Israel vs. Palestine

[Disserbia]

What about Jerusalem?

Have both countries use it as a capital and have it be an extremely open city to visitors. It'd ensure some level of cooperation.

Security would be an issue there, a much bigger issue if it were a two state solution than if the Israelis and Palestinians found peace between themselves.

[Greater Tezdrian]

I support Israel to the extent that one could hypothetically call me a Zionist and I wouldn't be able to raise objection.

[Evraim]

I support Israel to the extent that one could hypothetically call me a Zionist and I wouldn't be able to raise objection.

What's wrong with being a Zionist, you Zionist!?

[Spiritwolf]

I support Israel to the extent that one could hypothetically call me a Zionist and I wouldn't be able to raise objection.

I support Israel to the point that Zionist's are telling me I'm too extreme............ Thats quite a shock to me as I never considered the possibility of being "too extreme". That is the benefit of speaking and listening among many, from all over the world, comparing ideas and learning. Salute!

[Third Mexican Empire]

Seeing how Palestine has dropped its claims to nothing more than the 1967 borders, I'm inclined to say Palestine.

A two-state solution.

Basically this

There's really no excuse for Israel, anymore

[Individual Impersonators]

Seeing how Palestine has dropped its claims to nothing more than the 1967 borders, I'm inclined to say Palestine.

A two-state solution.

Basically this

There's really no excuse for Israel, anymore

Making a statement is easy. Believing a country which produces refuguees from its own lawless behaviours, corruption and terrorist groups is difficult.

Israel has tried making peace offers in the past only to be met with more violence. Its not as easy as just withdrawing as such a move would probably cause a surge in attacks. For many in Palestine the problem is the fact the Israel exists. In an idea world this could be reached but its unfortunately more complicated.

[Evraim]

I support Israel to the extent that one could hypothetically call me a Zionist and I wouldn't be able to raise objection.

I support Israel to the point that Zionist's are telling me I'm too extreme............ Thats quite a shock to me as I never considered the possibility of being "too extreme". That is the benefit of speaking and listening among many, from all over the world, comparing ideas and learning. Salute!

I'm still waiting for people to recognize that "Zionist" is a rather vague term in actuality, and that it is a rather sensible position to assume considering the historical context.

[Alikhaa]

Basically this

There's really no excuse for Israel, anymore

Making a statement is easy. Believing a country which produces refuguees from its own lawless behaviours, corruption and terrorist groups is difficult.

Israel has tried making peace offers in the past only to be met with more violence. Its not as easy as just withdrawing as such a move would probably cause a surge in attacks. For many in Palestine the problem is the fact the Israel exists. In an idea world this could be reached but its unfortunately more complicated.

When "peace offers" are accompanied by continued illegal settling advancement, it's easy to see that these public offers are only for the benefit of appearing reasonable to the international community and not from any sincere attempt to achieve peace.

As for Zionism appearing to be a reasonable philosophy, Evraim, should every people oppressed through history be granted their own land somewhere else and in doing so displace an indigenous population? This is not reasonable, this is a way to spread more pain. It's not a valid solution to the problem of oppression. Oppression should be extinguished, not simply escaped.

[Evraim]

Making a statement is easy. Believing a country which produces refuguees from its own lawless behaviours, corruption and terrorist groups is difficult.

Israel has tried making peace offers in the past only to be met with more violence. Its not as easy as just withdrawing as such a move would probably cause a surge in attacks. For many in Palestine the problem is the fact the Israel exists. In an idea world this could be reached but its unfortunately more complicated.

When "peace offers" are accompanied by continued illegal settling advancement, it's easy to see that these public offers are only for the benefit of appearing reasonable to the international community and not from any sincere attempt to achieve peace.

As for Zionism appearing to be a reasonable philosophy, Evraim, should every people oppressed through history be granted their own land somewhere else and in doing so displace an indigenous population? This is not reasonable, this is a way to spread more pain. It's not a valid solution to the problem of oppression. Oppression should be extinguished, not simply escaped.

Prime Minister Barak offered to cease the construction of settlements and withdraw a significant number of those already established in Palestinian territory. Unfortunately, Arafat rejected this proposal for a variety of (rather good) reasons. I shall reiterate that Israel has far less to gain from any type of settlement than Palestine including incuring security risks.

It depends on how they go about it. The fact of the matter is that a significant portion of the territory was legally purchased from Palestinian proprietors by Jewish settlers fleeing Europe, primarily from Russia. At the time, Palestine was not a recognized state. It existed first as an Ottoman province and later as a British Mandate. As the Jewish population increased through both legal and illegal means (White Papers, etc.), and with anti-Semitism increasing in Europe, extremists in the Arab population began to commit acts of violence against both newly founded and long established Jewish communities in the region. This had been occuring even under Ottoman hegemony, but the frequency of such persecution increased drastically after the creation of the British Mandate. The Irgun and similar Zionist terrorists formed soon after this, and this caused even more violence. The manner in which Israel was established really shouldn't be all that controversial considering that a Civil War was the alternative.

[FPCCOS]

i would hesitate to say that i support a state that was founded on injustice and commits vast human rights violations. In addition, the Palestinians have been actually quite generous in their negotiation with the Israelis, offering vast tracts of land and even giving the Israelis a part of Jerusalem as their capital. All of their proposals have been rejected by the Israelis who are slowly trying to destroy any chance of an independent Palestinian state with its capital as East Jerusalem by building more and more settlements.

[Evraim]

i would hesitate to say that i support a state that was founded on injustice and commits vast human rights violations. In addition, the Palestinians have been actually quite generous in their negotiation with the Israelis, offering vast tracts of land and even giving the Israelis a part of Jerusalem as their capital. All of their proposals have been rejected by the Israelis who are slowly trying to destroy any chance of an independent Palestinian state with its capital as East Jerusalem by building more and more settlements.

Couldn't one argue that Palestine was also founded on injustice and vast human rights violations?

Also, the concessions offered by the Palestinians generally amount to little more than official recognition of things which Israel already has. All of Jerusalem is firmly under the thumb of the Israelis, as are the vast tracts of land offered in the negotiations. From a practical standpoint, Israel gains very, very little.

[FPCCOS]

Please explain how Palestine was founded on injustice and commits vast human rights violations?

Although I agree with you that Israel has very little to gain from negotiations, they're just playing for time so that they can build more settlements and expand their territory.

However, what I don't understand is that after WW2 and the Holocaust, why were the Jews given Palestine by the British. Is it not more just that Germany which had almost wiped out the Jews give them land in Germany, instead of effectively colonizing the land of another people who had not massacred the Jews whose land was taken in the name of the Torah saying that Palestine is their promised land. Most Israelis are just immigrants and so should return to the countries they lived in before traveling to Palestine at the outbreak of WW2 and the entire territory should be returned to the Palestinians and if any indigenous Jew wants to continue living there then thats fine. Just vacate the land you stole from the Palestinians.

[New Tollan]

Under this plan Jerusalem would be an extremely open city to visitors, all who wished to come for religious purposes would still be able to do so, now and in the future. This should ease concerns within Israel and throughout the world that any holy site or religion would suffer in any way. The reason for Israel taking this unilateral action is that there is no "level of cooperation". Unilateral action is required where bilateral negotiation has failed. Allowing a "split capital" within the city is out of the question.

You don't split it. You separate the city from both countries, have both cooperate within the city.

It would work.

Because of your and Evraim's posts on these last few pages, I read the entire thread. A bit of a doozy.

Would the same concept work from the United Kingdom with Israel and Palestine, slightly tailored? Israel and Palestine would be two separate countries, with Tel Aviv and Ramallah as the countries' capitals, and Jerusalem as the capital of the sovereign state?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

The Jews were there first, bub. They got kicked out, and now they're back.

Muslims believe very strongly in marriage, as do I, so here's an analogy we can relate to.

I get married. Then, I get in a plane crash, and I'm stranded on a desert island for 20 years.

I get home, and find my wife has remarried. Who has a stronger claim on my wife? Me, or her present husband?

[New Tollan]

I get home, and find my wife has remarried. Who has a stronger claim on my wife? Me, or her present husband?

Neither. The woman should be allowed to choose whom to stay with.

[Cromarty]

The Jews were there first, bub. They got kicked out, and now they're back.

Muslims believe very strongly in marriage, as do I, so here's an analogy we can relate to.

I get married. Then, I get in a plane crash, and I'm stranded on a desert island for 20 years.

I get home, and find my wife has remarried. Who has a stronger claim on my wife? Me, or her present husband?

Then let's kick the Jews out and send them back to where their founder originated: Mesopotamia.

[Divair]

The Jews were there first, bub. They got kicked out, and now they're back.

Muslims believe very strongly in marriage, as do I, so here's an analogy we can relate to.

I get married. Then, I get in a plane crash, and I'm stranded on a desert island for 20 years.

I get home, and find my wife has remarried. Who has a stronger claim on my wife? Me, or her present husband?

Then let's kick the Jews out and send them back to where their founder originated: Mesopotamia.

Let's kick the USA out. The native Americans were there first.


Now that I think about it, that isn't such a bad plan..

[Tmutarakhan]

Seeing how Palestine has dropped its claims to nothing more than the 1967 borders, I'm inclined to say Palestine.

One of the Palestinian factions (an important one, controlling the West Bank) has said it would settle for the 1967 borders; the others (including the one that rules in Gaza as well as those with no official status but lots of explosives) have not. The 1967 borders are out of the question anyhow: they were horribly unstable and a constant source of trouble. A fair mutual land-swap (that is, Israel cannot keep anything past the old line without giving in return real estate of equal value, not just patches of desert) is the way forward.

A two-state solution.[/quote[
The Palestinians must be given functional independence or this will never end.

And really, I'm not sure why America thinks Israel is such a valuable ally.

They are hyper-productive in scientific and engineering fields.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

I get home, and find my wife has remarried. Who has a stronger claim on my wife? Me, or her present husband?

Neither. The woman should be allowed to choose whom to stay with.

Is that what the Qu'ran says?

Qu'ran, as far as I'm aware, says you can only have one husband. Therefore, by remarrying, she has taken a second husband while the first was alive, which is forbidden, so the first husband has all the claim on her when he returns.



Another question. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, did he have peace negotiations with the Meccans, and give them their land back in a two state solution? Of course not. Why then, should the Jews, who beat all the Islamic invaders and wiped the floor with them, be held to a different standard?

[The UK in Exile]

Neither. The woman should be allowed to choose whom to stay with.

Is that what the Qu'ran says?

Qu'ran, as far as I'm aware, says you can only have one husband. Therefore, by remarrying, she has taken a second husband while the first was alive, which is forbidden, so the first husband has all the claim on her when he returns.



Another question. When Muhammad conquered Mecca, did he have peace negotiations with the Meccans, and give them their land back in a two state solution? Of course not. Why then, should the Jews, who beat all the Islamic invaders and wiped the floor with them, be held to a different standard?

since the quran says she only has one husband, she can't remarry whilst still married to the first one. if she's allowed to re-marry the second one is her legitimate wife.

not that it matters since its got no bearing on the issue.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

What if she goes to a different city, leaves her husband, and is remarried?

You're just talking out your butt now.

The point is, the Palestinians ARE the second husband in this case.

[Coppingham]

Israel FTW!

Israel will probably be the center of the next world war, though.

[Unassuming Pacifists]

Seeing how Palestine has dropped its claims to nothing more than the 1967 borders, I'm inclined to say Palestine.

A two-state solution.

Basically this

There's really no excuse for Israel, anymore

The 1967 borders are completely indefensible with the narrowest bit of the country being but a few miles wide.

[The UK in Exile]

Basically this

There's really no excuse for Israel, anymore

The 1967 borders are completely indefensible with the narrowest bit of the country being but a few miles wide.

better use the 1948 ones then.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Problem solved.