding is that the leading Arab protagonists including Hamas are in agreement, in principal, with some kind of two-state solution. But continued territorial expansion of Israel in the form of settlement activity and the building of the "security fence" has inevitably shrunk the potential future Palestinian state to a point where it is logistically impossible. Can you think of any other stable state that is divided into two pieces, separated by a foreign country who controls their water and oil imports? Of course not. If things continue as they are going there will be a de facto single state - Israel, controlling all of the territory. The resultant demographic problem, if it is a problem, will not go away by wishful thinking. The Palestinians of Israel, being poorer, are reproducing at a higher rate and will inevitably outnumber the Jewish community at some point over the next century. There is no getting away from that (other than ethnic cleansing), no matter how unpleasant it may seem. I suspect that the eventual outcome would be more in line with Zionist aspirations, and more in line with the desire of the global commumunity for Middle East stability and peace, if the Jewish community made efforts to mend relations with the Arab community before that demographic timebomb strikes, rather than after.
Thanks for your comments,
Mick
Edited by mick, : No reason given.
Edited by mick, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by IamJoseph, posted 05-19-2008 9:33 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 3:51 AM mick has replied
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2009 9:57 PM mick has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 5 of 16 (467188)
05-20-2008 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mick
05-20-2008 2:47 AM


quote:
The Balfour declaration makes no comment on the quantity of land to be allocated to a future Israeli national home (it doesn't even mention a state).
The Brits were given the mandate/caretaker role, and they established all the new arab states, including S. Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, the gulf states and jordan. None of those states had any historical realities, but it shows the British decisions are what is seen as today's middle-east. The Balfour recognises Israel's historical rights, while the other states were not recognised as historical sovereign entities: these were new inventions by the British. This renders the balfour transcendent in claims of any arab states. As I stated, the Jews, kurds and copts predate not just islam and christianity, but also the arab race per se, which began 2500 years ago.
quote:
The 12% value you cited must have been plucked from the air, or your citation is incorrect.
Do the maths: 80% [79% actually], was carved out to Jordan in '48; some 8% to Gaza; 5% to much in the west bank, including what is the birthplace of Judaism, Hebron, where lies buried all Judaism's patriachal ancestors. Nothing was plucked from my head. My point is, the Brits allocated Jordan for corrupt reasoning [oil contracts], and they should not have allocated such a vast portion after akready declaring the balfour, when this was never needed, and why hand it out to an alien S. Arabian hashemite family, instead of the arabs of Palestine? Why make the entire states alloted to arab family heads as their 'personal and private' property, as opposed states belonging to the people: do you not smell a rat here? Because they wanted their contracts signed by these heads. It is perhaps one of the greatest attrocities in modern history.
Thus we have Saudi family members boasting each one has $40 Billion to his name. This regime corruption should be over-turned, and Bush should have kept these in Gitmo - they have used their money to deflect from them, and have caused 100s of 1000s of death around the world, via appointing primitive, poisonous clerics who follow their master's decrees.
quote:
Note that the promise is also conditional on protection of the civil and religious rights of non-Jews, a condition that has not been met.
That is not really a condition, but must be said in all such documents. Now you will find that no such conditions were made when states were allocated to swampland owners, which was clearly more required. Thus Israel treats the arabs better than their own regimes do. Fact. The UN & EU should be focused on the horrors of the regimes - not with Israel.
quote:
I don't know what "pretend pals" are. If that is what you call the indigenous Palestinians then it is hard to understand what you mean when you say that they have more options and facilities than any other group of refugees, since it is well-known that the Palestinians were betrayed by all of the Arab states who have provided them with lots of belicose propaganda but little economic or political aid in the years since the foundation of the Israeli state. I am ready to admit a great deal of anti-Israeli and indeed anti-semitic feeling amongst these refugees, which is bolstered by a sense of national humiliation as well as the appalling behaviour of the Israeli state in contemporary times.
I refer to them as pretend pals, because they are NOT indegenous nor palestinians - this is a great hoax, but has become a force of its own: two different people cannot be palestinians; two unrelated people cannot claim validity which is their historical homeland - one is false. This name was hijacked in '65 by Arafat, an egyptian, as a political tool - and Europe gleefully backed it - even as Europe dumped this name on Jews. What's next - muslim arab zionists?
That the arab states do not help the Pretend pals, is because they wish to cause a sore elsewhere, and deflect from themselves. Here, the worst enemy of the arabs must be seen as the Europeans - who back the regimes they created, instead of taking them to task.
quote:
it is tasteless of you to joke that the Palestinians want a golf course - as far as I can see they want exactly what the Israelis want, access to their homeland. The Palestinian case is only the stronger since it was their golf course a few decades ago, rather than a few millenia. In any case, any right-thinking person would find the accusation that the Palestinian desire to return is as decadent as the desire for a golf course in the desert, unpalatable to say the least.
It is a tasteless TRUTH - and the testeless aspect comes from the unwarranted, genocidal demands made upon Israel. It is nothing short of genocide, all wrapped up in the sufferin' prtend pals, who clearly have more options than any so-called refugees not just in the world today, but in geo-history. It is a provable fact, half of the 700K arabs went and lived elsehwere, and the millions claiming this status now are not even from this region. Demadning that only arabs can return to houses they never owned legally, and even if they did, that a UN treaty is invalid because of this, is a one-sided genocide of Israel. Why stop here - what about the Jews, who were kicked out of their land by Rome - and their return barred by the church? What about the jews in europe and arab lands who lost their property: should they also demand new states?
I will say this, that my views are not those of Israel or Jews, or anyone, but represents perhaps a .1% of the world. But I believe I am morally, historically and legally correct: the balfour should be restored, Britan taken to task for its past attrocities, and the name palestinians, which Israel does not want, is a shame to be cast on muslims. The restoring of the Balfour is not likely at all, but doing so would not flick a fly off a camel's tail - not as far as land held and lost for the arabs. Most of the world prefers those slants which call for the demise of Israel - and this is fronted up with false dis-hisotry, such as palestinians; another 2-state [its a 3-state!], and never do we see anyone listing israel's rights - as if these do not exist.
Israel is akin to a soccer field, what's the innocent facade for? The arabs don't care about Palestine, palestinians, Jerusalem or Israel - its the Jew factor which matters here, and it is racist. I dont mince words, and my pursuit is truth. I would say, to put this in another taseteless truth: at least the nazis were honest about it.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mick, posted 05-20-2008 2:47 AM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mick, posted 05-20-2008 4:44 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 12 by Jaderis, posted 06-01-2008 6:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 6 of 16 (467197)
05-20-2008 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 3:51 AM


Hi Joseph,
Thanks again for your interesting comments. I will have to start by dealing with some of your comments that are completely irrelevant to my argument, but to which I must respond.
I think it best to start again with the Balfour declaration. There are two questions, I think. First, what does it actually say? Second, what political legitimacy does it have?
Let's take a look at the declaration again:
It is easy for any reader to look at your interpretation, compare it with the actual declaration, and decide where they stand.
IamJoseph writes:
The Balfour recognises Israel's historical rights, while the other states were not recognised as historical sovereign entities: these were new inventions by the British. This renders the balfour transcendent in claims of any arab states.
First, the Balfour declaration has absolutely nothing to say about the historic rights of Israel nor of any other country. Israel is not mentioned, nor is the idea of historic right, nor is the idea of statehood, nor is the idea of "recognition" of new states.
Second, the Balfour declaration does not promise the whole of the Middle East to a future Israeli state, it supports the notion of the establishment of a future Israeli homeland in Palestine. It doesn't say where in Palestine, it doesn't say how much of Palestine.
Third, the Balfour declaration is not transcendent over anything, becuase it is an internal strategic document of the British government and not part of domestic British or international law. The declaration essentially has no legal standing whatsoever. The document is merely a declaration of support from the cabinet to a Zionist banker that he can rely upon their support in his efforts to obtain a Jewish homeland.
Finally, there is an obvious question about the ethical validity of Britain promising imperial territory to a third party. Britain abandoned most of its imperial territories throughout the twentieth century, so Brits as a whole have accepted quite happily that their claims on land in the Middle East were politically unwarranted. I would make the claim that the acceptance by the British people of the illegitimacy of their imperial possessions renders historical deals regarding the borders of these possessions invalid.
Thankfully, the Balfour declaration has nothing to say about borders, so it's utterly irrelevant to our discussion.
IamJoseph writes:
The Brits were given the mandate/caretaker role, and they established all the new arab states, including S. Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, the gulf states and jordan... Do the math
I agree with you, though I would say that the Brits took the mandate role rather than were given it. All of the states you list are fictional, and the Israeli state is fictional too. Israel was a hair's breadth away from being established in Africa, where it would have been an equally fictional state. So we can agree that the borders of the Middle East are purely fictional. Okay by me.
Thus Israel treats the arabs better than their own regimes do.
Are we supposed to judge Israel's treatment of Arabs by the yardstick of international human rights norms, or by the yardstick of petty local dictatorships? I am no friend of Mid-East Arab dictatorships, and I think it is an insult to the Israeli state to use them as the yardstick of acceptable behaviour.
I refer to them as pretend pals, because they are NOT indegenous nor palestinians - this is a great hoax, but has become a force of its own: two different people cannot be palestinians; two unrelated people cannot claim validity which is their historical homeland - one is false.
I put it to you that they can. Jews and Arabs have lived together on "Palestinian" territory for thousands of years. Historically, it was a territory shared by ethnic and religious groups, not exclusive to either of them.
The idea of ethnically or religiously exclusive states is a purely modern one.
You next go onto a strange and embarassing rant which includes:
It is a provable fact, half of the 700K arabs went and lived elsehwere, and the millions claiming this status now are not even from this region.
The first part of this sentence is a tautology, since it is clear that refugees must "go and life elsewhere". I would appreciate proof of the latter part of the sentence, since you say it is provable.
Why stop here - what about the Jews, who were kicked out of their land by Rome - and their return barred by the church? What about the jews in europe and arab lands who lost their property: should they also demand new states?
It is you, not I, who is in favour of establishing Jewish states left right and centre.
I will say this, that my views are not those of Israel or Jews, or anyone, but represents perhaps a .1% of the world.
Good for you.
The arabs don't care about Palestine, palestinians, Jerusalem or Israel - its the Jew factor which matters here, and it is racist. I dont mince words, and my pursuit is truth. I would say, to put this in another taseteless truth: at least the nazis were honest about it.
I have already accepted the existence of antisemiticism amongst local Arabs. I would appreciate no more comparison with the Nazis though, since I am not proposing that anybody kill anybody else, am I?
Edited by mick, : grammatical error
Edited by mick, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 3:51 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 7:53 PM mick has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 7 of 16 (467296)
05-20-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mick
05-20-2008 4:44 AM


quote:
First, the Balfour declaration has absolutely nothing to say about the historic rights of Israel nor of any other country. Israel is not mentioned, nor is the idea of historic right, nor is the idea of statehood, nor is the idea of "recognition" of new states.
It does. It speaks of the 'national homeland' [a state], of the jews and zionists
quote:
Second, the Balfour declaration does not promise the whole of the Middle East to a future Israeli state, it supports the notion of the establishment of a future Israeli homeland in Palestine. It doesn't say where in Palestine, it doesn't say how much of Palestine.
I never said it referred to all of the M/E, nor did anyone. In fact, Jews were offered far more greater and richer lands in Africa and/or Australia - they refused it. The jews, unlike Europeans and the Arabs, have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history - despite being stolen from, barred to return and dispersed among all the nations of the earth. No other peoples can claim such. But the distinguising of a part of palestine is a lie by semantics. This is affirmed by the use of false terms of a 3-state now being presented as a 2-state, and that the Muslims are saying Jews have no rights to a state, together with 100s of other historical falsehoods. You have not stated israel's rights here, and I am sure you will also over-turn the Balfour against Israel when it is for Israel. It does not make it right even if a vast multitude supports it.
quote:
Third, the Balfour declaration is not transcendent over anything, becuase it is an internal strategic document of the British government and not part of domestic British or international law.
Ok, then lets not make it transcend but equal to anything else - where is the equal declaration concerning all the Arab states - made scandalously behind closed doors, with no nations voting - do you approve such? If Israel is rejected, then all the states carved out by Britain become first negated - because these are less legitimate, by every criteria. But you are solely focused on Israel, which is a nano spec in the M/E. Oh the Sufferin Pretend pals!
quote:
The declaration essentially has no legal standing whatsoever. The document is merely a declaration of support from the cabinet to a Zionist banker that he can rely upon their support in his efforts to obtain a Jewish homeland.
Wrong! The creation of Jordan could not occur unless the balfour was ratified. It was - at the UN, first; then the carve out was made by the Brits - for 30 barrels of oil. It is an attrocity nearing in potential with the holocaust; mirculously, Israel survived the declared genocide of the arab states upon a legal established UN state: far more legally established than any arab state. You do not mention that the arab states actually voted in the UN Motion, then flaunted this result when it favoured Israel, and declared genocide. What is the UN Resolution # for the worst violation in the UN's history? It does not exist. Why not?
quote:
Finally, there is an obvious question about the ethical validity of Britain promising imperial territory to a third party.
Britain commited gross attrocities and there appears none to take that country to task. There should not have been so many arab states, and there should not have been given as personal property of Regimes, specially not by a Mandate state boasting it is *DEMOCRATIC*. There should have been kurdish, druze, copt and christian states - these predate the Arab race. As the mandate holder, britain should not have been allowed to establish states while also making oil contracts with them - this is legally criminal behaviour by virtue of no arms length and corruption of the highest order. I note the prefix of GREAT became seperated from Britain soon after.
With regard the re-establishment of Israel, this was not Britain's decision, but one of historical rectitude: it was America which first introduced the Balfour provisions; it was Europe which barred it, on racist, dis-historical grounds, claiming Jews cannot return to the land Europe stole from them - because they rejected jesus. Israel never needed briton to say what the balfour says and what it does not say. Israel is accused of occupying her own ancestral homeland. And if 99% of the world wants to deny this or not admit why this is done - they have a problem, not Israel.
Best thing for Arab muslims is to experience exile for once in their life times. After all, every Arab state was created via force and the displacement of others. Egypt was taken over from the copts with the assured lie from arab gangs they would protect the copts from encrouching foreigners like the greeks and persians. They ended up persecuting, masacring the copts and robbing Egypt, while being unrelated to that country. Israel did not emulate such a history.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mick, posted 05-20-2008 4:44 AM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mick, posted 05-31-2008 10:39 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 14 by Jaderis, posted 06-01-2008 7:47 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
VirtuousGuile
Junior Member (Idle past 5782 days)
Posts: 17
Joined: 05-28-2008


Message 8 of 16 (468371)
05-29-2008 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
05-17-2008 12:19 PM


First, it does not seem in line with my view of a democratic state that it should be based on ethnic or religious segregation (i.e. Jewish versus Arab). It doesn't seem healthy at all.
There are many Palestine's in Israel. The Israel treated those who didn't flee as citizens of Israel whereas those who did were effectively exiled from their homeland.
People distinguish themselves according to those attributes that they most identify. The negative is the same.
Israel is like a family boxed in house in the wild west with Indians circling them. The palestine's see Israel as a great oppressor who is responsible for the violating of their peoples home land and the cause for them living in refuge camps for now generations.
You can not have hero without a villian.
The differences are real.
Second, I am not sure that the 1967 borders are particularly valid. I really don't see how the 1948 invasion was justifiable so I suppose I don't really see how Israel has the right to exist (other than by making facts on the ground, that it DOES exist, so its citizens have the right to continue living in the land which I view to have been occupied illegitimately in 1948, but upon which they happen to have been born).
The issue of Sovireignty is ruled power. The reality is that they are there now. And it is their home. If you use the same rule to test virtually any nation on earth, unless they were the actual first people to get there then well you get the picture.
Third, with the building of the "security wall" and the fact that a future Palestine appears to occupy non-contiguous space, I do not feel very hopeful that that a two state solution is even logistically possible.Third, with the building of the "security wall" and the fact that a future Palestine appears to occupy non-contiguous space, I do not feel very hopeful that that a two state solution is even logistically possible.
Yes this is a real obstacle.
This has led me to reconsider the one-state solution. Sadly, the one state solution is basically what existed before the second world war, where jews and arabs lived (relatively) happily together. It doesn't seem very politically practical, since Israel is bent on a curiously ethnocentric definition of the Nation and fear demographic "swamping" by the Palestinians. However the one state solution might better live up to the dreams of the Zionists that they find a safe and happy homeland. It is an interesting fact that, as a Jew, the most dangerous place to live in the world right now is Israel. What a failure of the Zionist project.
Israel is ethnocentric? An Israeli is an Israeli not a Jew. But there are many Jews there now. They have a unique cultural identity and it is the dominant cultural identity. Surrounded by threats of annihilation.
Israel maybe the most dangerous place for Jew right now I don't know. But remember the identity of these people is persecution. Everywhere. The Black community has not forgot their plight. Though hope for the future is always there.
I was just wondering if anybody else has any ideas about the viability of the one state solution. I know that it is an idealistic dream but doesn't it seem in principle the "best" outcome?
It with have to go other highly likely prospect that the Jews will be heavily persecuted if this happens. I do not think that this happening is the ideal solution.
Nextly the two state solution is probably the both the most realistic and conducive to the Israeli people. The Palestine's are likely to endure civil strife for a long time to come. Violence begets more violence.
Either way interms of the 2-state viability being un achievable this is false. I remember the presence of hope when Yasa Arafat, Bill Clinton and the Israeli prime minister went into negotiations. They were offered far more than anybody thought that Israel would ever offer. And they turned it down. Times will have to change, which they will. I believe that the 2-State is both better and more viable. Possibly times issue that Israel will get over their nationalism. Don't think so though.
P:S to be an Israeli does not mean to be a Jew.
Possibly for the coffee house, or social issues forum. Not strictly evo-creo related but presumably involves debate between the religious and the rational
Perhaps when Humanity as a whole stops being human then you can elevate yourself to a higher level of rationale than others. Oh and yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 05-17-2008 12:19 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 1:06 AM VirtuousGuile has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 9 of 16 (468719)
05-31-2008 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 7:53 PM


IamJoseph writes:
quote:
First, the Balfour declaration has absolutely nothing to say about the historic rights of Israel nor of any other country. Israel is not mentioned, nor is the idea of historic right, nor is the idea of statehood, nor is the idea of "recognition" of new states.
It does. It speaks of the 'national homeland' [a state], of the jews and zionists
Now that is the kind of talk that has ruined the middle east. The authors of the Balfour declaration specifically did not use the word "state". Yet for some reason you think you can insert "a state" in square brackets. You might like to think that the Balfour declaration mentions a state, but it does not. There is no mention of "a state" You can put whatever you wish in square brackets but that doesn't make it part of the Balfour declaration! The declaration speaks of a "national homeland", not a "state". Anybody who disagrees, just look up-thread and see the scans.
Mere babble follows this claim. It is difficult to argue if the facts are completely abandoned...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 7:53 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 1:19 AM mick has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 10 of 16 (468729)
06-01-2008 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by VirtuousGuile
05-29-2008 6:10 AM


quote:
There are many Palestine's in Israel.
There are no such creatures as muslim palestinians: please tell me when was this name transferred from Jews to Muslims? Please show me any hint of any muslims in Palestine adopting this name prior to Arafat [60's]? As for a palestinian state, this infers there was such a nation or peoples: please show me anything which evidences such a historical reality: a Palestinian Muslim coin, a book, a newspaper, an independence day, a national anthem, or anything whatsoever one deems as a people, nation, state or homeland?
In fact, the arab muslims hated this name exactly as they do zionists today, nor do they seek land or homes - it is only and exclusively the Jew factor which impacts here, and the world is playing dumb blonde - for the same reason. The name palestinian was used as a political tool, after Arafat and the Pope shook hands. But try and get a christian, muslim or a country hijacked by oil, the gospels, the quran and their propaganda to admit that? Today's Jerusalem Post was called The Palestinian Post 40 yaers ago - and there were no Muslim Palestinians then, or when the arab states attacked her in '48.
quote:
The Israel treated those who didn't flee as citizens of Israel whereas those who did were effectively exiled from their homeland.
Actually, this is also not correct. The so-called homes were of those who simply strayed to this land, for numerus reasons, to escape their own regimes, or crimes, or because this land was without a status ever since Rome detroyed it - a reason that Jerusalem was never the Capital of any nation the last 2000 years.
What occured here was, following Briton's corruption of creating Jordan ['leave 'em fighting and devided forever' being their motto], Briton created Jordan, supposedly, to house the Arabs in Palestine {Churchill} who overwhelmed this land when Jews started to resurrect it from a malaria swamp dump [so much for the Muslim's thrid holy place!]. But only 70% of the Arabs went to Jordan, then the rest were barred, and the arabs in Jordan were suddenly called JORDANIANS - as if this was an historical people. The idea was to leave a sore isse for the 30%, intentionally leaving their kin as refugees, instead of supporting them. Jordan was the 2-state attrocity.
This same thing happened in India. Two states were robbed from the Indian cntinent [Pakistan and bangladesh], supposedly to house the Muslims in India - but they never left, and are now demanding Kashmir.
What should happen, but will not of its own, is Britian should be taken to task, the Balfour restored, all regimes taken to Gitmo, and Clerics and Media be under a license scheme, similar to doctors. Failing this, the world will continue in a turmoil, regardless of what happens to Israel. The issue has nothing whatsoever with Israel, Zionists or anything which Israel did. The refugee issue is only applicable to Jews from Arab lands, which number greater than the combined Arab refugees [UN Archives].
If you want to insult a Muslim, call him a Palestinian. And I blame European christianity here - there is not a hope in hell this people will be forgiven when the finger of truth points their way: no JC can help them here. I am certain Jesus turning the other cheek applies to turning away from Europe - they have successfully transferred their historic nazi-like antisemitism to Muslims. From a spiritual pov, I cannot see both Christianity nor islam prevailing unless they confront their crimes of the last 60 years with the Zionists. By any measure of morality, even if the Jews were criminals or aliens from Mars, they should be given one mass of land to park themselves - and that must include Jordan also. Christians and Muslims will have to come face to face with truth one day, which is not necessarillu reflected by the UN, EU or the Islamic League.
All roads do not lead to Mighty Rome.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by VirtuousGuile, posted 05-29-2008 6:10 AM VirtuousGuile has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 11 of 16 (468730)
06-01-2008 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by mick
05-31-2008 10:39 PM


'IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS AND ONE FOR THE MUSLIMS' - Churchill.
But I maintain that the Balfour itself speaks of nothing else but a state, and a Jewish one. Your posts do not come across as honest at all. Jordan could NOT have been created [it is a state!], unless the Balfour was first ratified, and the jews accepted it: they did, it was ratified at the UN, and the fve Arab state attacks had nothing to do with the term Palestinians, Refigees, Occupation, Zionists or any such invention being flaunted today.
The truth you run from, is that both European Christianity and Muslims were against the establishment of Jews having an official state - this was and is an affront to both their scriptures. At least the Nazis were honest about it.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mick, posted 05-31-2008 10:39 PM mick has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 12 of 16 (468747)
06-01-2008 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 3:51 AM


It is a tasteless TRUTH - and the testeless aspect comes from the unwarranted, genocidal demands made upon Israel. It is nothing short of genocide, all wrapped up in the sufferin' prtend pals, who clearly have more options than any so-called refugees not just in the world today, but in geo-history. It is a provable fact, half of the 700K arabs went and lived elsehwere, and the millions claiming this status now are not even from this region. Demadning that only arabs can return to houses they never owned legally, and even if they did, that a UN treaty is invalid because of this, is a one-sided genocide of Israel. Why stop here - what about the Jews, who were kicked out of their land by Rome - and their return barred by the church? What about the jews in europe and arab lands who lost their property: should they also demand new states?
I will say this, that my views are not those of Israel or Jews, or anyone, but represents perhaps a .1% of the world. But I believe I am morally, historically and legally correct: the balfour should be restored, Britan taken to task for its past attrocities, and the name palestinians, which Israel does not want, is a shame to be cast on muslims. The restoring of the Balfour is not likely at all, but doing so would not flick a fly off a camel's tail - not as far as land held and lost for the arabs. Most of the world prefers those slants which call for the demise of Israel - and this is fronted up with false dis-hisotry, such as palestinians; another 2-state [its a 3-state!], and never do we see anyone listing israel's rights - as if these do not exist.
"Israel's" rights do not exist. The land exists. The people who live there now exist, but their ancestors and the people who live there now took occupied land by force and pretended that they had a right to the land based on a fictional story. Yes, they had a superior military force (thanks to the US), but they had no right to the land. Yes, they had a good reason for the BE to carve out a section of the sand for them (although we have have to ask the question why not just assimilate all of the refugees into the Allied states instead of forcing people off of their land to accommodate something they had no part in to create a pseudo-historical state that became a proxy US colony?), but the BE should have taken all of those people who lived on that land into consideration. That is where the conflict comes from. Fracked up decisions from on high.
I find it highly interesting that a significant proportion of the US Christians support the Israeli "right" to return home, but, at the same time, shudder at the idea of Mexican "rights" to a significant proportion of "American" land. Or just Native American land rights in general? Why are the Jews in Israel supported when the Native Americans are shunned or the Mexican quests for reclaiming conquered lands are considered akin to terrorist acts? They have a more recent claim to land in America than the Jews do in Palestine by a factor of at least 1,500 years.
So, please tell me, why the disparity?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 3:51 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by IamJoseph, posted 06-01-2008 6:31 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 13 of 16 (468748)
06-01-2008 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jaderis
06-01-2008 6:13 AM


Israel had her land stolen from her by Rome [Europe], then barred from returning for immoral reasons:
'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOAMELAND* BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope Pious.
When one is displaced by force, including mass murder, and barred from returning, the time factor does not apply [Judiciary tort]. And the last time i checked, European christianity was not taken to task - despite that it murdered more innocent peoples than any other in all recorded history - even when their last two worst centuries are disregarded.
Israel did not dislodge anyone, but was legally re-established via the UN, with the Islamic countries actually voting in that Motion. The creation of Jordan, the 2-state, was a great attrocity, resultant from European anti-semitism amd oil contracts.
The Pretend Pals are the world's least effected refugees. The muslims dont need more land, and most of their lands should be given to the Copts and kurds - their hatred are based on recist grounds. Else let's pretend that 3 billion christians and muslims have no racist agenda against Jews, Israel is not an affront to those beliefs, and Israel's 4000 year history is transcended by new guys on the block. Or maybe the world needs another golf course on soccer-sized israel?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jaderis, posted 06-01-2008 6:13 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 14 of 16 (468749)
06-01-2008 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by IamJoseph
05-20-2008 7:53 PM


Ok, then lets not make it transcend but equal to anything else - where is the equal declaration concerning all the Arab states - made scandalously behind closed doors, with no nations voting - do you approve such? If Israel is rejected, then all the states carved out by Britain become first negated - because these are less legitimate, by every criteria. But you are solely focused on Israel, which is a nano spec in the M/E. Oh the Sufferin Pretend pals!
You assume that the carved states are equally legitimate, with support from the people who reside within the carved states (and that "Arab states" would automatically support other "Arab" states as if they existed as a single entity).
We (I assume you mean the "left") are not "concerned" with Israel, especially, but the actions of Israel (with full support from the USA) are heinous, just as the actions of Hamas are heinous. Just as the actions in Saudi Arabia are heinous, just as the the actions in Afghanistan (pre 9/11) were heinous, just as the actions in Iraq were heinous (but we made them worse...why doesn't the "martyr doctrine" sink in?). No one paid attention to the "extreme left" then. No one gave a shit about the increasing anger in the ME, especially the intifada in 2000, except the left. The left was screaming about the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the implications of extreme fundamentalism (not only with regards to human rights, but in general) for at least a decade before 9/11, but no one listened.
It only sunk in on 9/11.
And now the left are a bunch of sympathetic commie traitors...or whatever. Because we don't want to bomb them or try to make treaties with them with their infants on the end of bayonets. Because we saw this coming...not this exactly, but something like it and we want to *gasp* talk to them and see what they want instead of killing the young agitated adults and creating a new crop of fucked up kids. Because imperialism or the appearance thereof does not make for stabilized countries or happy fucking campers in what we hope to be stable countries.
Any great ideas besides those based on a 2,000 year old book? Something that might try to answer the modern conflict? Something that might have something to do with an answer based on something besides the OT or the NT?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by IamJoseph, posted 05-20-2008 7:53 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 16 (523393)
09-09-2009 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mick
05-20-2008 2:47 AM


Revived, ressusicated thread
Hi mick, it has been suggested that we bring a similar debate from another thread here:
In response to Message 428 from the Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control thread:
quote:
Hi Hyroglyphx, lets try to keep the facts straight eh?
Eh???? You've never heard of the Six-Day War?
Of course. Another example of Israeli aggression. From your link:
quote:
The Six-Day War of June 5-10, 1967 was a war between the Israel army and the armies of the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The Arab states of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria also contributed troops and arms.[6] At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.
Following numerous border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbours, particularly Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula in May 1967.[7] The peacekeeping force had been stationed there since 1957, following a British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt which was launched during the Suez Crisis.[8] Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border[9] and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, receiving strong support from other Arab countries.[10]
The Israeli cabinet decided to launch a general offensive on May 23, immediately upon receiving the news that the straits would be closed.
Started by Israel, yes? In 1967, yes? MANY years after Israel was formed, yes? In response to what? Egypt's response to an invasion of Egypt, an invasion that Israel willingly participated in, yes?
Israeli armed aggression keeps taking chunks of arab lands by force, and you think arabs are the only ones at fault, that Israel is only defending their rights?
Please, take off the blinders.
Israel - Wikipedia
quote:
Israel ... is a developed state in Western Asia located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan in the east, and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area.[5]
There's the four existing neighbors, now identified for you folk. Now if anyone can provide documents that 3 or 4 vowed to destroy Israel ... then this would apply to the statement by Legend that I am contesting:
Message 331
Legend writes:
Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it.
Bold for emphasis.
So far, all I have seen is that armed aggression begets armed aggression, and that Israels policy of two eyes for every eye has led to increased aggression.
I've also suggested that people provide evidence from when Israel was first formed. Many think it was formed by the UN following the second world war, but this is not quite correct:
British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia
quote:
The Palestine Mandate,[1] or Mandate for Palestine,[2] or British Mandate of Palestine was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in Palestine from 1917-1948.
The preamble of the mandate declared:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[3]
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[4]
The borders of the British Mandate included what is now Israel and Jordan:
With Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Arabia as the original neighbors. The original UN 1947 proposed partition was
British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia
http://www.ontheissues.org/Background_War_+_Peace.htm
quote:
1948: The UN partitioned British Palestine into a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Palestine). Six Arab countries declared war on Israel; Israel survived with borders different than those drawn by the UN; these are now known as the "pre-1967 borders." Palestine did not survive; the East Bank and West Bank of the Jordan River were taken over by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip was taken over by Egypt. Many Palestinians became refugees in the 1948 war; they have still not been resettled and are the subject of the current debate on "right of return."
Notice that modern Israel is larger than the original partition size, that most of what was Palestine has really been taken over by Jordan, and that Israel has increased it's borders since then, and they continue to make enemies rather than friends.
Enjoy.
That lays out the brief history of Israel.
The response was Message 431
quote:
Hi Hyroglyphx, lets try to keep the facts straight eh?
This is grossly off-topic. I just wanted to clear the matter up as you posed it.
I was just answering your question the way you posed it. The way your question was framed was that no one until modern-day terror groups have opposed Israel, which, of course, is an absurdity.
Almost the entire Middle East tried to oust the Jews before, during and after the State of Israel was formed.
Another example of Israeli aggression.
The UN lawfully gave Israel the state of Israel through the Balfour Declaration. If you'll recall, the British empire seized what is now Israel/Palestine from the now defunct Ottoman empire.
After the Holocaust there were several propositions made for where to place the displaced Jews. No one wanted them there. Giving them back the land from which they came from seemed the most reasonable thing.
They were then attacked by a multitude of nations who resisted their presence in the Middle East. What exactly should the young Israeli's have done? Let them kill them?
I don't think that any one in that entire debacle, either Jews or Muslims are completely guiltless in any thing. Each have their share of "aggression."
My response was Message 437
quote:
Hi Hyroglyphx,
This is grossly off-topic.
The topic is Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also (rather than just) gun control, so I see the whole issue of the middle east actually being on target and on topic as a PRIME example of the irrationality of revenge. It's why we still have problems in that area.
I was just answering your question the way you posed it. The way your question was framed was that no one until modern-day terror groups have opposed Israel, which, of course, is an absurdity.
No, the question was in response to a comment by Legend. This is the second or third time I have pointed this out, and this is significant because without that comment you don't have the context of my question.
The question is NOT about what countries opposed Israel's formation, but which neighbors vowed to destroy it. When you talk about Hezbollah, the problem is (1) they were formed long after Israel declared independence, which was long after the joint jewish & palestinian state was formed following WW1, and (2) it was formed in response to specific aggression by Israel.
The modern state of Iran (which you tried to use earlier, when I pointed out to you before that you were off track on your response) is also not applicable because (a) they are not neighbors and (b) they did not have that government when Israel was formed.
To answer the question is easy: provide documentation from 1948 of a THEN neighbor that vowed to destroy Israel.
It's a small point, but I insist on accurate historical documented information, not just Faux News Sound Bites. If the claims were made, you should be able to find them.
After the Holocaust there were several propositions made for where to place the displaced Jews. No one wanted them there. Giving them back the land from which they came from seemed the most reasonable thing.
This is a common misunderstanding. Let me repeat my last post on this so you can have another go at the facts:
British Mandate of Palestine - Wikipedia
quote:
The Palestine Mandate,[1] or Mandate for Palestine,[2] or British Mandate of Palestine was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in Palestine from 1917-1948.
The preamble of the mandate declared:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[3]
The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[4]
That's 1917, after WW1 NOT 1948 after WW2. What was objected to in 1948 was the mass immigration of thousands of jews from around the world, and the (brand new) UN partitioning of Palestine.
Legend writes:
Message 331 ... Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. ...
Now, can anyone document which of Israel's (four) neighbors have vowed to destroy Israel?
Or is this another example of Faux News type hyperbole and exaggeration of a conflict that is perpetuated and empowered by Israel's policy of revenge.
They were then attacked by a multitude of nations who resisted their presence in the Middle East. What exactly should the young Israeli's have done? Let them kill them?
The question is whether Israels policies are perpetuating the conflict, rather than leading to a solution.
I say they are perpetuating it. The evidence is as simple as the fact that Hezbollah did not exist until many years after Israel was formed, and that the policies of Israel led directly to the formation of Hezbollah, and today lead directly to new recruits every year.
Enjoy.

The question I pose for this thread: is the war in the middle east perpetuated by Israels aggressive tactics?
In contrast we see the Northern Ireland "troubles" resolved by putting the guns down and coming to a political solution.
In contrast we see the movement for independence of India being won by non-violent means, a political solution without bloodshed.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mick, posted 05-20-2008 2:47 AM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by onifre, posted 09-11-2009 1:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024