Zionism

[Timber Loftis]

Yeah, MagiK, I do know why. 'Cause Israel's in the Old Boys Club. Or maybe because it's hard to take a lot of the Palestinian arguments to heart with hezbollah, etc running amuck.

Look, your points about them being surrounded by enemies is well-taken. As is any statement regarding how difficult it must be to live with constant random terrorism, as we are beginning to find out.

I think what's best for all, if we want to try for peace between Israel and Palestine, if anything is possible at all, is the creation of a Palestinian state. In the modern day, political country boundaries and ethnic boundaries are too intertwined. We keep having problems between ethnic groups who got split up or crammed together under the same government during the redrawing of the maps of Europe and the Middle East upon the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Look at Serbia, Kosovo, etc. Same problem. Political boundaries that ignored ethnic boundaries. Fixable? Probably not.

[Gammit]

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Azred. Until two arguing people can sit down on their own and figure things out or kill each other, the fighting will continue. I'd love to have a 3rd party step in and help, but this doesn't seem like it has been effective as of yet.

P.S. the Jews and the Arabs were descended from two brothers? Only if you believe the Bible...

[Charean]

TL, I like that idea of giving Palistine thier own state. That has possibilities if they are willing to give up some of their homeland.

Query - wasn't there something in the last summit they had (Israel and Palestine that took place in the States, I think) that Israel was willing to give a lot of concessions to make peace and Palestine said no, they want all the land that the Jews are occupying?

I don't remember the details at all, and was wondering if someone else did.

[/)eathKiller]

I blame Harry Truman...

for a number things...

*grumble* Shoulda' let McArthur go hogwild *grumble*

And I think that the middle east crisis situation would be one of them...

*grumble* nuked scuicidal civilians *grumble*

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Charean: TL, I like that idea of giving Palistine thier own state. That has possibilities if they are willing to give up some of their homeland. Query - wasn't there something in the last summit they had (Israel and Palestine that took place in the States, I think) that Israel was willing to give a lot of concessions to make peace and Palestine said no, they want all the land that the Jews are occupying? I don't remember the details at all, and was wondering if someone else did.

Once again, thats the occupied territories you're thinking of. They were offered a state where all access would be through Isreal, all water supply would come through Isreal, and they would only get back 80% of the Occupied territories. Arafat would probably have gone for it himself as he is quite moderate (hence he can't control his own movement - the vocal ones tend to be the more radical i.e. the people he could never control will never agree with him) but if he had have done then the Palestinian Authority would have completely broken down. A lot of the major groups would have rejected it out of hand. I don't entirely blame them either. The land in question was taken through conquest and the state would only have been a name - they would have gained no independance whatsoever from Isreal. At least give the Palestinians their dignity...

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yeah, MagiK, I do know why. 'Cause Israel's in the Old Boys Club. Or maybe because it's hard to take a lot of the Palestinian arguments to heart with hezbollah, etc running amuck. Look, your points about them being surrounded by enemies is well-taken. As is any statement regarding how difficult it must be to live with constant random terrorism, as we are beginning to find out. I think what's best for all, if we want to try for peace between Israel and Palestine, if anything is possible at all, is the creation of a Palestinian state. In the modern day, political country boundaries and ethnic boundaries are too intertwined. We keep having problems between ethnic groups who got split up or crammed together under the same government during the redrawing of the maps of Europe and the Middle East upon the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Look at Serbia, Kosovo, etc. Same problem. Political boundaries that ignored ethnic boundaries. Fixable? Probably not.

Im not sure what "Old Boys" club you are talking about? I can't seem to find a single nation other than the US that publicly supports them. I admit that I could be wrong about that though, It may just be a lack of exposure to enough foreign press sources. Even in the US I don't see a whole lot of open support. for Israel.

I am however starting to see why you believe this is not a fixable solution, at least not without some form of genocide on one side or the other.

From the televised and print news, all I can see is that every time Israel tries to do anytrhing to lead toward peace, some group of nut cases sends in another wave of suicide bombers to piss Israel off, which scuttles the process. What can be done?

Originally posted by Moiraine: Incomplete. The British issued the Palestine Mandate on behalf of the the Council League of Nations. The League of Nations is the ancestor of the U.N. It was created just after WWI, at the initiative of Woodrow Wilson, then president of the U.S.A. The original members of the League of Nations were the victorious Allies of World War I (with the exception of the United States, whose Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles) and most of the neutral nations. The Council of the League of Nations included 5 permanent members (United States, which never took its seat, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan), and 4 non-permanent members elected by the Assembly of all League of Nations members. About the Palestinian Mandate, Britain was only the entrusted Mandatory of the League of Nations.

Thank you for the additional Information. The Websites and History texts at Howard University didn't really go into the details about all that. They basicly outlined what I posted.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Charean: TL, I like that idea of giving Palistine thier own state. That has possibilities if they are willing to give up some of their homeland. Query - wasn't there something in the last summit they had (Israel and Palestine that took place in the States, I think) that Israel was willing to give a lot of concessions to make peace and Palestine said no, they want all the land that the Jews are occupying? I don't remember the details at all, and was wondering if someone else did.

Once again, thats the occupied territories you're thinking of. They were offered a state where all access would be through Isreal, all water supply would come through Isreal, and they would only get back 80% of the Occupied territories. Arafat would probably have gone for it himself as he is quite moderate (hence he can't control his own movement - the vocal ones tend to be the more radical i.e. the people he could never control will never agree with him) but if he had have done then the Palestinian Authority would have completely broken down. A lot of the major groups would have rejected it out of hand. I don't entirely blame them either. The land in question was taken through conquest and the state would only have been a name - they would have gained no independance whatsoever from Isreal. At least give the Palestinians their dignity...[/QUOTE]I believe the sticking point was Jerusalem. The Palestinians demanded it for their capital and the Israelis won't give it up because it is the center of their faith. The logical thing to do would be to make it and open city much like the Vatican, and maybe rotate the leadership there once ever four years or so. They could even hire Swiss Guards to keep order. Or (shudder the thought!) place it under the control of the UN.

No matter what happens, at some point the Israelis will have to pull all the settlers out of the West Bank and Gaza. They can't defend them forever. They could turn over Gaza in a week if they wanted too. There are only a few thousand settlers there.

There are two more things that everyone here hasn't taken account of. One is, how dependent the Palestianians are on the Israelis. The Palestianians have no economy to speak of. What would they live on? they can't go on living like they do now, forever. Just like the Isrealies can't defend the settlements forever. Most Palestianians that have jobs work in Isreal itself.

One more thing. I think a Palestianian state, as Arafat's territory is today (divided between Gaza and the West Bank) isn't very practical. they are divided by Isreal. How do you work around that. If you take land from Israel to bridge the gap, then you split Israel into. Geographically, it's almost unworkable.

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: One more thing. I think a Palestianian state, as Arafat's territory is today (divided between Gaza and the West Bank) isn't very practical. they are divided by Isreal. How do you work around that. If you take land from Israel to bridge the gap, then you split Israel into. Geographically, it's almost unworkable.

Which brings up another question.. What drugs were they smoking when they divided the Jewish lands into three disconnected parts? That was sheer brilliance

[ 10-29-2002, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: One more thing. I think a Palestianian state, as Arafat's territory is today (divided between Gaza and the West Bank) isn't very practical. they are divided by Isreal. How do you work around that. If you take land from Israel to bridge the gap, then you split Israel into. Geographically, it's almost unworkable.

Which brings up another question.. What drugs were they smoking when they divided the Jewish lands into three disconnected parts? That was sheer brilliance [/QUOTE]Or maddness! Must have been hash!