International Politics Thread

[billybob2002 0]

How much smaller?  Would it have dropped from the 56% of Palestine that the UN partition offered all the way down to the 5% of Palestine that the Jews actually owned?  And what if the Arab population of that 56% hadn't fled as refugees?  Israel would have been founded and governed by a Jewish minority; hardly the birth of a democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....son.png

The majority of land partitioned to the Jews was the Negev Desert. How many Arabs lived in the Negev Desert?  The rest of the land had large Jewish concentrations. And, it wouldn't of been governed by a Jewish minority. It was 55-45.

Quote[/b] ]

You're off by at least 1000 years.  However I suspect it will still matter more to you that it was Jewish land 2000 years ago than Muslim land 1000 years ago... or 100 years ago... or even 60 years ago.

Nah, I only care that it was once Hellenistic land.

[Bernadotte 0]

The majority of land partitioned to the Jews was the Negev Desert.

So what?  They got most of the rich coastal plain.

Ultimately, the UN offered the smaller half of Palestine that was 99% Arab to the Arabs and the larger half that was 45% Arab to the Jews. Surely a fair deal in the eyes of anyone with a racist double standard.

And, it wouldn't of been governed by a Jewish minority. It was 55-45.

How many Arabs had an opportunity to participate in Israel's first government?  Would the US still be a democracy if the Republicans were denied an opportunity to participate in government, representing just ~45% of voters?

In any case, I'd intended to ask about Israel's demographics after the 1949 armistice added another 22% of Palestine to their land area. If 700k Arabs living there hadn't become refugees Jews would definitely have governed as a minority.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]There was a Jewish kingdom 2000 years ago, long before Islam even existed (Hamas is not just fighting for their territory, but to wipe out Israel and reclaim the holy land, they've stated this on many occasions, as has Hezbollah);

yep, but History is long, and this land wasn't a jewish kingdom in 1948. if this argument is used today, lol, i'm going to reclame england for my people, because we were the first occupants

about the subject:

for me a civilian victim is only a civilain victim, i don't care to know if this civilian is Israeli or palestinian. when civilians die, this is always a tragedy.

war is always an abject solution to solve a conflict of interest (in fact all the conflicts). because there are not at all in this situation a religious problem.

the problem was created in 1948, the creation of Israel was an outlaw solution to solve the "jewish problem".

Palestinians were not consulted about the future of their land.

but this is the past and now Israel is a state.

the problem between these peoples will be solved when each government will stop to want all the entire land for them. Palestinians should keep their current land and create a real state; in my opinion they should also sell the Gaza part to Israel. this part is not viable separated from the West Bank (i mean cut from the West Bank).

and israeli people should forget the stories from holy bible, this is an imaginative story not the entire truth. they have a modern state now, the old one is lost. the attempt to colonize the West Bank is pitiful. Attempt done in the name of a book, lol!!!

Palestinian could reclame this land in the name of the genetic, at least 70% of them are apparented to the old canaanite people as the hebrews

[NoRailgunner 0]

Dont think that people will discuss problems peacefully as long as they believe the solution can be found with "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" mantra. On both side are warmongers and they dont give a damn on human rights or living in peace with their neighbors. Search around the world for people and companies who will loose power and influence if palastinians and iraelis would seriously declare peace.

[simba 0]

Read this !

http://www.jpost.com/servlet....howFull

Quote[/b] ]Rice did not end up voting for Resolution 1860, thanks to a phone conversation Olmert held with US President George Bush shortly before the vote, the prime minister told a meeting of local authority heads in Ashkelon as part of a visit to the South.

Upon receiving word that the US was planning to vote in favor of the resolution - viewed by Israel as impractical and failing to address its security concerns - Olmert demanded to get Bush on the phone, and refused to back down after being told that the president was delivering a lecture in Philadelphia. Bush interrupted his lecture to answer Olmert's call, the premier said. America could not vote in favor of such a resolution, Olmert told Bush. Soon afterwards, Rice abstained when votes were counted at the UN.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2009/sc9567.doc.htm

Quote[/b] ]Resolution 1860 (2009) Adopted by 14 in Favour, Abstention by United States;

Also Calls for Unimpeded Humanitarian Assistance, Welcomes Egyptian Initiative

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/569872

Quote[/b] ]Canada votes alone for Israel

We're the only one of 47 nations on UN rights panel to refuse to condemn military offensive in Gaza [...]

Marius Grinius, Canada's representative on the council, said the language of the motion, which accused Israel of sparking a humanitarian crisis, was "unnecessary, unhelpful and inflammatory."

He said the text failed to "clearly recognize" that Hamas rocket attacks on Israel triggered the crisis.

For me the following pic sums up pretty well

this man's stupididity :

And special for jdB : Israel democratic ?

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=29734

Quote[/b] ]700 Israelis arrested for protesting against war

In other articles, it is said that they were

mostly arabs and were arrested on suspicion of taking part in violent riots. [ynetnews.com]

Just to put things into perspective [middle-east-online] :

Quote[/b] ]In eight years: twenty Israelis died from Gaza rockets, 4,000 Israelis died from car accidents.

[sparks50 0]

So your demand is that they should fight a war with symmetrically effective Armies, and if not, it is unfair? That is ridiculous. They both actively worked towards a war like this to happen.

[Bernadotte 0]

So your demand is that they should fight a war with symmetrically effective Armies, and if not, it is unfair? That is ridiculous.

Of course, the notion of a perfectly symmetrical response is ridiculous and nobody here has claimed otherwise.  But if Israel is not morally bound to restrain its attacks then why have only ~1000 Palestinians been killed?  In fact, Israel is restraining itself.  They know they can kill around 200 innocent kids and destroy at least one UN facility per week without angering their American sponsor - especially during a period of political transition in the US - as long as there are a few Hamas heads to show for it.

Ultimately, it's not the asymmetry of the effectiveness but the effectiveness of the asymmetry that has intelligent people concerned.  After the dust settles Hamas (just like Hezbollah) will still be there and Israel will again have plenty of innocent blood on its hands. And the rockets will continue to fly because, according to Israeli intelligence, it wasn't even Hamas who was firing them:

Quote[/b] ]Despite the lull arrangement, sporadic rocket and mortar shell fire has continued, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations using the excuse of Israeli violations. Most conspicuous among those networks are the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and groups within Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in the Gaza Strip. The objective of the rocket and mortar shell fire is not only to protest so-called Israeli violations of the arrangement but to make Hamas aware of their reservations regarding the lull, especially the fact that it does not include Judea and Samaria. As in the past, internal Palestinian rivalries and power struggles make it difficult to fully implement the lull arrangement, even though Hamas has a vested interest in its implementation and the other terrorist organizations pay lip service to honoring it.

-- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, pre-war 2008

In other words, West Bank terrorists shot rockets out of Gaza in an effort derail the truce between Hama and Israel.  And it worked.  And Israel knows this even though they continue to blame Hamas for the rockets.

[Balschoiw 0]

There´s nothing better than some handy flash-boom-bang-war right before elections. The funny thing is that even military in israel now doesn´t really see any more sense in this "operation". Things are rolling out of hands if politicians decide about military operations and that´s what we see today. What do the israelis try to achieve again ?

Funny ? No. War is no popcorn-cinema and BOTH of these craphead nations should finally overcome their obstruct views of their surrounding and make a deal for god´s sake. Israel has to give some country back. Palestinians need a country, not an isolated refugee camp. The things we see today on BOTH sides of the fence are a result of that stubborn policies over there always overshadowed by the nodders in Washington who are among others responsible for such violent outbreaks as they back those outbreaks.

Set them on dry water, both of them. Isolate both and let them make a deal among themselves. No international partipipation, those 2 should have a round table and should leave it with one decision.

Else, there will always be these absurd operations and absurd terrorist reactions.

[tariq 0]

There are two conditions which must be met before any type of peace and stability is achieved (and I'm not overly optimistic that either one is close unfortunately):

1. The West must stop turning a blind eye to Israel's barbaric fits of rage (i.e., Lebanon War 2006, Gaza Invasion). If the West is truly the beacon of civilization that it claims to be, it must do away with it's racist double standards. Furthermore, it must acknowledge and take responsibility for the antisemitism that led to the creation of the Jewish state (i.e. Nazi Germany). How long will Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europeans?

2. A unified Palestine with effective deterrence. The Israeli military should not feel safe to cross into Palestinian territory whenever it wants to go on a killing binge. If we remember the 2006 war in Lebanon, Hizballah was able to greatly prevent Israeli ground forces from advancing using fairly basic AT and AA weaponry. Also remember that Israel's casualties during that war were overwhelmingly military whereas Lebanon's were overwhelmingly civilian. I'm not saying that groups like Hizballah and Hamas are perfect, certainly they have their faults and are constantly evolving, but I do believe that given more sophisticated and precise weaponry, they would choose to use it on military targets, not civilian. I simply can't understand why the Israeli military, after having committed so many massacres of civilians over the years, is somehow exempt from "terrorist" status.

[billybob2002 0]

So what? They got most of the rich coastal plain.

Ultimately, the UN offered the smaller half of Palestine that was 99% Arab to the Arabs and the larger half that was 45% Arab to the Jews. Surely a fair deal in the eyes of anyone with a racist double standard.

And the Arabs got the major aquifers. A lot of the Jewish settlement were on the rich coastal plain. Majority of the land given to the Jews was a desert. The Negev Desert was nomad territory.

Quote[/b] ]

In any case, I'd intended to ask about Israel's demographics after the 1949 armistice added another 22% of Palestine to their land area. If 700k Arabs living there hadn't become refugees Jews would definitely have governed as a minority.

And if the Arabs thought they could beat the Jews, then there wouldn't be this issue.

[JdB 151]

And if the Arabs thought they could beat the Jews, then there wouldn't be this issue.

After 2 disastrous failures you'd think they had figured out not to beat themselves with the same stick again, but not the Arabs. Anyway, some background info on the founding (of the state) of Israel, and the frictions with the Arabs/other Muslims (added because i.e. Iran is by majority Persian, not Arab) from Wikipedia:

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>[israel - 1945-1949]</span>

Quote[/b] ]After 1945 the United Kingdom became embroiled in an increasingly violent conflict with the Jews. In 1947, the British government withdrew from commitment to the Mandate of Palestine, stating it was unable to arrive at a solution acceptable to both Arabs and Jews. [1] The newly created United Nations approved the UN Partition Plan (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181) on November 29, 1947, dividing the country into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. Jerusalem was to be designated an international city – a corpus separatum – administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status. [2] The Jewish community accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee rejected it. On December 1, 1947 the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a 3-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets. Civil war began with the [3] Jews initially on the defensive but gradually moving into offense. [4] The Palestinian-Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.

[5] On May 14, 1948, the day before the end of the British Mandate, the Jewish Agency proclaimed independence, naming the country Israel. The following day five Arab countries – Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq –invaded Israel, launching the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Morocco, Sudan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia also sent troops to assist the invaders. After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established. [6] Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. Israel was admitted as a member of the United Nations on May 11, 1949. [7] During the conflict 711,000 Arabs, according to UN estimates, or about 80% of the previous Arab population, fled the country. The fate of the Palestinian refugees today is a major point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Commenting on the bold parts only:

[1] On the parts mentioned, West Bank and Gaza Strip, there was never a recognized Palestinian state, so the UN had every right to allot it to the two main resident groups (Jews and Muslims), by decree of all it's member states. It's not like the first Jew was moved there when creating the state, they were already established there.

[2]And Israel (the Jew) has always been the aggressor that created this conflict?

[3] That happens when you want to kill people, they fight back.

[4] Israel didn't ruin the Palestinian economy, the Palestinians along with their Muslims allies did in their thirst for blood. How ironic that so much of the current poverty is a result of Arab aggresion and not of those evil Jews who are blamed.

[5] Countries (without an exception countries of predominately Muslim faith) that weren't bordering Israel, and weren't even close to Israel sending troops to join in the attack, that sounds like a holy war to me, and not some territory dispute.

[6] During the 1967 war Israel was being attacked by Jordan and Egypt, who were occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip respectively, and if someone attacks your soil, you attack theres, which back then included those areas, and whining about the Israeli occupation there afterwards (they had annexed (another word for "occupied") the areas themselves earlier, shows the hypocrisy).

[7] The Arabs created the refugee camps that are on their own soil with their aggression, guess attacking Israel wasn't such a good idea after all.

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>[israel - 1947-1967]</span>

Suez crisis omitted as it had nothing to do with the territory dispute between Palestinians and Israel.

Quote[/b] ]Arab countries over the years refused to regard Israel as having a right to exist, and Arab nationalists led by Nasser called for the destruction of the state. [8] In 1967, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan massed troops close to Israeli borders, expelled UN peacekeepers and blocked Israel's access to the Red Sea. [9] Israel saw these actions as a casus belli for a pre-emptive strike that launched the Six-Day War, Israel achieved a decisive victory in which it captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights.[/b]

[8] More aggression combined with frustrating the work of the UN, blockading an area, all of this in 1967, not 2007. Israel must have learned this trick from it's Arab enemies, as they did it long before Israel contemplated it.

[9] As anyone who has ever gambled knows, you stand a chance of losing if you go "All-In".

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>[israel - 1968-1973]</span>

Quote[/b] ]The failure of the Arab states in the 1967 war led to the rise of Arab non-state actors in the conflict, most importantly the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which was committed to what it called "armed struggle as the only way to liberate the homeland". [10] In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Palestinian groups launched a wave of attacks against Israeli targets around the world, including a massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics. [11] Israel responded with Operation Wrath of God, in which those responsible for the Munich massacre were tracked down and assassinated.

On October 6, 1973, Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, [12] the Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israel. The war ended on October 26 with Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering great losses.

[10]Certainly up to that point in time, the Israeli government had always fought wars against armed opponents with conventional means, not the terrorist acts that it ironically is accused of. Shooting and bombing unarmed civilians in countries that have low security measures, truly the actions of brave warriors of Allah.

[11] Of course, what the Arabs invent, the Mossad can improve upon. An operation with a name that is too sensitive though.

[12] Israel an aggressive state by nature?

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>[israel - 1974 onwards]</span>

Quote[/b] ][13] In 1982, Israel intervened in the Lebanese Civil War to destroy the bases from which the Palestine Liberation Organization launched attacks and missiles at northern Israel. That move developed into the First Lebanon War. Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon in 1986, but maintained a borderland buffer zone until 2000. [14] The First Intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule, broke out in 1987 with waves of violence occurring in the occupied territories. Over the following six years, more than a thousand people were killed in the ensuing violence, much of which was internal Palestinian violence.

[15] Ehud Barak, elected Prime Minister in 1999, began the new millennium by withdrawing forces from Southern Lebanon and conducting negotiations with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and U.S. President Bill Clinton at the July 2000 Camp David Summit. [16] During the summit, Barak offered a plan for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but Yasser Arafat rejected it

[13] Sounds familiar.

[14] Ah, nothing like a good old string of suicide bombings and murders to sh*t on a UN council decision and impoverish themselves even further. But what's this? O_o Palestinians killing the majority of Palestinians and not those evil Jews! How unheard of!

When Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, they imprisoned, paraded with, tortured, shot through the kneecaps and executed scores of Fatah members. Where was the public outcry in the Islamic world for that? I bet if Israelis had shot some Hamas members, the riots would have been massive like they are now, and if it had been Hamas shooting IDF prisoners, the Islamic world would have been one big party, like those of after 9-11.

[15] & [16] During it's entire existence, and especially after 1973, Israel has tried to make peace with, and settle the two state solution first proposed by the UN, an organization the Palestinians/Arabs complain with for everything that happens involving Israel, but which does not seem to exist to the Arabs when they are asked to acknowledge the right to exist of Israel, consistently rejecting any such notion.

It doesn't matter what Israel does, they're Jews and therefore by default wrong in the eyes of the public opinion, but the reason behind that is another story (involving among others medieval Europe, (financial) interest and the Catholic church).

[Bernadotte 0]

And the Arabs got the major aquifers.

Yes, the UN came along and took the aquifers away from the Arabs and gave them to... um... the Arabs.  Duh.

What's your problem with that, besides the fact that it was not the UN's to give away in the first place?

A lot of the Jewish settlement were on the rich coastal plain.

So was a lot of the Arab settlement.  So what?  Again, what's your problem with that, besides the fact that it was not the UN's to give away in the first place?

[Bernadotte 0]

[1] On the parts mentioned, West Bank and Gaza Strip, there was never a recognized Palestinian state...

Following WWI, Palestine became and Class A League of Nations Mandate.  That means Palestine was at a stage of development where its existence as an independent nation could be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by Britain until such time as Palestine was able to stand alone.  Certainly nothing about any external organisation ever having the right to partition it.  Palestine had its own internationally recognised borders, currency, stamps, passports.  Even recent Israeli PM Ariel Sharon had Palestinian citizenship during the first 20 years of his life.

[2]And Israel (the Jew) has always been the aggressor that created this conflict?

Um... Check your footnote...  Israel did not even exist in 1947.

[5] Countries (without an exception countries of predominately Muslim faith) that weren't bordering Israel, and weren't even close to Israel sending troops to join in the attack...

You've conveniently ignored the fact that fighters arrived to support the Israeli side from many times more countries across the globe.

[7] The Arabs created the refugee camps that are on their own soil with their aggression, guess attacking Israel wasn't such a good idea after all.

Soldiers, civilians... I guess them Arabs are all the same to you, huh?

It doesn't matter what Israel does, they're Jews and therefore by default wrong in the eyes of the public opinion...

What dark Anti-Semitic corner of the world do you live in?  This has nothing specifically to do with Judaism.  The Israelis could be Hindus, Buddhists or Mormons and still receive at least as much criticism for their actions and inactions.  In fact, a major driver of this conflict are American Fundamentalist Christians who link the rebirth of Israel with the return of Christ.  America's outgoing president is one of them.

[Baff1 0]

There are two conditions which must be met before any type of peace and stability is achieved (and I'm not overly optimistic that either one is close unfortunately):

1. The West must stop turning a blind eye to Israel's barbaric fits of rage (i.e., Lebanon War 2006, Gaza Invasion).  If the West is truly the beacon of civilization that it claims to be, it must do away with it's racist double standards.  Furthermore, it must acknowledge and take responsibility for the antisemitism that led to the creation of the Jewish state (i.e. Nazi Germany).  How long will Palestinians have to pay for the sins of Europeans?

2. A unified Palestine with effective deterrence.  The Israeli military should not feel safe to cross into Palestinian territory whenever it wants to go on a killing binge.  If we remember the 2006 war in Lebanon, Hizballah was able to greatly prevent Israeli ground forces from advancing using fairly basic AT and AA weaponry.  Also remember that Israel's casualties during that war were overwhelmingly military whereas Lebanon's were overwhelmingly civilian.  I'm not saying that groups like Hizballah and Hamas are perfect, certainly they have their faults and are constantly evolving, but I do believe that given more sophisticated and precise weaponry, they would choose to use it on military targets, not civilian.  I simply can't understand why the Israeli military, after having committed so many massacres of civilians over the years, is somehow exempt from "terrorist" status.

It isn't.

It is widely believed to be a terrorist state by it's neighbours.

Many of them do not recognise Israel as a legitamate state.

I think there is one more method of peace that you have missed.

Utter annihilation.

One side is so utterly crushed that it's population accepts sufferage over conflict.

@Dante

Quote[/b] ]in my opinion they should also sell the Gaza part to Israel

And then go where?

No one wants them.

A vast number of Palestinians all fled into exile before.

They caused no end of problems for all the host countries and most of them got kicked out from their new homes pretty quick.

Those that were originally welcomed are no longer.

A massive influx of refugee's is the root of this crisis in the first place.

Creating another doesn't solve the problem, it spreads it.

It's just too large a migration for domestic populations to peacefully assimilate.

[Jewish-Freak 0]

I didnt follow this thread, but here's a nice and to the point presentation of what really happened in the land now known as Israel in the 20th century.

What Really Happened

Information about Arab riots perior to the establishment of the Jewish state:

1920

1921

1929

1936

[JdB 151]

What dark Anti-Semitic corner of the world do you live in? This has nothing specifically to do with Judaism. The Israelis could be Hindus, Buddhists or Mormons and still receive at least as much criticism for their actions and inactions.

Darfur, Sri Lanka, Somalia, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Afghanistan, North-West Pakistan, all recent (and mostly ongoing) conflicts in which many civilians died, and/or were the main target of Islamic extremists.

No serious protests (if at all) from the Islamic population worldwide about these since in all cases Islamic militants are doing the insurgency/terrorist work there. Basically you have to be a Jew, Christian or other non-believer in their eyes to produce the hatred and wrath in the general population of predominately Islamic countries.

When villagers in Afghanistan are executed by the Taliban, or killed by a suicide bomber you don't get any protests screaming for death to the Taliban, but when ISAF accidentally has civilians killed by stray ordnance, the public outcry is insane(ly hypocritical). The same goes for Iraq. When was the last global round of protests for bombings on market places full of civilians by extremists? Good luck on finding more than a handful of organized protests, mainly in the Western world, and against the Western world, not their religious brothers. When the US has civilians killed, the protests are on 24/7.

Islamic extremists get away with pretty much everything among members of their own faith simply for being Muslims. No matter how bad, you always support a fellow Muslim over a non-believer, you can always find a way to blame it on the non-believers.

[froggyluv 2136]

@Jewish-Freak - Well I wasn't exactly expecting full objectivity here but that video by David Horowitz is about the most obtuse depiction of the History of Israel I've ever seen. Not surprising, as Horowitz, a renowned and controversial Right-Wing firebrand once called 50,000 of America's college professors "Terrorist Sympathizers".

@JdB- Well, Bernadotte's point stands that the nature of criticism directed towards Israel's actions does not in any way imply Anti-Semiticism as your previous post suggested. There are plenty of Israel-based groups that are fully opposed to these extreme measures as well.

Edit- And as to your point on 'lack of outrage', this is similar to the disproportionate amount of 'black-on-black' homocides here in the States which receive very little media coverage, but when it spills over to other demographics, it's front page.

Yet I agree with you that there needs to be a louder voice from 'Islamic Moderates' and liberals denouncing Islamic Fanaticism.

[Bernadotte 0]

I think there is one more method of peace that you have missed.

Utter annihilation.

Oh man, that's the funniest thing I've read all week.  Thank you.  

The most effective path to peace that never gets enough attention:

Single State Solution

Israel fully annexes the West Bank and Gaza making all residents Israeli citizens.  Arabic is already an official language in Israel.  Occupation ends.  Jerusalem becomes everyone's unified capital.  Old Palestinian property claims would be settled as they were for Holocaust survivors who fled Europe.  Unrest would become a purely internal matter like in Iraq, but at least those who cooperate would eventually have an opportunity to work and escape the squalor of refugee camps.

Conquered people mostly just want to get on with their lives.  What do you think happend to all those Arabs who did not flee the 22% of Palestine that Israel annexed in 1949?  They nearly all became content Israeli citizens.  How many terrorists have been recruited from those million or so Arabs who already have Israeli citizenship?  Nearly none.  There are even Arab members of the Israeli parliament.

The single state solution has probably been implemented more often throughout history than any other because it works.  Annexation would work for Israel now just as it worked for Israel in 1949.  The whole world would breathe a sigh of relief and Palestine could finally be consigned to the history books.

[billybob2002 0]

And the Arabs got the major aquifers.

Yes, the UN came along and took the aquifers away from the Arabs and gave them to... um... the Arabs.  Duh.

What's your problem with that, besides the fact that it was not the UN's to give away in the first place?

A lot of the Jewish settlement were on the rich coastal plain.

So was a lot of the Arab settlement.  So what?  Again, what's your problem with that, besides the fact that it was not the UN's to give away in the first place?

I have no problems. You complained that Israel got the rich coastal land. I countered by stating that the Arabs got the major aquifers. The Arabs got the major aquifers because that was where a lot of Arabs lived at. The Jews got the coastal land because that was where a lot of the Jews lived at. The UN was trying to be fair.

[JdB 151]

Yet I agree with you that there needs to be a louder voice from 'Islamic Moderates' and liberals denouncing Islamic Fanaticism.

Yep. It's impossible to win the War on Terror without the support of the moderate Muslims, which the Bush administration hasn't been able to win to put it mildly. Sheer force of arms will not solve the issue, not even if we increased the size of the armed forces to that of WW2, or even to that of the end of the Cold War, which is economically impossible.

The coalition has used the term "hearts and minds" far too often without actually following up with the appropriate action.

Even if this had been done properly though, the vast majority of Middle-Eastern nations are non-democratic, or phony democracy countries that have fairly unstable governments/regimes, which benefit from the crisis throughout the region to distract their population from the problems in their own countries. Peace is not necessarily in their interest, they can't even be bothered to care for the Palestinians in their countries, let alone those in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, the only times they feign to do so is when it serves their own interest.

If anyone is going to solve this conflict, it's going to have to be the Israelis and Palestinians themselves.

My basic idea/thought about this is to:

-Sign a cease-fire;

-Have the Rafah border crossing set up properly, possibly under UN supervision to prevent weapons being smuggled;

-Open up the border for trade;

-Meanwhile start improving the public infrastructure and economy of the Gaza Strip (and West Bank too) to show the Palestinians that they can get a far better life if there is peace, and that the current situation is only making things worse;

-The IDF is to restrain the response to an attack that does happen to be as low-key as possible (I'd say none at all if no Israeli is hurt);

One would expect the support for Hamas to go down considerably if this is done right. Still, it's the Middle-East, so there will be 1001 parties on all sides trying to sabotage any peace-plan to suit their own agendas. Also logic, common sense, reason & Middle-East has never proven to be a good marriage.

[froggyluv 2136]

Very well put JdB.

It's really hard to gauge what the 'everymans' desire is on the ground in terms of general population both Arab and Israeli as they get little press coverage. Those 1001 parties you speak of make the most news by creating the most chaos.  I would venture to guess it's peace and security for the Israeli; creation+sovereignty of State for the Palestinian.

One thing I know for sure is this issue needs to take precedence in terms of International priority as these two are on the verge of ruining the party for everyone.

[Bernadotte 0]

The Arabs got the major aquifers because that was where a lot of Arabs lived at. The Jews got the coastal land because that was where a lot of the Jews lived at. The UN was trying to be fair.

Fair? What was fair about creating of a new country out of other people's land without their consent?

[JdB 151]

Fair? What was fair about creating of a new country out of other people's land without their consent?

This is the reason this conflict won't be resolved through peaceful means, and certainly not in the near future, because people keep living in the past, and keep using that past to obstruct any kind of progress for the region.

No one side is ever going to have the sole truth and righteousness on their side, or have it accepted as such by the opposing side, so that is a dead end, which has been going on for far too long, and of which we've seen enough violence as a result already.

Israel has just as much right to exist as Palestine (or however they want to name their state) does based on their history of settling and living in the land, anyone not acknowledging that is part of the problem, not of the solution.

The one state solution mentioned earlier would never work, there are just too many differences between the two. Having them at peace and steering clear of each other as much as possible would be more than sufficient. The only viable solution from a humanitarian point of view is a two state solution, asap.

[Bernadotte 0]

I would venture to guess it's peace and security for the Israeli; creation+sovereignty of State for the Palestinian.

Most people on both sides of the conflict agree that there are 5 primary issues (in no particular order):

Borders  The Palestinians seek the pre-1967 war ceasefire line prescribed by the UN Resolution 242.  The Israelis want something nearer to the path of where the new separation barrier has been built.

Jerusalem  The Palestinians want at least Arab Old Jerusalem to be their capital.  The Israelis want all of Jerusalem plus all adjoining suburban neighbourhoods that it has extended into West Bank territory.

Settlements  The Palestinians, UN and the international community including the US, have always regarded settlements as an illegal obstacle to peace.  Many Israelis agree, but are in no hurry to dismantle them until there's progress on the other main issues.  Most Israelis support leaving in place the largest settlements adjoining Israel and giving other land of equal size/quality to the Palestinians in exchange.

Right of Return  Even though it might now only effect a very small portion of Palestinians who lost their properties 60 years ago, the Palestinians regard this as an important symbol of reconciliation and an essential pillar of any longterm agreement.  The Israelis remain steadfastly opposed to any refugee returning to Israel, perhaps because it could be regarded as an acknowledgement of guilt.

Sovereignty  The Palestinians want independence and autonomy.  The Israelis want longterm control over Palestinian borders with Egypt and Jordan, along with longterm military access to much of the territories.

Last month Israeli PM Olmert did some remarkable soul-searching during an interview.

Quote[/b] ]Throughout his entire career, Mr. Olmert admitted, he had been wrong. He and his fellow citizens, he argued, had "spent 40 years refusing to look with our eyes open."

Peace with the Palestinians is the only hope for Israel's long-term security. And that can only come through a negotiated agreement with the Palestinian Authority to create a viable state for Palestinians, at least on the West Bank territory occupied by Israel since the 1967 war.

That would mean dismantling most of the settlements that Israeli governments have sanctioned on occupied land - and many of the roads that connect the settlements to metropolitan Israel, creating ribbons of asphalt that make the West Bank into a series of Bantustans for the Palestinians. It also would mean abandoning the dream of never yielding any part of Jerusalem to Palestinian control.

-- Globe and Mail

The 2 concessions I've highlighted would probably resolve 2 of the 5 primary issues above if an Israeli leader ever actually repeated them during official negotiations.

Fair?  What was fair about creating of a new country out of other people's land without their consent?

This is the reason this conflict won't be resolved through peaceful means, and certainly not in the near future, because people keep living in the past, and keep using that past to obstruct any kind of progress for the region.

Huh?  Look again JdB!  I didn't bring up the past.  It was Billybob2002 who brought it up.  I was only responding just as I responded to you when you yourself posted an entire wall of text about the past, yesterday.

The one state solution mentioned earlier would never work, there are just too many differences between the two.

A one state solution or assimilation already has worked, as anyone who is not afraid to understand the past can tell you.  You'd be surprised how insignificant cultural and religious differences become when economic prosperity is at stake.

[JdB 151]

Huh? Look again JdB! I didn't bring up the past. It was Billybob2002 who brought it up. I was only responding just as I responded to you when you yourself posted an entire wall of text about the past, yesterday.

Sorry, I should have mentioned more clearly that I meant history between 2500 and 100 years ago as being pretty much irrelevant at this point, only leading to futile claims to sole ownership of the region, not that of after 1945 when the current inter cultural, and territorial disputes started. All earlier claims by either side are pretty much senseless, since reasoning that way the southern part of the Netherlands where I live would still become part of Italy (Romans) when they choose to claim so, a gap in time of roughly 2000 years.