The Problem of Israel

[lsbskins1]

For those of you who see Israel as an aggressor nation and the root of the major problems in the Middle East, I have a question...

What is an outline for a solution? Do you want Israel to be "disbanded"? Do you want it moved? Do you want them to surrender land? Do you want them to negotiate? What can Israel do that will satisfy your sense of justice and get them "in the right mind"?

[lsbskins1]

Anyone?

[Milton Bradley]

I think it should be moved.


As unreasonable as that sounds, I think it's the only solution.


This whole scenario, with the newly created U.N. "recognizing" the State of Isreal, with the support of the other nations that created the U.N., and the State of Isreal ( not that there should be any obvious bias visible on the surface there... ) have created an unfair playing field that shows evidence of being biased towards one side.


These same entities have also provided untold billions of our tax dollars to arm both sides of the eventual conflict they work so fervently to prevent. ( Though we know they are just postponing the inevitable. )


I think we also know that the only reason they are there is because the land was promised to them in their holy books. I think they should leave until God gives them the land like promised.


They should probably be sent to bed without dinner as well.

[lsbskins1]

Where would you move them? Why do you believe that is a more viable solution than staying and negotiating peace? I , personally, put no creadence - for or against Israel - in the idea of "God" giving the land back. In the end, it ( Palestine) is as much the homeland of the Jewish people as it is the homeland of the Palestinians, historically speaking. I said before, I do not believe the religious tradition of either people has a real place in this debate. In neither tradition did God do the fighting that gave either side it's claim to the land, though they both claim the hand of God was at play. There was real sword play involved, between people, according to the traditions, written or oral, of both.

The point being, why do you consider (religious traditions aside) Palestine to be an inappropriate location for Israel? What is the bias towards Israel you speak about?

[Milton Bradley]

Since the US government is so fond babysitting them, I see no reason they couldn't be moved here, or even back to Europe where they came from. ( I hope the invite to my own homeland will negate any claims that I am an anti-Semitic. )


As for negotiating peace, I think that history since 1948 pretty much proves that as a pipe dream.


If, as you contend, Palestine is their homeland, why didn't they choose to move in peacefully instead of under the guns of the US NAVY? ( Also interesting that you called that land Palestine, instead of Isreal. )

Quote by: lsbskins The point being, why do you consider (religious traditions aside) Palestine to be an inappropriate location for Israel? What is the bias towards Israel you speak about?

Ownership, as the title read in 1948 before the invasion.


Both sides have been to the negotiating table, but Isreal always ends up with ownership, and control of Jerusalem.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Since the US government is so fond babysitting them, I see no reason they couldn't be moved here, or even back to Europe where they came from. ( I hope the invite to my own homeland will negate any claims that I am an anti-Semitic. ).

They taking Texas or what?

Quote by: Milton Bradley As for negotiating peace, I think that history since 1948 pretty much proves that as a pipe dream..

How long did they fight in Ireland? Several hundred years. The point being, rather than stir a new shit stew and deal with that boiling over and all the phases the conflict is bound to go through, why not just deal with the problem we have and solve it in ways that have worked before?

Quote by: Milton Bradley If, as you contend, Palestine is their homeland, why didn't they choose to move in peacefully instead of under the guns of the US NAVY? ( Also interesting that you called that land Palestine, instead of Isreal. ).

They were moving in peacefully for many years. The real push into Palestine started in the late 1800's (as a direct consequence of the Dreyfus Affair) and was done with the blessing and participation of the Ottoman Empire, who owned Palestine until the end of WWI, after which it came under the protection of the British. So, should the land go back to Turkey, should we reconstitute the Ottoman Empire or just give it to the British? And, I call it Palestine because that was the name of the administative regional desigination for hundreds of years. It is not an Arab, nor a Jewish designation, and is therefore basically neutral.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Ownership, as the title read in 1948 before the invasion..

See above

Quote by: Milton Bradley Both sides have been to the negotiating table, but Isreal always ends up with ownership, and control of Jerusalem.

So, if Israel does not give up ownership of the state, then that is proof of bias? Jerusalem is another matter, as it should probably be a free, international city. Or were you saying the fact that they end up with control AND ownership of Jerusalem is the problem? At first I thought you meant ownership of all of Israel and control of jerusalem.

[Georgia]

If Israel decided to move it not solve the issue.
They'd still be Jewish and the target of anti-semites and other fascist nuts who raised their children to vow to their god for the heavenly reward which awaites those who kill them.

If they move it shows weakness, vulnerability and only further emboldens their enemies.
They need to stand their ground and fight if necessary, in my opinion.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 They taking Texas or what?

I think we could extend about the same amount of real estate to them that they are using now in one of the desert states. ( without a lot of conflict, because after all, the majority of religious people will see this as temporary. )

Quote by: lsbskins1 How long did they fight in Ireland? Several hundred years. The point being, rather than stir a new shit stew and deal with that boiling over and all the phases the conflict is bound to go through, why not just deal with the problem we have and solve it in ways that have worked before?

Is it not clear to you that neither side really desires any of the resolutions that have been offered. Face it, Isreal will not hand over half of Jerusalem. That has been, and will continue to be the sticking point in these negotiations.

Quote by: lsbskins1 They were moving in peacefully for many years. The real push into Palestine started in the late 1800's (as a direct consequence of the Dreyfus Affair) and was done with the blessing and participation of the Ottoman Empire, who owned Palestine until the end of WWI, after which it came under the protection of the British. So, should the land go back to Turkey, should we reconstitute the Ottoman Empire or just give it to the British? And, I call it Palestine because that was the name of the administative regional desigination for hundreds of years. It is not an Arab, nor a Jewish designation, and is therefore basically neutral.

I'm familiar with the history, but the 1948 events prove that one side was clearly the aggressor, and willing to use violence to achieve their goals.


Once the Navy got involved, I think it was pretty clear whos side the Empire was on

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, if Israel does not give up ownership of the state, then that is proof of bias? Jerusalem is another matter, as it should probably be a free, international city. Or were you saying the fact that they end up with control AND ownership of Jerusalem is the problem? At first I thought you meant ownership of all of Israel and control of jerusalem.

I was actually suggesting that virtually all of the negotiations that have taken place end up with one side getting preferential treatment. Look anywhere you like, you cannot find another example like Isreal. I, and many others percieve that as bias from the UN, even though the US's influence has faded over the years, the Isreali's always seem to come out on top.


They were the original aggressor, and they remain the bad guys in many peoples eyes.


So the original aggressor has both the favor of the Empire, and the UN.

[lsbskins1]

The UN is on Israels side to the point of bias, are they? What about this - United Nations Resolutions Against Israel "1955-1992"

The US blocks resolutions in the security council, to be sure, but the UN has spent plenty of time telling Israel that they are behaving improperly. I think the US should get out of the way and allow Israel to have to face a few consequences for the stupid things they do, but to claim that the UN is biased for Israel is simply untrue. The UN might also have a little more success in dealing with the Saddam Husseins of the world if it was not, as a result of the US's blocking of it's usefullness, seen as a powerless group of resolution passers. Of course, it can only get those non-binding, General Assembly resolutions through because all of the permanent members of the Security Council block actions (for statrigic reasons) that are morally sound and needed. We do it, China does it, France does it and Russia does it.

And if you know the history, then you know that most of the tentions that exist between Israel and the Arab states were created by the Western Powers in an attempt to solidify control of the region. There is no natural reason that these two peoples can not live side by side.

[GHook93]

Milton,

History Lesson:
The changing of the name to Palestine was administered by the Romans in response to a Jewish rebellion. It was punishment. The Arabs didn't do

ALSO the Correct spelling Israel. Get the name right before you spew out your BS.:rolleyes:

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 For those of you who see Israel as an aggressor nation and the root of the major problems in the Middle East, I have a question... What is an outline for a solution? Do you want Israel to be "disbanded"? Do you want it moved? Do you want them to surrender land? Do you want them to negotiate? What can Israel do that will satisfy your sense of justice and get them "in the right mind"?

The problem is one of politics and religion.

In the Middle East, political control implies religious control. There is no true separation of church and state, either for Israel or for the Arab nations. Furthermore, when the Arabs invaded Palestine during the Muslim Conquests, they co-opted Jewish and Christian religious centers as their own. Both/all sides, as a result, see the same places as sacred. The problem lies in that each side does not view the other as having a legitimate claim. I call it the Highlander Syndrome -- "There can be only one!"

Indeed, religious control necessitates political control, because each side is willing to use force to prevent the other(s) from having access. As a result, the only possible solutions I see are the following.

1. One or both/all of the religions involved dies out.
2. One or both of the political entities involved dies out.
3. Both of the above.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Where would you move them? Why do you believe that is a more viable solution than staying and negotiating peace? I , personally, put no creadence - for or against Israel - in the idea of "God" giving the land back.

Others do, however, and they're the ones that matter in this situation.

In the end, it ( Palestine) is as much the homeland of the Jewish people as it is the homeland of the Palestinians, historically speaking. I said before, I do not believe the religious tradition of either people has a real place in this debate. In neither tradition did God do the fighting that gave either side it's claim to the land, though they both claim the hand of God was at play. There was real sword play involved, between people, according to the traditions, written or oral, of both.

Again, many (if not most) of the people there believe otherwise, and it's their beliefs that are important here.

- Rob

[Cephus]

Quote by: lsbskins1 For those of you who see Israel as an aggressor nation and the root of the major problems in the Middle East, I have a question... What is an outline for a solution? Do you want Israel to be "disbanded"? Do you want it moved? Do you want them to surrender land? Do you want them to negotiate? What can Israel do that will satisfy your sense of justice and get them "in the right mind"?

I really don't think there is a solution anymore. Both sides are fundamentally irrational and illogical, both supremely convinced that they, and only they, are right and everyone else deserves to die or burn in hell or whatever.

Welcome to religion, boys and girls. Yet another example of how it screws up the world.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Cephus I really don't think there is a solution anymore. Both sides are fundamentally irrational and illogical, both supremely convinced that they, and only they, are right and everyone else deserves to die or burn in hell or whatever. Welcome to religion, boys and girls. Yet another example of how it screws up the world.

Yet the Israeli's rationally agreed to give up 98% of what the PLO demanded, but the irrational Palestinians denied (Camp David Accords). The Israeli rationally ask Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exsist and put down there arms, yet Hamas irrationally said no and attacked. Israel rationally took a vital first step and pulled out of Gaza, yet the Palestinian irrationally take no steps. :rolleyes:

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos The problem is one of politics and religion. In the Middle East, political control implies religious control. There is no true separation of church and state, either for Israel or for the Arab nations. Furthermore, when the Arabs invaded Palestine during the Muslim Conquests, they co-opted Jewish and Christian religious centers as their own. Both/all sides, as a result, see the same places as sacred. The problem lies in that each side does not view the other as having a legitimate claim. I call it the Highlander Syndrome -- "There can be only one!" Indeed, religious control necessitates political control, because each side is willing to use force to prevent the other(s) from having access. As a result, the only possible solutions I see are the following. One or both/all of the religions involved dies out. One or both of the political entities involved dies out. Both of the above.

Your facts are accurate but your conclusions are not necessarily sound. Religious convictions are powerful, but historically, in the end, people respond, as societies, most resoundingly to economic consideratons. In the middle ages, Jews were expelled from lands time after time but always ended up returning. Why? Because it was to the economic advantage of those societies to have them. They acted as bankers for people who's religious "convictions" told them it was bad to loan at interest. Even though the church told them that the Jews had murdered "the Lord, Jesus Christ", still they were invited back. Because it was ecomonically advantagous. Even after years of deadly, ugly crusading warfare, the West made a peace with the "infidels" and the Caliphate accepted that peace. Why? It was in their economic interests to do so. Trade, trade, trade. War can be profitable in the short term, but long term, it is expensive. I think you will find on an honest study of the region, it has been a prolonged and bloody situation because it was to the strategic advantage of the super powers to have that conflict. The Soviets and the US wanted to dominate the oil rich region and short of domination, they were willing to fund conflict that kept the other side from domination. Despite that fact, Eqypt and Jordan left the fight because it was too costly. In the end, people want to live and feed their families. Religions adapt and change. The need for food, shelter and clothing never ends.

Quote by: Autolykos Others do, however, and they're the ones that matter in this situation.

Individual passion can last forever. The group behaves differently. In the end, it is not only possible, but likely, that the majority will see the benefit of surrendering those passions, and leaving the biblical out of the equation.

Quote by: Autolykos Again, many (if not most) of the people there believe otherwise, and it's their beliefs that are important here. - Rob

See above.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Your facts are accurate but your conclusions are not necessarily sound. Religious convictions are powerful, but historically, in the end, people respond, as societies, most resoundingly to economic consideratons.

Economic considerations are man's most sacred call.

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The UN is on Israels side to the point of bias, are they? The US blocks resolutions in the security council, to be sure, but the UN has spent plenty of time telling Israel that they are behaving improperly. I think the US should get out of the way and allow Israel to have to face a few consequences for the stupid things they do, but to claim that the UN is biased for Israel is simply untrue.

Several nations, and the newly created UN ( created by those same entities ) are biased because they recognized Isreal in the first place.

Quote by: lsbskins1 And if you know the history, then you know that most of the tentions that exist between Israel and the Arab states were created by the Western Powers in an attempt to solidify control of the region.

Well, other than the initial shelling, and installing their nation in the Palestinias back yard, and then recognizing them as an "official" nation.


This is where a great deal of our problems are created as far as foreing policy is concernd. Ask any Muslim.

Quote by: lsbskins1 There is no natural reason that these two peoples can not live side by side.

Tell them that.


Thus far, they have only succeeded into dragging everybody into their affairs for 58 plus years, and some of us are tired of the whole scenario. I'm simply sick, and tired of these morons getting the so much of the news time. There are other things going on on the planet.


Because of our stellar ( bipartisan ) foreign policy decisions, we can no just longer just resolve to walk away, and let them fight it out, no, we have unfairly armed the Isrealis, and favored their side since that countries inception.


So what is the solution, an eternal babysitter ( thats us, and our tax dollars, which incidently they already have BILLIONS of ) to see that they are disarmed ( according to your agenda ) , and are made to live side by side for all eternity.


Following this line of reasoning, you end up right where Vicchio is at, willing to let violence continue into perpetuity so that you can percieve yourself as being right. Nevermind how many people have to die continuing this one train of thought. Nevermind looking for some other solution that might actually accomplish something. By all means, lets continue doing things exactly as we have been, but this time, we'll go ahead, and expect a different result. ( Insanity )

Quote by: lsbskins1 Individual passion can last forever. The group behaves differently. In the end, it is not only possible, but likely, that the majority will see the benefit of surrendering those passions, and leaving the biblical out of the equation.

Yep, and we can all live happily ever after. The end.


Like I say, Liberal Philosophy 101. Just keep throwing money into the pit until something happens that we like, then we'll take credit for whatever it was that happened.

[lsbskins1]

Let's follow your line of reasoning then. We take the land back from Israel and give it to the Palestinians. Then we move 6 million plus Israelis. Who pays for that? What about all the businesses? Are we giving them fair market value? Who pays for that? You suggest an American dessert region. Are they an autonymous state within a state, like a Native-American reservation? More than likely, the truth of the matter is that no one will give over any of their sovereign territory for this solution of yours. Do we then fight to enforce that plan? All your plan does is set the conflict back those 58 years and starts the bloody process all over again. Your plan costs more blood than mine. If, after the US stops funding the blood shed by supporting Israel with untold wads of cash, and Israel is not viable as a nation on it's own, Israelis will immigrate as their businesses fail and their population is overtaken by the Palestinian population. Then, the Arabs will have the land back and will either make a viable country themselves or, more likely, as respected and eqaul citizens, will recognize the benefits of having the Israelis there as peaceful partners. The damage that we cause is that we cover the costs of the bloodshed for Israel. That is not the UN's doing. And all this harping about how Israel was created out of whole cloth on the backs of the Palestinians is so much bs. The Israelis were moving into the area in stregnth for years. They purchased the majority of the land that the UN "gave" to them before it was "given". Certainly, there was consolidation and certain numbers were moved from lands they had lived on for hundreds of years, but in the main, the Jews were "given" what they already owned. That, of course, does not include the conquered territories. Those should be returned, as the UN has demanded since the land was conquered, starting in '67.

[Atlas]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Since the US government is so fond babysitting them, I see no reason they couldn't be moved here, or even back to Europe where they came from. ( I hope the invite to my own homeland will negate any claims that I am an anti-Semitic. ).

First you lack to understand the primary reason for the founding of Israel,
it was founded because the persecution in those countries, the rational was that no matter where the Jews would be as a minority they will be always someone who hates them and if you know history you should know the major examples of that.

The only ways to end this as Benjamin Hertzel foresaw is to found an independent Jewish state, the rational of finding it in the land that you so like to call "Palestine" is that land belonged to the Jews not only by the proofs of holly Jewish (and Christian) scriptures but by solid historic and archaeological facts, and a major part of Jewish culture since its exile was to point in every occasion the longing of the Jews to return there. so the Jews have as much claim for this land as the Arabs (witch by the way occupied it by force from the Byzantine empire back in the medieval period).

Second of all you obviously underestimate the faith of all Jews that live in Israel that it is their homeland and their determination to stay in an defend this land, a determination that kept this state alive against overwhelming odds until this day and will keep it alive much longer you can't just erase 58 years and definitely not the 1000 years before that, why don't you take a trip to Israel ? maybe it will help you change your mind.

By the way the name Palestine was given to the land by the Roman emperor after the exile of the Jews originated from an ancient people called the Philistines who where a sworn enemy of the ancient kingdom of Israel as mentioned in the bible, they occupied the shore of the land from Gaza to about modern day Tel-Aviv and had no ethnic connection to modern day Palestinians.

Quote by: Milton Bradley As for negotiating peace, I think that history since 1948 pretty much proves that as a pipe dream.

Israel has been living that dream with peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and pursues
it with the Palestinians and other Arab countries, but not at any cost, your plan is the pipe dream, buddy.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Ownership, as the title read in 1948 before the invasion.

If you'll read the history books more carefully you will understand that there was no Invasion, as it was said the Jewish population in Israel increased through peaceful settlement since the late 19th century, in late 47' Arabs started terrorist actions against existing Jewish settlements as they did not accept the UN Palestine partitioning plan (so as always they wanted to have it all by force) followed by the declaration of Independence of Israel in may 48' 5 Arab countries declared war on Israel.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Both sides have been to the negotiating table, but Israel always ends up with ownership, and control of Jerusalem.

That's not true, Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak offered that the city should be under a shared control in Camp David talks back in 2000 but chairman Arafat turned the generous offer down back then.

Quote by: Milton Bradley These same entities have also provided untold billions of our tax dollars to arm both sides of the eventual conflict they work so fervently to prevent. ( Though we know they are just postponing the inevitable. .

[quote=lsbskins1;284197]

Quote by: Cephus I really don't think there is a solution anymore. Both sides are fundamentally irrational and illogical, both supremely convinced that they, and only they, are right and everyone else deserves to die or burn in hell or whatever.

I agree that giving up to 90% of the demands of a former terrorist organization to empty promises of ending violence and continuing talks is quite irrational.
Every summit Israel is making the offers in hope of achieving peace only to be turned down by the Palestinian side witch after that goes to terrorist acts to achieve their goals.


Several nations, and the newly created UN ( created by those same entities ) are biased because they recognized Israel in the first place.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, other than the initial shelling, and installing their nation in the Palestinians back yard, and then recognizing them as an "official" nation.

Please acknowledge that Jews are a nation just like any other and deserves it's own homeland whether it is in Israel or not, the last thing I want to do is blame people for being anti-semitic.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Let's follow your line of reasoning then. We take the land back from Israel and give it to the Palestinians. Then we move 6 million plus Israelis. Who pays for that? What about all the businesses? Are we giving them fair market value? Who pays for that? You suggest an American dessert region. Are they an autonomous state within a state, like a Native-American reservation? More than likely, the truth of the matter is that no one will give over any of their sovereign territory for this solution of yours. Do we then fight to enforce that plan? All your plan does is set the conflict back those 58 years and starts the bloody process all over again. Your plan costs more blood than mine. If, after the US stops funding the blood shed by supporting Israel with untold wads of cash, and Israel is not viable as a nation on it's own, Israelis will immigrate as their businesses fail and their population is overtaken by the Palestinian population. Then, the Arabs will have the land back and will either make a viable country themselves or, more likely, as respected and equal citizens, will recognize the benefits of having the Israelis there as peaceful partners. The damage that we cause is that we cover the costs of the bloodshed for Israel. That is not the UN's doing. And all this harping about how Israel was created out of whole cloth on the backs of the Palestinians is so much bs. The Israelis were moving into the area in strength for years. They purchased the majority of the land that the UN "gave" to them before it was "given". Certainly, there was consolidation and certain numbers were moved from lands they had lived on for hundreds of years, but in the main, the Jews were "given" what they already owned. That, of course, does not include the conquered territories. Those should be returned, as the UN has demanded since the land was conquered, starting in '67.

It is true Israeli economy relies a lot on American military and financial support but it does not depend on it, the Israeli economy growth is greater than most western countries and has one of the most advanced military industries, believe me, it will survive for centuries even without American support.

And by the way Arabs already are respectable citizens of Israel (I'm talking about the Israeli Arabs, not the Palestinians) and I doubt it would be so in reverse if Palestinians will control all the land, the situation in the Palestinian authority proves that they can not even govern themselves at the time being.

[Captain Chaos]

I tend to agree with Rob on this.

The problem here is religious foolishness.



I mean, these are two separate and conflicting cultures. What keeps them separate is religious difference. If they get over religious issues, things like intermarrying and comingling would be less difficult.

I guess it is not that simple.

However, over 200 years or so, I could see the situation defusing. But, this will only happen if the holy land is blessed with secularism, and they give up their holy madness.