Let's end this one and for all ! The Last ME Thread. Permanent solutions only please!

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Eli
Fighting back is always morally justified.

So it is for the taliban morally justified to fight against the American soldiers or would it be more of a moral solution to stop fighting for Osama?
When a police man trys to arrest me for some crime I commited it is morally justified when I shot at him?

Originally posted by Eli
I'm not sure about the rights.

Like u said u have to open bags each time u enter a shopping mall. U get controlled any time there is the slightest suspective thing.
I only got controlled once by german police while I was underaged in a discotheke. Never again in my life when I lived in Germany and Netherlands.
The Police dont have the right to controll u without a clear hint for a crime (like u throwing big stones at a store window )

Originally posted by Eli

Quote:

U just get a diffrent point of view of thing depending what your everyday experience is.

Correct, but I still see no connection to freedom.

Freedom means for me u can walk on the street without the fear to get shot (in the US u also have freedom, but not everywhere. Like it isnt a good idea to walk around in certain town districts with the wrong colour).

My point is that u get in a really free country, with normal live on the street, instead of the street picture (do u say so in english?) u get in israel, a better point of view. U dont get radical. Radical views are always bad ones - isnt this obvious?

Originally posted by Eli
No.
But can he do something to prevent me from doing so?

Well he (or the palastins in general) dont have the power to do so.
This means u support the Idea of the right of the more powerful?
So if not Israel but Palastina were more powerful they could use your plan but in reverse and it would be ok?

[Jules]

Sorry, been too busy playing Europa Universalis 2 to post here. Trying to unite Germany under the Bohemian banner.

Anyway, my economic development idea still remains on the table. It wouldn't eliminate all of today's problems, but would over time prevent future conflicts from developing. Like the rebuilding of Germany and Japan at the end of WW2 for instance.

Edit: Note new EU2-themed avatar (well, sort of )

[CyberGnu]

Suprisingly, the constructive propositions in this thread are left uncommented, while the arguing continues.

Tom and Eli, I don't mean to be rude, but there is another ongoing ME thread. Would you guys mind taking your argument there, to save this thread for its original purpose?


Dalgetti, I still haven't seen an answer to my previous post.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
2) Beyond that, though, the only solution I have is one I don't like myself. It stems from my best friend's exasperated cry, "But there already is a Palestinian state! It's called 'Jordan.' " My very reluctant proposal (versions of which have already shown up) is the forced removal of Palestinians to Jordan, to be presided over by the UN (to keep it from being a Trail of Tears/Armenian Genocide) and paid for by Israel. No, it's not "fair," but, again, I doubt any actual solution could be. As for the claim that the West Bank doesn't belong to Israel...hey, somebody should have thought of that before they attacked Israel and got their asses kicked. Besides, the Jordan is a much more logical border between the two nations.

I totally agree with you on this. I was going to post a similar solution myself, but I didn't want to deal with all the people who would label me a "Nazi" or a "supporter of ethnic cleansing" for believing this is the only viable solution. As you said, there are no good solutions to the ME problem; this is simply the best of many bad options. Great post, Rufus, it was very insightful.

[CyberGnu]

Actually, there is already a country without religious persecution, it is called the U.S.

Wouldn't it be better to forcibly relocate all the jews to Arizona?

[Az]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Dalgetti, during the negotiations.

Look, it's not an ideological question.

One of the problems right now is that Sharon does not want peace. Do you really think that the worst Israeli attacks occured just days after the Saudi peace plan was presented?

The attacks are Sharons tool to prolong the war. In case the negotiations seemed to get somewhere, he would conventiantly invent 'an undisclosed informant', who claims they are building rockets in a camp, and then send in the tanks.

says you. I think it's quite clear that any Israeli PM would want a ceasing of hostilities. Not at all costs though.

the second paragraph are just your assumptions , nothing more than that. Of course , it is an educated guess , but that quite depends on where your education stands , if you know what I mean.

the palestinians get pissed, they start bombing more, and the whole situation is back where we started. This scenario was described last autumn already in an editorial in the NYT, and it is pretty much exactly what occured in the last week...

So you feel like the reason for each terror attack is a single case of anger ? and there is no planned strategy behind this ? One could claim that the individual people that are used as pawns on the palestinian side do it because of anger , but terror acts on the scale of a bomb , or a shooting , cannot be commited by a single individual . I strongly believe that the people in charge of the extremist Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations have , if not a well-planned strategy , but a general direction in which they are going.

But if you take away this tool, and there is a chance. By not allowing Israel to attack even with good cause, you eliminate the possibility for Sharon to invent reasons to attack to.

This claim is based on an assumption about a policy inherent to the state of Israel with which I do not agree. So I cannot answer this claim, or reflect my opinion on the Idea, just as I cannot reflect and weigh my options on the question : " Why is Mars green? "

In the event of a deal, with a palestinian state in existance, let it be handled by impartial observers, backed up by the U.S.. This goes both ways, of course...

errm... allow me to doubt the power of any impartial observer of peacekeeping force. Lebanon, Kosovo , and some more which I cannot think of right now.

Was I right about the settlements in the landswap being part of jerusalem or not? You didn't mention that part. I think I am right though, while the land offered in the CD deal was all Negev desert.

mostly it is not the case . The Negev desert is as good a peace of property as any arid hill , north of Jerusalem . Believe me, I know it , I was there .

We've also been through who got what land in the 1948 partition before. I don't agree with your assessment. But I was under the impression that we weren't going to argue whose fault what is, but instead look for a practical solution, yes?

well, to be honest with you , I put the blame on the whole mid-east situation on Great Britain. Conflicting promisses , plus arbitrary , and uncorrect division of land. Also , some very unpleasant and evil people like Hadj-Amil-El-Husseini.

(waits patiently for the ' so what that he met hitler? ' claim.... )

but we can still talk about the partition plan. Negev.... pfff....

so do you have a better suggestion to deal with the refugees? As I said, it is a problem, and must be dealt with in order to have a deal.

And as I also said, Arafat is not going to invite the refugees into palestine, while the palestinian people won't accept a solution not including a solution to the refugee problem.

well , I am quite sure that he will, himself bowing to the pressure on his street.
I already offered a solution. a very fair one if you ask me.

If Jerusalem is Israeli, why is there a part called 'Arab East Jerusalem'? And why does Arafat want to have his capital there?

note - I said mostly.

and Arafat don't really want his capital there . It's simply a great arab honour to be a protector of a holy islamic site ... you don't see the Saudis moving to mecca , right?

OK, you don't like the market approach. Care to tell me what is wrong with it? Care to devise a more fair system?

hey , all I want is a state for the jewish people, so they could feel safe and protected there. Not a jewish enclave. not a jewish city-state. not a jewish autonomy. a country. a small country. Is this too much to ask for ?

And remember, a compromise is a solution where both parties feel cheated... A 'business deal' is a solution where both parties feel they got the better part... Which one would you rather have?

a 'business deal' is also a thing that both sides arrive to , without being dragged by other people. If you let the situation stay this way, there will be a regional war, That could even have it's ripples in the EU (politically).

actually , come to think about it , It seems that the world is heading that way , anyway. I have started to really believe that clash of civilizations thing lately.

Combine Israel with Palestinian holdings. Call the new state "Palestine". Define borders with Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Secular state, secular education. Distribute wealth. Democratic government. Everything is common to the state.

blah. I would do it if I could ban religion . But my neighbourhood freedom fighters want let me to it. and with Islam still on-board , all that will happen is a gradual fade-out of the jewish population , and democratic values , away.

CyberGnu:
Wouldn't it be better to forcibly relocate all the jews to Arizona?

I'll take it , if you give me sovereignty.

[Sirotnikov]

One of the problems right now is that Sharon does not want peace. Do you really think that the worst Israeli attacks occured just days after the Saudi peace plan was presented?

Let me tell you what happenned for several days before the attacks - several terrorists were caught inside the green line, which includes my home town of haifa.

Had this not happenned, we wouldn't have gone in the camps.

[GePap]

Siro:
The attacks of the last few days are a response to the raids on the refugee camps. Any idiot (thus, anyone not in the israeli cabinet) would have noticed that as Israeli retaliation goes up, attacks against israelis go up. Its a simple corolation, which a two year old social sicentist could o. Matbe there is sothing to it....

Second: Sharon's way to peace is no peace.
His little zero-sum, 'negotiations can only come after we crush the Palestinians' shows that he doesn't get it. Negotations are between equals- the other situation is called imposing terms. The IDF can destroy the Palestinian authority, but they can't destroy Hamas nor islamid Jihad by force, because they are based on ideas, and ideas can't be forcefully destroyed, unless you kill veryone. The only possible zero-sum solution to this conflict is if one side is destroyed utterly, annahilation. So either the Islamist kill or Jews, or the Israelis set up their own Auschwitz. Sharon's method only lengthens and then temporarily postpones the violence (just like Oslo did, only to come back in escalated form), it will never solve it. The only other way to for Israel to accept the Palestinians as equally valid claimants and negotiate from there. I think everyone knows what I would back.

The 'Jordan' plan is an abomination and a defilement of all democratic, liberal rights the US values. I hope Firefly and Tungsten aren't Americans, cause otherwise, they have no F'ing clue about a little thing called American values.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
So it is for the taliban morally justified to fight against the American soldiers or would it be more of a moral solution to stop fighting for Osama?

When a police man trys to arrest me for some crime I commited it is morally justified when I shot at him?
[/quote]
It is justified accrding to the talibani beliefs to shoot back.
It is justified according to your will to not be jailed to shoot.

No one pretends living by some "global morals".

Like u said u have to open bags each time u enter a shopping mall. U get controlled any time there is the slightest suspective thing.
I only got controlled once by german police while I was underaged in a discotheke. Never again in my life when I lived in Germany and Netherlands.
The Police dont have the right to controll u without a clear hint for a crime (like u throwing big stones at a store window )

I don't see what you don't like about this.

I don't feel bad because I'm checked , nor do I feel humiliated.

I infact feel very good since I know that if I were a terrorist, I couldn't have sneaked in.

It doesn't stop me from going to the mall or enjoying my life.

Freedom means for me u can walk on the street without the fear to get shot (in the US u also have freedom, but not everywhere. Like it isnt a good idea to walk around in certain town districts with the wrong colour).

Well, I don't have freedom then because of terrorists, not soldiers.

Israeli soldiers haven't even shot terrorists with bombs whom they could overpower physically.

My point is that u get in a really free country, with normal live on the street, instead of the street picture (do u say so in english?) u get in israel, a better point of view. U dont get radical. Radical views are always bad ones - isnt this obvious?

I agree with the point, but I disagree that israel is radical.
i don't mind police at all.

Well he (or the palastins in general) dont have the power to do so.
This means u support the Idea of the right of the more powerful?
So if not Israel but Palastina were more powerful they could use your plan but in reverse and it would be ok?

IT doesn't matter would it be ok.
they would do it without blinking, and it would "solve" the problem.

[CyberGnu]

Dalgetti, I think you are assuming that Sharon is a good man. This is not the case. And this is not even subjective - He is a warcriminal!

If you made the same statement with Rabin in power, I would be likely to believe you... but Sharon 'clearly wanting a ceasing of hostilities' is just not the case.

Sharon is just blindly clinging to the policy which has been the official one for 50 years... 'If we can keep the conflict simmering at a low boil, we'll never have to give back the stuff we took, and we can keep nibbling on the edges'.

In case of a deal, the settlements not only must go, the possibility of them expanding is nil. In case of a deal, part of Jerusalem is irrevocably Palestinian.

The major flaw in Sharons reasoning is not the general feasability of the approach, it worked for 50 years... It is that it is not feasible right now. The palestinians have realized what he is up to, and won't negotiate unless they have a final deal at the table.

And as GePap pointed out, this is more than an educated guess... It is by now a statisical correlation.


I don't think one single incident is enough to cause a terrorist attack, and I don't think that can be concluded from what I wrote. One single incident can very well be the triggering factor, however, just like Sharons visit to the templemount didn't cause the intifada II, but did indeed trigger it.

For a people living in abject poverty, with daily humiliation and hunger... Do you really wonder that they loose all hope when they are also being indiscriminately killed by the Israeli army? And this is not my conjecture, mind you. This is reported in numerous interviews with palestinians. There is a very good story in the NYT sunday edition two or three weeks back, I believe.

This claim is based on an assumption about a policy inherent to the state of Israel with which I do not agree. So I cannot answer this claim, or reflect my opinion on the Idea, just as I cannot reflect and weigh my options on the question : " Why is Mars green? "

Well, how about this instead: What about using this as a bargain tool to get serious negotiations going? Imposed, of course, by the US. Whether it is true or not, it would very effectively show the palestinians that the negotiations are likely to prouce results.

errm... allow me to doubt the power of any impartial observer of peacekeeping force. Lebanon, Kosovo , and some more which I cannot think of right now.

Care to suggest an alternative? Sometimes you have to deal with the best option there is, even if it isn't perfect...

mostly it is not the case . The Negev desert is as good a peace of property as any arid hill , north of Jerusalem . Believe me, I know it , I was there .

So you are asying that property in say, Las Vegas, could be exhanged for an equal amount of land anywhere else in Nevada? It's all desert, after all.

Come on! You aren't trying to delieberately avoid the issue, are you?
Land in jerusalem can't be exhanged for land in the Negev and be called fair...


I put some blame on GB, but not all...

well , I am quite sure that he will, himself bowing to the pressure on his street.
I already offered a solution. a very fair one if you ask me.

I apologize for not critiquing your proposal earlier, this should have been done prior to me offering my own plan.

The basic stumbling blocks is that the Palestinians would not agree to it. As you saw in the rejection of the CD offer, they won't accept an even smaller area to live on. They won't accept a deal that does not include east Jerusalem. And they won't accept your solution to the refugee issue. (btw, I think I might have forgot this point earlier: It is not jsut Arafat who wont accept the refugess into palestine. the palestinians themselves are veyr aware that they are living in one of the most densely populated areas in the world... And they don't particularly relish the thought of doubling that density.).

Right now, the palestinians have nothing to loose by continuing the fight... Only a fair deal can break this stalemate.

and Arafat don't really want his capital there . It's simply a great arab honour to be a protector of a holy islamic site ... you don't see the Saudis moving to mecca , right?

Umm, Arafat has made it very clear on numerous occasions that the capital of palestine will be jerusalem... My guess partly because of religious reasons. Saudi-Arabia gains considerable goodwill from being the keepers of Mecka, and Palestine would do likewise...

OK, you don't like the market approach. Care to tell me what is wrong with it? Care to devise a more fair system?

hey , all I want is a state for the jewish people, so they could feel safe and protected there. Not a jewish enclave. not a jewish city-state. not a jewish autonomy. a country. a small country. Is this too much to ask for ?

I have honestly no idea how those statements connect...

Why on earth is a market economy approach mutually exclusive with a state for the jewish people?

did you perhaps misunderstand what I proposed? Look, Israel gets the land within the 1967 borders. That is already 78% of Palestine!

But the problem is that Israel isn't happy with just 78%, it wants more! It veils its greed in statements of 'security concerns' and 'jews already live there'. Now, if Israel so badly needs areas beyond the 78% it should have to pay for them. And the only way to get a fair payment is by market economy.

But even if Israel didn't buy one sinlge square cm of land, it would still have 78% of palestine... Why isn't that enough?

a 'business deal' is also a thing that both sides arrive to , without being dragged by other people.

My friend, were you tired when you wrote this? No one is forcing Israel to make any business deals. My suggestion is to give Israel an opporutunity to gain the land it claims it must have.

The only enforcing that might be required is outside pressure to make sure that Israel actually adheres to the deal...

I'll take it , if you give me sovereignty.

Unfortunately, this was already suggested once before... in 1901, I believe. and it was an uninhabiated part of Uganda, not Arizona. But this was rejected by the zionist movement.

[Natan]

Unfortunately, this was already suggested once before... in 1901, I believe. and it was an uninhabiated part of Uganda, not Arizona. But this was rejected by the zionist movement.

No such place exists. If you look at a map of African population density, there's no black hole in Uganda. It's the nature of humans to expand and fill their sorroundings; no part of the earth which is habitable is uninhabited. You could never find an uninhabited and unowned yet habitable swath of land large enough to form even a tiny country.

[CyberGnu]

Unfortunately, this was already suggested once before... in 1901, I believe. and it was an uninhabiated part of Uganda, not Arizona. But this was rejected by the zionist movement.


No such place exists. If you look at a map of African population density, there's no black hole in Uganda. It's the nature of humans to expand and fill their sorroundings; no part of the earth which is habitable is uninhabited. You could never find an uninhabited and unowned yet habitable swath of land large enough to form even a tiny country.

Let's examine the above statement again, shall we? think about it for a while. do you see the flaw in your reasoning?

No?

Scroll down, I don't want to give it away to easily...














Ah, yes, it's the four digit number up there!!!! 1901!!!!!!! In 1901 there was a large portion of what is now called Uganda that was uninhabited. Should have thought of that, shouldn't you?

BTW, haven't I already told you this once before?

[Natan]

According to the Library of Congress, in the most sparsely populated areas of Uganda, there are about 30 people per square kilometer. Would you care to explain exactly why this one corner of central Africa had a hole in it where no people lived? It seems a bit improbable, to say the least.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan
According to the Library of Congress, in the most sparsely populated areas of Uganda, there are about 30 people per square kilometer. Would you care to explain exactly why this one corner of central Africa had a hole in it where no people lived? It seems a bit improbable, to say the least.

First of all, that's today, or in the near past, not 1901 as Gnu stated. I don't know if back in 1901 a very large area of good land was uninhabited- but for Zionism to get of to a fair start, it would have had to be. Why is the basic slogan of early Zionism "A people without a land for a land without a people"? becuase to admit there was a people there, would have created (and did create) fundamental problems which are very difficult to resolve

[Tom201]

@ Siro
CyberGnu demanded that I discuss in the other thread.
No Problem with that, read my answers there.


Tom

[CyberGnu]

Well, not so much demanded, but I do appreciate it. This might be the first time we have something even bordering on a sane debate on possible solutions to the problem.

Natan and GePap, IIRC was that part of africa struck by a pretty nasty drought a few yeas in a row. The tribes living in the area moved to more fertiles places. Left behind was an area bigger than all of palestine.

[The Mad Monk]

Might its rejection by the Zionist movement have been because of the "very nasty drought"?

[Az]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Dalgetti, I think you are assuming that Sharon is a good man. This is not the case. And this is not even subjective - He is a warcriminal!

If you made the same statement with Rabin in power, I would be likely to believe you... but Sharon 'clearly wanting a ceasing of hostilities' is just not the case.

That has never been proved. Technicality ? in your opinion.
I don't think he wanted to massacre hundreds of people.

Sharon is just blindly clinging to the policy which has been the official one for 50 years... 'If we can keep the conflict simmering at a low boil, we'll never have to give back the stuff we took, and we can keep nibbling on the edges'.

.... I always felt that this is what the palestinians are doing ... 'If we can keep the conflict simmering at a low boil, we'll be able to put constant pressure on the other side'.....
the wierd thing is that a prolonged conflict is Israel's biggest weakness, wtf would it want to go that way ? plus, Israel wouldn't have to give back anything. Not the way the cards show today in the realpolitik world of diplomacy . ( You know , the one that makes the difference , and calls the shots, not ideology)

In case of a deal, the settlements not only must go, the possibility of them expanding is nil. In case of a deal, part of Jerusalem is irrevocably Palestinian.

so? part of the west bank can be called irrevocably Israeli, if you're talking about population.

The major flaw in Sharons reasoning is not the general feasability of the approach, it worked for 50 years... It is that it is not feasible right now. The palestinians have realized what he is up to, and won't negotiate unless they have a final deal at the table.

so they keep that's why they keep the conflict going? If they've realized that this is an trap , as it is alleged by you , why do they keep bombing things? Is it because of anger and frustration ? politicans don't get angry and frustrated due to occupation. They strive for a goal , ( it doesn't matter if it's good or bad in this case) .

And as GePap pointed out, this is more than an educated guess... It is by now a statisical correlation.

yes , that's of course a great proof :

Siro:
The attacks of the last few days are a response to the raids on the refugee camps. Any idiot (thus, anyone not in the israeli cabinet) would have noticed that as Israeli retaliation goes up, attacks against israelis go up. Its a simple corolation, which a two year old social sicentist could o. Matbe there is sothing to it....

yeah. you got me convinced now.

I don't think one single incident is enough to cause a terrorist attack, and I don't think that can be concluded from what I wrote. One single incident can very well be the triggering factor, however, just like Sharons visit to the templemount didn't cause the intifada II, but did indeed trigger it.

even that we say that he trigger it ,so that guy that killed that Austo-hungarian prince is to blame at millions of deaths all over europe and the world ?

For a people living in abject poverty, with daily humiliation and hunger... Do you really wonder that they loose all hope when they are also being indiscriminately killed by the Israeli army? And this is not my conjecture, mind you. This is reported in numerous interviews with palestinians. There is a very good story in the NYT sunday edition two or three weeks back, I believe.

1) they do not suffer from hunger.
2)daily humiliation ? oh dear . I suffer it as well when I wait in lines.
3) Indiscriminately killed ? yeah, the Israeli army massacres innocent palestinians. when innocent people are killed , the government admits it was wrong ! It is as clear as that ! (but no, I suppose it's all just a show to the world . actually we want to kill them all).maybe they're TOLD BY THEIR MEDIA that the army indiscriminately kills civilians , but that's different.

Well, how about this instead: What about using this as a bargain tool to get serious negotiations going? Imposed, of course, by the US. Whether it is true or not, it would very effectively show the palestinians that the negotiations are likely to prouce results.

you got me confused. what do you mean by "this" ? ( sorry , this is an arguement that spans over days ,so I can't get it in one peace... )

Care to suggest an alternative? Sometimes you have to deal with the best option there is, even if it isn't perfect...

so , currently , the Palestinians just have to take the deal israel gives them ... coz you know ... it is the best option there is ....

So you are asying that property in say, Las Vegas, could be exhanged for an equal amount of land anywhere else in Nevada? It's all desert, after all.

yeah , Las Vegas.....

Come on! You aren't trying to delieberately avoid the issue, are you?
Land in jerusalem can't be exhanged for land in the Negev and be called fair...

it's not jerusalem.... it is near jerusalem.

but those areas are also near gaza. so ****ing what?

I put some blame on GB, but not all...

who else ? the jews , for trusting the emansipation and liberal movements , and being dissapointed by them?

I apologize for not critiquing your proposal earlier, this should have been done prior to me offering my own plan.

you're forgiven.

The basic stumbling blocks is that the Palestinians would not agree to it. As you saw in the rejection of the CD offer, they won't accept an even smaller area to live on. They won't accept a deal that does not include east Jerusalem. And they won't accept your solution to the refugee issue.

well ,it will happen sooner or later by itself. the Hashemite's Kingdom's days are numbered. I could be wrong there , but I don't care.

(btw, I think I might have forgot this point earlier: It is not jsut Arafat who wont accept the refugess into palestine. the palestinians themselves are veyr aware that they are living in one of the most densely populated areas in the world... And they don't particularly relish the thought of doubling that density.).

this can be adressed together with the 78% claim.
well , half of the territory of Israel is desert . the other half is where we live . so our denesty is even more so. and there is plenty of room , believe me.

Right now, the palestinians have nothing to loose by continuing the fight... Only a fair deal can break this stalemate.

well, dear , I forgot the value of human life. But I guess you have to have it first to be able to lose it . . Anyway , they're not realistic. The Israelis won't move .

Umm, Arafat has made it very clear on numerous occasions that the capital of palestine will be jerusalem... My guess partly because of religious reasons. Saudi-Arabia gains considerable goodwill from being the keepers of Mecka, and Palestine would do likewise...

I know that. I even think that it's not partly. but mostly.

I have honestly no idea how those statements connect...

Why on earth is a market economy approach mutually exclusive with a state for the jewish people?

did you perhaps misunderstand what I proposed? Look, Israel gets the land within the 1967 borders. That is already 78% of Palestine!

yeah. and 50% of it is desert

But the problem is that Israel isn't happy with just 78%, it wants more! It veils its greed in statements of 'security concerns' and 'jews already live there'. Now, if Israel so badly needs areas beyond the 78% it should have to pay for them. And the only way to get a fair payment is by market economy.

muhahahahah .

But even if Israel didn't buy one sinlge square cm of land, it would still have 78% of palestine... Why isn't that enough?

and how much of that is arable land?

My friend, were you tired when you wrote this? No one is forcing Israel to make any business deals. My suggestion is to give Israel an opporutunity to gain the land it claims it must have.

I wasn't tired. noone forces them. but international 'observers' spring to mind.

The only enforcing that might be required is outside pressure to make sure that Israel actually adheres to the deal...

so far, Israel keeps it's promises. After all, the Israelis commited to the creation of the PNA , and stepping out of controlling the areas in which 99% of palestinians live.

Unfortunately, this was already suggested once before... in 1901, I believe. and it was an uninhabiated part of Uganda, not Arizona. But this was rejected by the zionist movement.

the plan was actually ACCEPTED by the congress , but the people rejected it in the notion that "there cannot be zionism without zion" . Plus , the Brits said it would be a safe heaven for jews, and the issue of the land between Jordan and the sea will be solved later. People were afraid that once they're in Uganda , there won't be able to leave, because the world will say : hay, you have a land.

The 'Jordan' plan is an abomination and a defilement of all democratic, liberal rights the US values. I hope Firefly and Tungsten aren't Americans, cause otherwise, they have no F'ing clue about a little thing called American values.

why?

*has the "it didn't bother them to do that with the Kosovar serbs" answer on standby*

Ah, yes, it's the four digit number up there!!!! 1901!!!!!!! In 1901 there was a large portion of what is now called Uganda that was uninhabited. Should have thought of that, shouldn't you?

BTW, haven't I already told you this once before?

Actually it is possible . note that during the beginning of the century , the number of people living in "Palestine" was way below million . But with immigration , large population growth , created by the great economical conditions that were in turn created by the Jews , the figure rised to 10 million now.
Before the 20th century it was a distant , arid , and uncultivated province of a crumbling empire.


but there was no great change , no sudden economic growth in Uganda.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
The 'Jordan' plan is an abomination and a defilement of all democratic, liberal rights the US values. I hope Firefly and Tungsten aren't Americans, cause otherwise, they have no F'ing clue about a little thing called American values.

Rufus' Jordan plan is the best one presented here so far. I'm the third American who thinks so to say so. Perhaps you are the one in need of an education in American values. Your hatred of Israel has been palpable from the first post of yours I saw on an ME thread. You talk about peace and justice just like those lefty losers in the 1980s. What they really mean:

Peace = The U.S. backed side (in this case Israel) unilaterally disarms

Justice = Nature takes it's course.

I don't see you as believing any differently. You think Israel is morally wrong because their state somehow violated your sense of fair play in 1948. You don't care that a vast majority of the Israeli public was born there, while a vast majority of the Palestinian refugees were not. You don't have any real solutions for dealing with a nuclear weapon armed country which has never been defeated in a conventional war other than to have the entire world gang up on it and basically destroy it in stages. Good luck finding a powerful enough state willing to walk point.

Any solution has to be a bridge between reason and fairness and a realistic appraisal of the power dynamics. The Palestinians murder civilians every day, and then complain about Israeli massacres. This (Ge)pap is produced mainly for the benefit of the European press. If the Israelis ever decide to massacre the Palestians there will be no doubt about it. The Palestinian casualties of the whole 'second intafada' would be exceeded in the first hours of the application of a significant fraction of Isreal's military power. This is the reality that the Palestinian's must confront. It is the reality which has their much more numerous and better armed Arab brothers standing on the sidelines. The Palestinians have had the luxury of the fig leaf of being an unarmed non-state entity. They may yet force the Israelis to recognize them unilaterally and then declare war upon them.

Rufus' idea understands the power differential, and achieves a seperation by moving the weaker party to a safer place, and disarming to the extent possible the thorny issue of Jerusalem. Neither side is ready for an agreement that in any way is acceptable to the other. Once the two side fight a while in a true test of strength, the Palestinians will be much more willing to accept a plan like Rufus'.

[Az]

bumpe

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rufus' Jordan plan is the best one presented here so far. I'm the third American who thinks so to say so.

It's an absolutely impractical and bad idea, says this American .

Would make the situation worse, bet you.


Oh, btw, according to Sharon:

If the Palestinians aren't being beaten, there will be no negotiations. The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered will we be able to conduct talks

Sounds like a man of peace, right?

[Az]

So Imran , everyone who's waging war is not a man of peace ?

he's explaining his position to public , saying that :
we can only negotiate from the strong side. Because if we were on the losing side we'd wouldn't be forced to negotiate , but rather be overrun.

If you say that in case of a looming Israeli defeat , America would step in and provide Israel with military shipments or so , that takes us back to the strong side.

Would make the situation worse, bet you

that's clearly a matter of opinion.
I see it as realistic , in the current order of things in the world.

[Alinestra Covelia]

The only cure that I found was to reformat the hard drive and install 98. I have heard that 2000 can work well but have not got a copy of my own. It seems that Microsoft is more interested in just pushing out a barely-beta version of the operating system, and then stripping all DOS functions so you have no backup when the main system goes wrong. Your only recourse is to constantly go online and check at their website (which requires you to register for something ominous sounding called a "Microsoft passport") and then searching for hours for the updates you require.

As you can see, Millennium Edition sucks goat chunks. >

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


Rufus' Jordan plan is the best one presented here so far. I'm the third American who thinks so to say so. Perhaps you are the one in need of an education in American values. Your hatred of Israel has been palpable from the first post of yours I saw on an ME thread. You talk about peace and justice just like those lefty losers in the 1980s. What they really mean:

First of all, I do not hate Israel: this is the oldest cheap excuse of those who back Israel. I find their policies in the occupied territories repulsive andf I do hate those policies- but israel has the right to exist within its recognized borders, and they can do within those borders what they want. BUt they don't have the right, never will, to dictate to 2.8 million human beings how they will live without giving them a say.

Peace = The U.S. backed side (in this case Israel) unilaterally disarms

Justice = Nature takes it's course.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

I don't see you as believing any differently. You think Israel is morally wrong because their state somehow violated your sense of fair play in 1948. You don't care that a vast majority of the Israeli public was born there, while a vast majority of the Palestinian refugees were not. You don't have any real solutions for dealing with a nuclear weapon armed country which has never been defeated in a conventional war other than to have the entire world gang up on it and basically destroy it in stages. Good luck finding a powerful enough state willing to walk point.

First of all, your demographic statement is, well, ludicrous. The vast majority of israelis are the decendents of recent immigrants, while the vast majority of Palestinians are decendents of people living there long before 1948. To state otherwise is to ignore textbook history. This is far more true for the occupied territories. Any person older than 34 in any settlement was not born there, period, because the settlemnts did not exist. Most palestinians in the occupied territories are refugees, born in what is today Israel, who fled to these areas in 1948. And on top of that are all the Palestinians who live in the villages in which their relatives have lived for centuries- far longer than the existence of Tel Aviv.
As for the 'nuclear armed bit', those nukes meant nothing towards the maintenace of the occupation. I strongly belive that the Israeli middle class wants to live in a normal country at peace, in which they would be free to interact with the world as other peoples do. If the international community forces them, through sanctions, to decide between a normal life among nations, or backing the dreams of chauvinists, crypto-facists, and religious zealots, I believe strongly that the Israeli middle class would abandon the right.

Any solution has to be a bridge between reason and fairness and a realistic appraisal of the power dynamics. The Palestinians murder civilians every day, and then complain about Israeli massacres. This (Ge)pap is produced mainly for the benefit of the European press. If the Israelis ever decide to massacre the Palestians there will be no doubt about it. The Palestinian casualties of the whole 'second intafada' would be exceeded in the first hours of the application of a significant fraction of Isreal's military power. This is the reality that the Palestinian's must confront. It is the reality which has their much more numerous and better armed Arab brothers standing on the sidelines. The Palestinians have had the luxury of the fig leaf of being an unarmed non-state entity. They may yet force the Israelis to recognize them unilaterally and then declare war upon them.

Power differential is meanisgless when speaking of morals and justice, which you, im sorry, seem to be rather ignorant of, or contemptuous about. The power differential between Poland and germany was large in 1939- would you state that Poland should have surrendered the Danzig Corridor and other lands, just to be realistic about 'power differentials'? And then, of course, the power differential between the residents of the warsaw ghetto and the Wehrmacht was huge- should the residents have gladly steped on the cattle cars as a recognition of their lack of power? Do Palestinians committ acts of terrorism? Yes they do, I have nevver said otherwise. But how the US and Israel deal with them is instructive of those american values I speak of. The US went after those responsible while trying to provide aid to the vast majority of the population, to relieve their missery. israel punishes aall palestiinas for the acts of a few, which is the same reasoning of those few. I reject wholeheartedly any notion of collective punishment, any colectivism, which seems to be your basis of analysis. An innocent palestinian can't be forced to give up their property rights, their civic rights, their human rights, because another Palestiians, committed a crime. This is wholy unamerican. To agree with the 'they are part of' logic is to say that soemthing like 9/11 is justifiable because the US is Osama's enemy, and thus all Americans are fair targets.

Rufus' idea understands the power differential, and achieves a seperation by moving the weaker party to a safer place, and disarming to the extent possible the thorny issue of Jerusalem. Neither side is ready for an agreement that in any way is acceptable to the other. Once the two side fight a while in a true test of strength, the Palestinians will be much more willing to accept a plan like Rufus'.

'Battles of strenghts and wills'? Hmmm, how Nazi.... The Palestinians people have the right to excersise sorveriegnty over their homes, so do israelis, so does the Kingdom of Jordan. Rufus's idea, which interestingly enough is a very common one among the israeli right wing, will never occur. It has been relegated to the dustbin of history, along with your mentality Sikander. Notions based on simple force have shown their moral emptyness and the horrors (the Gulag, Mathuausen, Rwanda) they lead to. Your time, Sikander, has come and gone. Get used to it.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by GePap
I reject wholeheartedly any notion of collective punishment, any colectivism, which seems to be your basis of analysis. An innocent palestinian can't be forced to give up their property rights, their civic rights, their human rights, because another Palestiians, committed a crime. This is wholy unamerican.

[Az]

Mind you , the kingdom of Jordan is an artificial country. It's barely a geographical region.

It's sovereignety is the product of pure imperialist goals of Great Britain , 'Divide and Conquer'.

Do you agree that Israel has the right to exist a jewish state , with mosty equal rights ? Then can it defend itself ? thank you.

[Jules]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
The only cure that I found was to reformat the hard drive and install 98. I have heard that 2000 can work well but have not got a copy of my own. It seems that Microsoft is more interested in just pushing out a barely-beta version of the operating system, and then stripping all DOS functions so you have no backup when the main system goes wrong. Your only recourse is to constantly go online and check at their website (which requires you to register for something ominous sounding called a "Microsoft passport") and then searching for hours for the updates you require.

As you can see, Millennium Edition sucks goat chunks. >

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

Ok, so if I'm following the argument here: we could "reformat" the entire Middle East, presumably employing some kind of Genesis Device technology, and then deposit new life forms there that won't be antagonistic to one another. Do I have the idea?

Either that or wrong thread Alinestra.

[Caesar the Great]

the entire world turns away for 1 year....

whoevers left there wins

[Eli]

Yes!

WMD are allowed, right?

[Az]

Jules : I am glad I wasn't the only one who was pussled by this reply.