NationStates

I think that the West Bank and Gaza should be under Palestinian administration. To prevent any fighting or destruction of historical artifacts important to Jews and Muslims alike, the City of Jerusalem should be a special case; such that both Israel and Palestine should have condominium over it, the responsibility of enforcing a demilitarized zone around it, and agree to have open borders through that city.

Estado Mexicanos wrote:I think that the West Bank and Gaza should be under Palestinian administration. To prevent any fighting or destruction of historical artifacts important to Jews and Muslims alike, the City of Jerusalem should be a special case; such that both Israel and Palestine should have condominium over it, the responsibility of enforcing a demilitarized zone around it, and agree to have open borders through that city.

Alternatively we could burn Jerusalem to the ground.

Vilatania wrote:

Estado Mexicanos wrote:I think that the West Bank and Gaza should be under Palestinian administration. To prevent any fighting or destruction of historical artifacts important to Jews and Muslims alike, the City of Jerusalem should be a special case; such that both Israel and Palestine should have condominium over it, the responsibility of enforcing a demilitarized zone around it, and agree to have open borders through that city.

Alternatively we could burn Jerusalem to the ground.

Because hey, the Dome of the Rock is Indestructible!

Gauthier wrote:

Vilatania wrote:Alternatively we could burn Jerusalem to the ground.

Because hey, the Dome of the Rock is Indestructible!

I can't tell if your being sarcastic...?

The Third Nova Terra of Scrin wrote:

Judah wrote:There will never be a "Palestinian state", and no progress of any kind can be made until Hamas is destroyed.

Hamas are monsters.

Israel are monsters too.
Everybody just needs to fucking get along. The UN partition was pretty shitty towards the Palestinians, but at least it's better than what's happening now.

Estado Mexicanos wrote:I think that the West Bank and Gaza should be under Palestinian administration. To prevent any fighting or destruction of historical artifacts important to Jews and Muslims alike, the City of Jerusalem should be a special case; such that both Israel and Palestine should have condominium over it, the responsibility of enforcing a demilitarized zone around it, and agree to have open borders through that city.

We give the UN power over Jerusalem, like what the LoN did with Danzig.
But then we'd have to make the UN have some power and will to do anything useful. Woops.

Sebtopiaris wrote:

The Third Nova Terra of Scrin wrote:
Hamas are monsters.

Israel are monsters too.
Everybody just needs to fucking get along. The UN partition was pretty shitty towards the Palestinians, but at least it's better than what's happening now.

Unfair by offering Palestine half of Palestine after they lost 9/10 of it in a war?

UN sound likes assholes!

British Home Counties wrote:

Sebtopiaris wrote:Israel are monsters too.
Everybody just needs to fucking get along. The UN partition was pretty shitty towards the Palestinians, but at least it's better than what's happening now.

Unfair by offering Palestine half of Palestine after they lost 9/10 of it in a war?

UN sound likes assholes!

UN didn't really doing anything concrete regarding Palestine-Israel problems.

Sebtopiaris wrote:

Estado Mexicanos wrote:I think that the West Bank and Gaza should be under Palestinian administration. To prevent any fighting or destruction of historical artifacts important to Jews and Muslims alike, the City of Jerusalem should be a special case; such that both Israel and Palestine should have condominium over it, the responsibility of enforcing a demilitarized zone around it, and agree to have open borders through that city.

We give the UN power over Jerusalem, like what the LoN did with Danzig.
But then we'd have to make the UN have some power and will to do anything useful. Woops.

Because what the LoN did with Danzig totally worked out, and definitely wasn't a major cause of the most destructive war in human history. I am absolutely sure that imitating it would have no possible complications caused by religious fanatics, because there aren't any of those in Jerusalem.

Angleter wrote:

Vilatania wrote:Wouldn't it just be easier if we gave Israel to Palestine?

No. If anything, you've managed to hit on the most difficult 'plan' possible, regardless of whether it's the right thing to do (which it isn't). Considering that Israel will never willingly be 'given' to the Palestinians, it would involve the neutralisation of Israel's nuclear capabilities, the comprehensive defeat of the world's 11th strongest military, the absorption of what would probably be over 5 million fleeing Israeli Jews, dealing with a probably several-hundred-thousand-strong Jewish insurgency willing to fight to the death, and justifying all of this to the rest of the world.

That would still be preferable over the status quo.

Vilatania wrote:

Alsheb wrote:
Err... yes they do. Everyone everywhere has the right to protect and defend ones country, by lethal force if need be.
Saying that they're "not allowed to" is like condemning the Resistance of World War II for their "violence" against the occupiers.

I doubt murdering civilians is included in that logic.

Of course not. But in how far is a colonist who is illegally infringing upon another sovereign country still really a civilian?

Why not through hamas?

Alyakia wrote:

Angleter wrote:
A potentially-nuclear war involving at least several hundred thousand deaths and the third-largest* single displacement of people (or rather, of an ethnic group) in human history in order to wipe an internationally-recognised sovereign democracy off the map and give its territory to a group of kleptocratic gangsters who fought an as yet still unresolved civil war with their jihadi rivals less than a decade ago? Great.

*Behind the Partition of India and the post-WW2 ethnic cleansing of Germans.

to be fair suggesting massive ethnic cleansing seems to be just one of the features of these threads

Usually that's more of a Northern Ireland thread sort of thing, though.

CTALNH wrote:Why not through hamas?

Good question, actually. I guess Hamas brings up the scared white man syndrome in many people here.

Alsheb wrote:

CTALNH wrote:Why not through hamas?

Good question, actually. I guess Hamas brings up the scared white man syndrome in many people here.

No it brings up the anti dirty terrorist syndrome

Angleter wrote:

Alyakia wrote:
to be fair suggesting massive ethnic cleansing seems to be just one of the features of these threads

Usually that's more of a Northern Ireland thread sort of thing, though.

So when the colonists actually do commit ethnic cleansing, massacre the local population, break international law time and again and colonise sovereign lands of another country, that's a -okay; but when the people that have been driven out, massacred and persecuted for so long want their lands back, that's suddenly "calling for ethnic cleansing"?

Alsheb wrote:

Angleter wrote:
Usually that's more of a Northern Ireland thread sort of thing, though.

colonise sovereign lands of another country

Which one? As far as I am aware the British Mandate ended the day before Israel became a state.

Alsheb wrote:

Angleter wrote:
Usually that's more of a Northern Ireland thread sort of thing, though.

So when the colonists actually do commit ethnic cleansing, massacre the local population, break international law time and again and colonise sovereign lands of another country, that's a -okay; but when the people that have been driven out, massacred and persecuted for so long want their lands back, that's suddenly "calling for ethnic cleansing"?

That'd be called "Zionism".

CTALNH wrote:Why not through hamas?

Because Hamas is a terrorist organization that will never offer any peaceful alternative to th crisis in Israel? The only people who support Hamas in the West are self proclaimed marxist hipsters and raving anti-Semites.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

CTALNH wrote:Why not through hamas?

Because Hamas is a terrorist organization that will never offer any peaceful alternative to th crisis in Israel? The only people who support Hamas in the West are self proclaimed marxist hipsters and raving anti-Semites.

Consitering Marxist groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine it silly for hardline communist to support a party that they would otherwise despise.

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:

CTALNH wrote:Why not through hamas?

Because Hamas is a terrorist organization that will never offer any peaceful alternative to th crisis in Israel? The only people who support Hamas in the West are self proclaimed marxist hipsters and raving anti-Semites.

"there can never be peace in ireland until the foreign oppressive british presence is removed"

Insaeldor wrote:

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
Because Hamas is a terrorist organization that will never offer any peaceful alternative to th crisis in Israel? The only people who support Hamas in the West are self proclaimed marxist hipsters and raving anti-Semites.

Consitering Marxist groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine it silly for hardline communist to support a party that they would otherwise despise.

I don't support or particularly like Hamas. In fact, I despise the Muslim Brotherhood they are internationally aligned with. I just think it's highly hypocritical to maintain a position of "Palestine, but without Hamas", while Hamas is obviously very popular in Palestine, in terms of support and electoral succes.
It's frankly offensive and highly arrogant to be deciding from ones armchair in the First World that Hamas should be left out of any peace deal, simply because of allegations of them being "terrorist". That designation is frankly stupid to use against Hamas alone, since one could just as easily denounce Fatah, the PFLP and the DFLP as "terrorist" organisations.

British Home Counties wrote:

Alsheb wrote:
colonise sovereign lands of another country

Which one? As far as I am aware the British Mandate ended the day before Israel became a state.

The State of Palestine is a sovereign country, mate. The Israeli colonies in the West Bank are illegal in the eyes of every law, including the official law of Israel itself, by the way.

About the Nakba: the fact that the zionists declared Israel's independence and then proceeded to literally massacre and ethnically cleanse their way through Palestine doesn't really make their claim a legitimate one.

Alsheb wrote:

British Home Counties wrote:
Which one? As far as I am aware the British Mandate ended the day before Israel became a state.

The State of Palestine is a sovereign country, mate. The Israeli colonies in the West Bank are illegal in the eyes of every law, including the official law of Israel itself, by the way.

About the Nakba: the fact that the zionists declared Israel's independence and then proceeded to literally massacre and ethnically cleanse their way through Palestine doesn't really make their claim a legitimate one.

not really, normally to have sovereignty you need territorial control, which, even according to you, palestine does not have, therefore palestine is not a state.

HaMakom wrote:No, the land of Israel has always been and should remain Jewish land.

Why should we be prioritising terrorist anti-Semites over the Kurds anyway?

There is no "Christian Land". There is no "Muslim Land". Why do the Jews get a "Land"? What makes land exclusively for Jews? Religion is between a person and his/her God (if they believe in a higher power). If a religion can have a country, why can't the more than 8 million who have been driven from their homes or killed have a country? Saying Israel is "Jewish Land" implies discrimination and hatred towards all others. You can't tell me that ANY land is exclusive to ANY religion. Sounds a lot like Hitler if you ask me.

Furthermore, Judaism has not been around since the dawn of time, so you can't state that "Israel has always been... Jewish land".

One last thrashing from a person with an IQ that's more than 2 digits: Hamas, Fatah and other resistance groups are not anti-Semitic. In fact, if you read a history book, you will find that the Arab culture is classified as "Semitic". These groups exist to stop the development of Israeli settlements, an act that is illegal under international law, and was renounced by Israel under the Oslo Accords. As soon as Israel violated those accords by building settlements, Palestinians had just as much right to disregard the Accords themselves.

Good day to you, Sir (or Mam, I have no idea )