Bernadotte
-
Content Count
2379 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Medals
Posts posted by Bernadotte
-
-
Or an Iranian plan to make the Israeli's think Iran has nukes; or an Iranian plan to have plausable deniability about having Nukes; or an Israeli plan to make the Iranians think that the Israeli's think the Iranians have Nukes; or Iranian plan to make the American's think there is an Israeli plan to make the Iranians think that the Israeli's think the Iranians have Nukes; an American plan to make Kadima think the Iranians have nukes; or American plan to make Kadima think the Israeli secret services want them to think the Iranians have nukes; or... and on to infinityMore likely a cynical plan to sell more Israeli newspapers to a readership blinded by Iran-hysteria*.
Just read a bit further down in the Israeli Insider article where they try to convince us that "a recent spike in [earthquake] activity in that specific area [of Iran] significantly deviates from historical trends". Â I wonder how many of their readers compared the Israeli Insider's USGS graphic with the source data and discovered that the quake they referred to didn't even exist.
Israeli Insider version...
USGS version...
See that 1st quake on 10 September at the top of Israeli Insider's list? Â Never happened. Â Pure fiction. Â Hysteria mongering.
* To be fair, 3 of the 20 comments following the Israeli Insider article questioned the nuke claim. Â One of them even linked to a very interesting article on distinguishing quake seismics from explosions.
-
Iran has apparently conducted two tests!Quote[/b] ](IsraelNN.com)blah blah blah...
Follow link for the full report
Followed it. Â This 3 month old report also warns "that two nuclear rockets are currently ready - and are intended for use against Israel in the coming months." Â So... Any day now, huh? Â
As a geological engineer, I enjoyed the Israeli Insider version even more. Â When I looked up their suspicious 25 October tremor at the USGS I noticed that it had occurred at a depth of 35 km. Â Most nukes are tested at less than 1.5 km with the deepest ever being 4 km deep. Â Considering that the deepest well ever drilled was 14 km I'd say that the Iranians have pulled off a significant scientific achievement if this wasn't actually a quake.
And where exactly did you see mention of a quake in this Times article? Â
The area where the tremor happened is on a fault line so as to mask the tests and is in close proximity to a site involved in Iranian Nuclear testing.At the risk of being labelled a fake-quake-denier, I can think of at least one other reason why a tremor happened on a fault line.
-
What is <span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>your assessment?</span>I'm inclined to agree with the Israeli intelligence assessment because it makes sense. Â
To win this April's elections Hamas is desperately trying to prove that it is capable of effectively representing the Palestinian people and controlling all militants. Â So, everytime a ceasefire that Hamas signs on behalf of the Palestinian people gets broken by whoever the people lose confidence in them. Â This desire of Hamas to control the rocketfire by all Palestinian factions was mentioned again 2 days ago:
Quote[/b] ]Bardawil added that Hamas would, as a part of a ceasefire, agree to stop firing projectiles into Israel. However, he said Hamas asked for Egypt's help in convincing other factions to restrain themselves.On the other hand, my assessment of how Hamas will behave after this April's elections is probably quite similar to your assessment, especially if they lose power.
-
It's a political bogey-weapon that then forces the quisling infidels to negotiate to the terms of the true disciples of the Mahdi.That's what I meant - it's (just like Sputnik at it's time) a political statement...
Exactly. Â Just substitute "quisling infidels" with "filthy capitalist pig-dogs" and "true disciples of Mahdi" with "red menace" to get the same fear-mongoring rhetoric used in Sputnik's days.
-
When you look at it you have to admire the Iranians for being able to do this with 30 years of sanctions being imposed on them.I understand that Iran got lots of help from N. Korea, of all places.
Btw, I couldn' find any thread about N. Korea launching its first satellite a few years ago. Â I'd have though that it would have drawn more attention given they were the only member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" that already had nukes.
-
I'm not disagreeing with your assesment mate...For the gazillionth time... <span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>It's not MY assessment!!</span> Â
-
I hope you realise that they weren't the only people that broke the ceasefire.Of course they weren't. Â The Israelis broke it too.
You're half way there now mate.... The israeli's and who else?
I've already posted it twice. Â Maybe a big-print version will help:
Quote[/b] ]Despite the lull arrangement, sporadic rocket and mortar shell fire has continued, carried out by <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>rogue terrorist organizations</span> using the excuse of <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Israeli violations</span>. Most conspicuous among those networks are the <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Palestinian Islamic Jihad and groups within Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade</span> 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 [West Bank]. As in the past, internal Palestinian rivalries and power struggles make it difficult to fully implement the lull arrangement, even though <span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Hamas has a vested interest in its implementation and the other terrorist organizations pay lip service* to honoring it.</span>-- Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, pre-war 2008
Baff1, I'm just the messenger. Â If you continue to disagree with this assessment then please take it up with the source; not me.
Perhaps you could try telling them about how "micro analysing each detail puts them in danger of losing their perspective." Â
* lip service n. an expression of agreement unsupported by real conviction or action
-
I hope you realise that they weren't the only people that broke the ceasefire.Of course they weren't. Â The Israelis broke it too.
Yes mate, daily basis. Week in week out. For years. Those rockets fired were not the first ones. There is no point trying to portay this as an isolated incident. It isn't one.Not my portrayal, mate. Â It was Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center that said attacks were "sporadic" and carried out by militants other than Hamas. Â They even acknowledged Hamas' vested interested in upholding the ceasefire. Â Unlike you, I'm inclined to believe the Israeli think tank. Â
Do you have any evidence to suggest that whoever claimed that the rocket attack was made by Al Whoever Matyrs wasn't lying?No, I have no proof that the Israeli think tank that wrote those reports wasn't lying.
Or do you believe that Israeli's are the only people who know how?That really makes no sense given that it is you who refuses to believe what the Israeli think tank reported.
If you start micro analysing each detail I think you are in danger of losing your perspective of the overall picture.Kinda complicated, huh? Â
Hamas are engagaed in and responsable for continued rocket attacks agasint Israel. Why deny it? They don't. They are proud of it.As for the figures, no need for you to get into any Israeli conspiracy/propaganada theories with me, I made them up.
I'm not denying anything. Â I've got plenty of reasons to hate Hamas without having to make stuff up.
...anyone who honestly believes that Hamas can be bombed out of existence hasn't learned anything from the past.And yes I honestly believe that a government can be bombed out of existance.  We just did it to Saddam's government the other year. We did it to Germany's. Japan's.  This has been successfully achieved time and time again throughout history.
Bombing a government into surrender is very different than "bombing Hamas out of existence." Â The Palestinians surrendered long ago. Â That's why it's called occupied territory?
Now, since you have asked me where I got my figures from, I shall ask you how you know that Israel isn't targeting whoever they believed fired those rockets at them.The leaders of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade are in the West Bank. Â Israel's recent operation against their rockets was retricted to Gaza.
Trust me, if blaming every bad thing on Hamas would help get rid of them I'd also be totally cool with the lies. Â However, I just can't ignore that lying and corruption is what got Hamas elected in the first place.
-
While the Israeli's may not be able to indentify and investigate the sources of every and each individual attack, you can be sure they have a pretty good overview of the situtation as a whole. At least, a more accurate one than either you or I has.So, if Israel has a much more accurate overview than either you or I then which accurate Israeli overview did you get the following numbers from?
If 8 attacks are made on Israel, and only 4 of them made by Hamas...Hamas gets the blame by default because it is involved in the same kind attacks on a daily basis and has been for years.Daily basis? Â And which accurate Israeli source did you get this info from? Â As I've tried to show you with the CBC report, just because you read about Hamas attacks in the news doesn't mean they were carried out by Hamas.
Everybody wants to get rid fo Hamas, not just the Isreali's.No kidding, but anyone who honestly believes that Hamas can be bombed out of existence hasn't learned anything from the past. Â Hamas needs to lose power the same way they won it; in a national election.
And quite frankly what difference wpould it make anyway if the rockets were fired by AL Whoever's Matyr Brigade or Hamas? The military response is the same. Bomb the rocket sites.I hope you realise that Israel's recent invasion did far more than bomb the rocket sites.
Target the leaders.I hope you realise that Israel's recent invasion did not target the leaders of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the faction that actually broke the ceasefire.
-
While the Israeli's may not be able to indentify and investigate the sources of every and each individual attack, you can be sure they have a pretty good overview of the situtation as a whole.True. Â Here's an excerpt from an Israeli intel overview about who was to blame last year:
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 [West Bank]. 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
<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Question:</span> Â If Israel knows it wasn't Hamas then why did they retaliate against Hamas? Â If Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the latest rocketfire then why did the Israeli PM and news organisations like CBC News blame Hamas?
<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>Answer:</span> Â The Israelis want to get rid of Hamas and would blame the Alaskan earthquake on them if they could get away with it.
-
I was only responding to the part I quoted.Oh really? Â What the hell did your response have to do with the part you quoted? Â How did my brief summary about a recent rocket attack lead you to think that I might "be perfectly fine with those responsible getting away with it?"
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and other militants from the West Bank have claimed responsibility for these attacks out of Gaza. So far they've been getting away with it, and no, I'm not fine with that at all. Â Are you?
-
So if rockets were fired at your neighbourhood and you were lucky enough for nobody to be harmed, you would be perfectly fine with those responsible getting away with it?Wow... Way to miss the entire point of what I'd posted. Â
I'll try to simplify the matter:
If some guys in neighbourhood A shot rockets at you from neighbourhood B who would you retaliate against, the guys in A or the guys in B?
-
And again, Israel just got hit by a few rockets from Gaza that harmed nobody and caused no damage. Â The greater harm probably comes from 3 different news agencies for being able to report 3 different versions of events:
Quote[/b] ]Israel threatens 'disproportionate' response to Hamas rocket fire-- CBC News
Quote[/b] ]Israeli PM Threatens 'Disproportionate Response' to Palestinian RocketsNo group claimed responsibility for the attack...
Quote[/b] ]Israel vows "disproportionate" response to rocketsA wing of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a group belonging to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction, claimed responsibility.
-- Reuters
Given that Israeli intelligence has already blamed West Bank militants for Gaza rocketfire, I'm inclined to believe the Reuters version. Â But even Reuters avoids asking the bigger question: Â How does an enemy of Hamas like the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade manage to get out of the West Bank, across Israeli territory, and into beseiged Gaza armed with rockets that ultimately do no harm except to give Israel an excuse to attack Hamas? And why wouldn't West Bank militants simply aim their rockets at targets right within the West Bank such as Israeli settlements?
Hmm... Â
-
Obama started his first day doing exactly what I'd have done. Â His first phonecall as president was made to Palestinian President Abbas. Â He then spoke with the leaders of Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
Quote[/b] ]The spokesman for President Abbas revealed that Mr Obama had told the Palestinian leader that their conversation was his first with a foreign leader since taking office. The new President had promised to “deploy every possible effort to achieve peaceâ€, the spokesman said.Mr* Obama also spoke to President Mubarak of Egypt, Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister of Israel, and King Abdullah of Jordan.
-- Times
* Odd that the Times still refers to Obama as mister.
If Obama has seriously tried to envision the end of this conflict as a grand peace treaty signing ceremony then he knows there's no room in that picture for a Hamas Prime Minister. Â So his first objective is to get rid of Hamas in this April's elections by providing the Palestinians with a viable alternative.
At the moment, the most effective way to empower Abbas' opposition Fatah party is to give them reconstruction aid for Gaza. Â If the people of Gaza finally get the help from Abbas that they never got from Arafat then this will eliminate one of their main reasons for supporting Hamas. Â Conversely, if Hamas refuses to accept aid unless it is given directly to them then Gazans will start holding Hamas responsible for prolonging the suffering.
Another interesting factor in all this is the fate of one Israeli and one Palestinian. Â The Israeli is kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and the Palestinian is politician/ex-militant leader Marwan Barghouti, now serving 5 life sentences in Israel. Â From his jail cell, Barghouti would have defeated Abbas for the presidency during the last general election if he'd not been convinced to withdraw. Â Hamas has offered to release Shilat in exchange for Barghouti's freedom, perhaps because this would probably get rid of Abbas this April. Â Israel has said no because they refuse to deal with Hamas, but more likely because they don't want Barghouti to replace Abbas as President.
 Marwan Barghouti...  Possible post-Hamas Palestinian Prime Minister?I've always liked Barghouti.  He knows English and is also fluent in Hebrew (self-taught while serving time after First Intafada).  As a militant, he's always opposed acts of resistance outside of the West Bank and Gaza.
Quote[/b] ]"And while I, and the Fatah movement to which I belong, strongly oppose attacks and the targeting of civilians inside Israel, our future neighbor, I reserve the right to protect myself, to resist the Israeli occupation of my country and to fight for my freedom.""I am not a terrorist, but neither am I a pacifist. I am simply a regular guy from the Palestinian street advocating only what every other oppressed person has advocated—the right to help myself in the absence of help from anywhere else."
-- Marwan Barghouti
If he can be convinced to return to Fatah and run for Prime Minister this April then Hamas will be finished and Obama will be well on the way to winning his Nobel.
And this just in: Â Late today, Obama appointed George Mitchell to be his administration's Middle East envoy. Â This is very good news. Â Mitchell's famous report on the causes of the Second Intafada openly placed blame on Israel's construction of Jewish settlements across Palestinian territory as well as Palestinian terrorism. Â Btw, when Mitchell served as special envoy to Northern Ireland he successfully instigated a peace process there that has held to this day.
-
I don't feel the last 3 years have accelerated extremism at all.I feel quite the opposite.
I think it has been getting less and less each year.
(Although I do not believe it is something that can ever be eradicated).
Oh, I agree completely. My post was more about the reasons for the rise of extremism during previous decades. Btw, I give much credit to the growth of the internet for the decline over recent years.
-
Imo the world would be far better off without religion.I think what were seeing now with militant Islam and what we've seen in the past with puritan Christianity is religion being used as a vehicle by evil men for dubious goals.
As much as we agree about how much the world has suffered under organised/institutionalised religion, I think we also realise that we won't be able to get rid of it any time soon. Â The best we can do is give extremists more incentive to become moderates and moderates fewer excuses to become extremists. Â Unfortunately, the past few decades have mostly seen the opposite trend.
Around 30 years ago when the people of Iran overthrew the Shah it sent a wake up call throughout the region that Muslim fundamentalists forced to extremism could topple monarchies. Â The Saudi monarchy got so scared that they began to pacify the fundamentalists by paying them off and even giving them governmental positions within the ministry of education. Â Decades later it's no coincidence that the majority of 911 hijackers were Saudi.
Meanwhile something quite similar has happened in the US. Â During the past 40 years the Republican party has become increasingly dependent on the support of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians which represent 20 - 30% of Americans. Â One of their strongest beliefs is that the second coming of Jesus Christ will not occur until the "Israelites" have repopulated the holy land. Â For them, the Palestinian people are not just terrorists, they are an obstacle to the Christian salvation of the entire human race. Â Take for example George Bush's support for the evangelical Reverend Hagee during Israel's 2006 bombing of Lebanon:
Quote[/b] ]Last month the Reverend John Hagee, a Pentecostal television evangelist from Texas, convened a meeting in Washington of 3,500 members of Christians Unified for Israel. The organisation is dedicated to building support for Israel, even in states where there are few Jewish voters.  Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican presidential hopeful, attended the rally, as did Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli Ambassador.Mr Hagee called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a “miracle of God†and suggested that a ceasefire would violate “God’s foreign policy statement†towards Jews. The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ’s return ushers in a 1,000-year period of grace.  “The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching . . .  Rejoice and be exceeding glad — the best is yet to be,†Mr Hagee has written in a book that has sold 700,000 copies.
President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedomâ€. He is said to have added: “God bless and stand by the people of Israel and God bless the United States.â€
The support for Israel of 50 million American evangelicals chimes with the reality of the Administration’s foreign policy, which refuses to tolerate terrorist organisations — or the Middle Eastern regimes linked to them. Dennis Ross, a Middle East envoy in the administrations of the first President Bush and Bill Clinton, said recently that evangelical supporters of Israel were now an “important part of the landscapeâ€.
-- Times, August 4, 2006
I don't expect the US will be able to weaken the influence of Muslim extremists as long as their own Middle East policies continue to be so strongly influenced by Christian Bible prophecy.
-
@Bernadotte. What the fuck are you talking about? "Islam, Christianity, Judaism are ridiculous". Oh that makes me a bigot?Well, all I can do is offer a big-print version of your original words if they weren't clear enough for you:
<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>"...YOu have be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions."</span><span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>No I do not. Â </span>
big·ot  n.  One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
No, you absolutely do not have to be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions. Â You have every right to be a bigot.
In fact, I would defend your right to be a bigot and very gladly let everyone else know that you are one.
I may be tolerant of bigots, but I'm not very tolerant of bigots who are unable to admit they are bigots.
-
YOu have be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions."No I do not.
big·ot  n.  One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
No, you absolutely do not have to be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions. Â You have every right to be a bigot.
In fact, I would defend your right to be a bigot and very gladly let everyone else know that you are one.
-
...history between 2500 and 100 years ago as being pretty much irrelevant at this point...I almost agree with you...
I usually don't look farther than 150 years ago because 1858 is when internationally recognised Ottoman land and property laws really came into force. Â Nearly all the land owned by Jews and Arabs when Israel was founded had been held under extensions of those laws and registered in those same archives.
The next important event started in 1881 with the First Aliyah. Â It was really that first large immigration wave of ~30,000 Jews that began to turn a 2000 year old dream into actions. Â Israeli historian Benny Morris provides excerpts from 3 letters written by those first arrivals in 1882 that clearly convey those aspirations:
Quote[/b] ]Vladimir Dubnow wrote to his brother, the historian Simon Dubnow, in October 1882: "The ultimate goal ... is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years .... The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland."Ben-Yehuda wrote in July 1882 to Peretz Smolenskin in Vienna: "The thing we must do now is to become as strong as we can, to conquer the country, covertly, bit by bit ... We will not set up committees so that the Arabs will know what we are after, we shall act like silent spies, we shall buy, buy, buy."
Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michael Pines wrote in October 1882 to Rashi Pin, in Vilna: "We have made it a rule not to say too much, except to those ... we trust ... the goal is to revive our nation on its land ... if only we succeed in increasing our numbers here until we are the majority [Emphasis in original] .... There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones."
In other words, the problem really started when the introduction of formal property ownership in Palestine (1858) combined with the quiet but powerful ambition of a large foreign community to acquire property in Palestine (1881). Â They eventually acquired nearly 5% of Palestine by the time the UN came along and awarded them with 56%, which grew to 78% within a year. Â I just wish they'd make it 100% asap and finally end this long nightmare.
-
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.
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? Â 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? Â Look again JdB! Â I didn't bring up the past. Â It was Billybob2002 who brought it up. Â 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. Â You'd be surprised how insignificant cultural and religious differences become when economic prosperity is at stake.
-
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?
-
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. Â Thank you. Â
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. Â Arabic is already an official language in Israel. Â Occupation ends. Â Jerusalem becomes everyone's unified capital. Â Old Palestinian property claims would be settled as they were for Holocaust survivors who fled Europe. Â 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. Â What do you think happend to all those Arabs who did not flee the 22% of Palestine that Israel annexed in 1949? Â They nearly all became content Israeli citizens. Â How many terrorists have been recruited from those million or so Arabs who already have Israeli citizenship? Â Nearly none. Â 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. Â Annexation would work for Israel now just as it worked for Israel in 1949. Â The whole world would breathe a sigh of relief and Palestine could finally be consigned to the history books.
-
[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. Â 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. Â Certainly nothing about any external organisation ever having the right to partition it. Â Palestine had its own internationally recognised borders, currency, stamps, passports. Â 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... Â 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? Â This has nothing specifically to do with Judaism. Â The Israelis could be Hindus, Buddhists or Mormons and still receive at least as much criticism for their actions and inactions. Â In fact, a major driver of this conflict are American Fundamentalist Christians who link the rebirth of Israel with the return of Christ. Â America's outgoing president is one of them.
-
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. Â 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. Â So what? Â Again, what's your problem with that, besides the fact that it was not the UN's to give away in the first place?
Empire : Total War
in OFFTOPIC - Games & Gaming
Posted
Seems to me ETW battles require more micromanagement than previous TW releases. Â I suspect that musketmen won't shoot at a flanking unit until reoriented to avoid killing the guy they are standing next to.
I've been spending most of my time off the coast of Lagos, although the AI Â gets quite predictable after a short while. Â I'm hoping that weather conditions will vary enough to allow battles on rough seas, which should reduce some of the predictability.