Let's end this one and for all ! The Last ME Thread. Permanent solutions only please!

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Eli
Fighting back is always morally justified.

So it is for the taliban morally justified to fight against the American soldiers or would it be more of a moral solution to stop fighting for Osama?
When a police man trys to arrest me for some crime I commited it is morally justified when I shot at him?

Originally posted by Eli
I'm not sure about the rights.

Like u said u have to open bags each time u enter a shopping mall. U get controlled any time there is the slightest suspective thing.
I only got controlled once by german police while I was underaged in a discotheke. Never again in my life when I lived in Germany and Netherlands.
The Police dont have the right to controll u without a clear hint for a crime (like u throwing big stones at a store window )

Originally posted by Eli

U just get a diffrent point of view of thing depending what your everyday experience is.

Correct, but I still see no connection to freedom.

Freedom means for me u can walk on the street without the fear to get shot (in the US u also have freedom, but not everywhere. Like it isnt a good idea to walk around in certain town districts with the wrong colour).

My point is that u get in a really free country, with normal live on the street, instead of the street picture (do u say so in english?) u get in israel, a better point of view. U dont get radical. Radical views are always bad ones - isnt this obvious?

Originally posted by Eli
No.
But can he do something to prevent me from doing so?

Well he (or the palastins in general) dont have the power to do so.
This means u support the Idea of the right of the more powerful?
So if not Israel but Palastina were more powerful they could use your plan but in reverse and it would be ok?

[Jules]

Sorry, been too busy playing Europa Universalis 2 to post here. Trying to unite Germany under the Bohemian banner.

Anyway, my economic development idea still remains on the table. It wouldn't eliminate all of today's problems, but would over time prevent future conflicts from developing. Like the rebuilding of Germany and Japan at the end of WW2 for instance.

Edit: Note new EU2-themed avatar (well, sort of )

[CyberGnu]

Suprisingly, the constructive propositions in this thread are left uncommented, while the arguing continues.

Tom and Eli, I don't mean to be rude, but there is another ongoing ME thread. Would you guys mind taking your argument there, to save this thread for its original purpose?


Dalgetti, I still haven't seen an answer to my previous post.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
2) Beyond that, though, the only solution I have is one I don't like myself. It stems from my best friend's exasperated cry, "But there already is a Palestinian state! It's called 'Jordan.' " My very reluctant proposal (versions of which have already shown up) is the forced removal of Palestinians to Jordan, to be presided over by the UN (to keep it from being a Trail of Tears/Armenian Genocide) and paid for by Israel. No, it's not "fair," but, again, I doubt any actual solution could be. As for the claim that the West Bank doesn't belong to Israel...hey, somebody should have thought of that before they attacked Israel and got their asses kicked. Besides, the Jordan is a much more logical border between the two nations.

I totally agree with you on this. I was going to post a similar solution myself, but I didn't want to deal with all the people who would label me a "Nazi" or a "supporter of ethnic cleansing" for believing this is the only viable solution. As you said, there are no good solutions to the ME problem; this is simply the best of many bad options. Great post, Rufus, it was very insightful.

[CyberGnu]

Actually, there is already a country without religious persecution, it is called the U.S.

Wouldn't it be better to forcibly relocate all the jews to Arizona?

[Az]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Dalgetti, during the negotiations.

Look, it's not an ideological question.

One of the problems right now is that Sharon does not want peace. Do you really think that the worst Israeli attacks occured just days after the Saudi peace plan was presented?

The attacks are Sharons tool to prolong the war. In case the negotiations seemed to get somewhere, he would conventiantly invent 'an undisclosed informant', who claims they are building rockets in a camp, and then send in the tanks.

says you. I think it's quite clear that any Israeli PM would want a ceasing of hostilities. Not at all costs though.

the second paragraph are just your assumptions , nothing more than that. Of course , it is an educated guess , but that quite depends on where your education stands , if you know what I mean.

the palestinians get pissed, they start bombing more, and the whole situation is back where we started. This scenario was described last autumn already in an editorial in the NYT, and it is pretty much exactly what occured in the last week...

So you feel like the reason for each terror attack is a single case of anger ? and there is no planned strategy behind this ? One could claim that the individual people that are used as pawns on the palestinian side do it because of anger , but terror acts on the scale of a bomb , or a shooting , cannot be commited by a single individual . I strongly believe that the people in charge of the extremist Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations have , if not a well-planned strategy , but a general direction in which they are going.

But if you take away this tool, and there is a chance. By not allowing Israel to attack even with good cause, you eliminate the possibility for Sharon to invent reasons to attack to.

This claim is based on an assumption about a policy inherent to the state of Israel with which I do not agree. So I cannot answer this claim, or reflect my opinion on the Idea, just as I cannot reflect and weigh my options on the question : " Why is Mars green? "

In the event of a deal, with a palestinian state in existance, let it be handled by impartial observers, backed up by the U.S.. This goes both ways, of course...

errm... allow me to doubt the power of any impartial observer of peacekeeping force. Lebanon, Kosovo , and some more which I cannot think of right now.

Was I right about the settlements in the landswap being part of jerusalem or not? You didn't mention that part. I think I am right though, while the land offered in the CD deal was all Negev desert.

mostly it is not the case . The Negev desert is as good a peace of property as any arid hill , north of Jerusalem . Believe me, I know it , I was there .

We've also been through who got what land in the 1948 partition before. I don't agree with your assessment. But I was under the impression that we weren't going to argue whose fault what is, but instead look for a practical solution, yes?

well, to be honest with you , I put the blame on the whole mid-east situation on Great Britain. Conflicting promisses , plus arbitrary , and uncorrect division of land. Also , some very unpleasant and evil people like Hadj-Amil-El-Husseini.

(waits patiently for the ' so what that he met hitler? ' claim.... )

but we can still talk about the partition plan. Negev.... pfff....

so do you have a better suggestion to deal with the refugees? As I said, it is a problem, and must be dealt with in order to have a deal.

And as I also said, Arafat is not going to invite the refugees into palestine, while the palestinian people won't accept a solution not including a solution to the refugee problem.

well , I am quite sure that he will, himself bowing to the pressure on his street.
I already offered a solution. a very fair one if you ask me.

If Jerusalem is Israeli, why is there a part called 'Arab East Jerusalem'? And why does Arafat want to have his capital there?

note - I said mostly.

and Arafat don't really want his capital there . It's simply a great arab honour to be a protector of a holy islamic site ... you don't see the Saudis moving to mecca , right?

OK, you don't like the market approach. Care to tell me what is wrong with it? Care to devise a more fair system?

hey , all I want is a state for the jewish people, so they could feel safe and protected there. Not a jewish enclave. not a jewish city-state. not a jewish autonomy. a country. a small country. Is this too much to ask for ?

And remember, a compromise is a solution where both parties feel cheated... A 'business deal' is a solution where both parties feel they got the better part... Which one would you rather have?

a 'business deal' is also a thing that both sides arrive to , without being dragged by other people. If you let the situation stay this way, there will be a regional war, That could even have it's ripples in the EU (politically).

actually , come to think about it , It seems that the world is heading that way , anyway. I have started to really believe that clash of civilizations thing lately.

Combine Israel with Palestinian holdings. Call the new state "Palestine". Define borders with Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. Secular state, secular education. Distribute wealth. Democratic government. Everything is common to the state.

blah. I would do it if I could ban religion . But my neighbourhood freedom fighters want let me to it. and with Islam still on-board , all that will happen is a gradual fade-out of the jewish population , and democratic values , away.

CyberGnu:
Wouldn't it be better to forcibly relocate all the jews to Arizona?

I'll take it , if you give me sovereignty.

[Sirotnikov]

One of the problems right now is that Sharon does not want peace. Do you really think that the worst Israeli attacks occured just days after the Saudi peace plan was presented?

Let me tell you what happenned for several days before the attacks - several terrorists were caught inside the green line, which includes my home town of haifa.

Had this not happenned, we wouldn't have gone in the camps.

[GePap]

Sharon does not want peace

Siro:
The attacks of the last few days are a response to the raids on the refugee camps. Any idiot (thus, anyone not in the israeli cabinet) would have noticed that as Israeli retaliation goes up, attacks against israelis go up. Its a simple corolation, which a two year old social sicentist could o. Matbe there is sothing to it....

Second: Sharon's way to peace is no peace.
His little zero-sum, 'negotiations can only come after we crush the Palestinians' shows that he doesn't get it. Negotations are between equals- the other situation is called imposing terms. The IDF can destroy the Palestinian authority, but they can't destroy Hamas nor islamid Jihad by force, because they are based on ideas, and ideas can't be forcefully destroyed, unless you kill veryone. The only possible zero-sum solution to this conflict is if one side is destroyed utterly, annahilation. So either the Islamist kill or Jews, or the Israelis set up their own Auschwitz. Sharon's method only lengthens and then temporarily postpones the violence (just like Oslo did, only to come back in escalated form), it will never solve it. The only other way to for Israel to accept the Palestinians as equally valid claimants and negotiate from there. I think everyone knows what I would back.

The 'Jordan' plan is an abomination and a defilement of all democratic, liberal rights the US values. I hope Firefly and Tungsten aren't Americans, cause otherwise, they have no F'ing clue about a little thing called American values.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Tom201
So it is for the taliban morally justified to fight against the American soldiers or would it be more of a moral solution to stop fighting for Osama?

When a police man trys to arrest me for some crime I commited it is morally justified when I shot at him?
[/quote]
It is justified accrding to the talibani beliefs to shoot back.
It is justified according to your will to not be jailed to shoot.

No one pretends living by some "global morals".

Like u said u have to open bags each time u enter a shopping mall. U get controlled any time there is the slightest suspective thing.
I only got controlled once by german police while I was underaged in a discotheke. Never again in my life when I lived in Germany and Netherlands.
The Police dont have the right to controll u without a clear hint for a crime (like u throwing big stones at a store window )

I don't see what you don't like about this.

I don't feel bad because I'm checked , nor do I feel humiliated.

I infact feel very good since I know that if I were a terrorist, I couldn't have sneaked in.

It doesn't stop me from going to the mall or enjoying my life.

Freedom means for me u can walk on the street without the fear to get shot (in the US u also have freedom, but not everywhere. Like it isnt a good idea to walk around in certain town districts with the wrong colour).

Well, I don't have freedom then because of terrorists, not soldiers.

Israeli soldiers haven't even shot terrorists with bombs whom they could overpower physically.

My point is that u get in a really free country, with normal live on the street, instead of the street picture (do u say so in english?) u get in israel, a better point of view. U dont get radical. Radical views are always bad ones - isnt this obvious?

I agree with the point, but I disagree that israel is radical.
i don't mind police at all.

Well he (or the palastins in general) dont have the power to do so.
This means u support the Idea of the right of the more powerful?
So if not Israel but Palastina were more powerful they could use your plan but in reverse and it would be ok?

IT doesn't matter would it be ok.
they would do it without blinking, and it would "solve" the problem.

[CyberGnu]

Dalgetti, I think you are assuming that Sharon is a good man. This is not the case. And this is not even subjective - He is a warcriminal!

If you made the same statement with Rabin in power, I would be likely to believe you... but Sharon 'clearly wanting a ceasing of hostilities' is just not the case.

Sharon is just blindly clinging to the policy which has been the official one for 50 years... 'If we can keep the conflict simmering at a low boil, we'll never have to give back the stuff we took, and we can keep nibbling on the edges'.

In case of a deal, the settlements not only must go, the possibility of them expanding is nil. In case of a deal, part of Jerusalem is irrevocably Palestinian.

The major flaw in Sharons reasoning is not the general feasability of the approach, it worked for 50 years... It is that it is not feasible right now. The palestinians have realized what he is up to, and won't negotiate unless they have a final deal at the table.

And as GePap pointed out, this is more than an educated guess... It is by now a statisical correlation.


I don't think one single incident is enough to cause a terrorist attack, and I don't think that can be concluded from what I wrote. One single incident can very well be the triggering factor, however, just like Sharons visit to the templemount didn't cause the intifada II, but did indeed trigger it.

For a people living in abject poverty, with daily humiliation and hunger... Do you really wonder that they loose all hope when they are also being indiscriminately killed by the Israeli army? And this is not my conjecture, mind you. This is reported in numerous interviews with palestinians. There is a very good story in the NYT sunday edition two or three weeks back, I believe.

This claim is based on an assumption about a policy inherent to the state of Israel with which I do not agree. So I cannot answer this claim, or reflect my opinion on the Idea, just as I cannot reflect and weigh my options on the question : " Why is Mars green? "

Well, how about this instead: What about using this as a bargain tool to get serious negotiations going? Imposed, of course, by the US. Whether it is true or not, it would very effectively show the palestinians that the negotiations are likely to prouce results.

errm... allow me to doubt the power of any impartial observer of peacekeeping force. Lebanon, Kosovo , and some more which I cannot think of right now.

Care to suggest an alternative? Sometimes you have to deal with the best option there is, even if it isn't perfect...

mostly it is not the case . The Negev desert is as good a peace of property as any arid hill , north of Jerusalem . Believe me, I know it , I was there .

So you are asying that property in say, Las Vegas, could be exhanged for an equal amount of land anywhere else in Nevada? It's all desert, after all.

Come on! You aren't trying to delieberately avoid the issue, are you?
Land in jerusalem can't be exhanged for land in the Negev and be called fair...


I put some blame on GB, but not all...

well , I am quite sure that he will, himself bowing to the pressure on his street.
I already offered a solution. a very fair one if you ask me.

I apologize for not critiquing your proposal earlier, this should have been done prior to me offering my own plan.

The basic stumbling blocks is that the Palestinians would not agree to it. As you saw in the rejection of the CD offer, they won't accept an even smaller area to live on. They won't accept a deal that does not include east Jerusalem. And they won't accept your solution to the refugee issue. (btw, I think I might have forgot this point earlier: It is not jsut Arafat who wont accept the refugess into palestine. the palestinians themselves are veyr aware that they are living in one of the most densely populated areas in the world... And they don't particularly relish the thought of doubling that density.).

Right now, the palestinians have nothing to loose by continuing the fight... Only a fair deal can break this stalemate.

and Arafat don't really want his capital there . It's simply a great arab honour to be a protector of a holy islamic site ... you don't see the Saudis moving to mecca , right?

Umm, Arafat has made it very clear on numerous occasions that the capital of palestine will be jerusalem... My guess partly because of religious reasons. Saudi-Arabia gains considerable goodwill from being the keepers of Mecka, and Palestine would do likewise...

OK, you don't like the market approach. Care to tell me what is wrong with it? Care to devise a more fair system?

hey , all I want is a state for the jewish people, so they could feel safe and protected there. Not a jewish enclave. not a jewish city-state. not a jewish autonomy. a country. a small country. Is this too much to ask for ?

I have honestly no idea how those statements connect...

Why on earth is a market economy approach mutually exclusive with a state for the jewish people?

did you perhaps misunderstand what I proposed? Look, Israel gets the land within the 1967 borders. That is already 78% of Palestine!

But the problem is that Israel isn't happy with just 78%, it wants more! It veils its greed in statements of 'security concerns' and 'jews already live there'. Now, if Israel so badly needs areas beyond the 78% it should have to pay for them. And the only way to get a fair payment is by market economy.

But even if Israel didn't buy one sinlge square cm of land, it would still have 78% of palestine... Why isn't that enough?

a 'business deal' is also a thing that both sides arrive to , without being dragged by other people.

My friend, were you tired when you wrote this? No one is forcing Israel to make any business deals. My suggestion is to give Israel an opporutunity to gain the land it claims it must have.

The only enforcing that might be required is outside pressure to make sure that Israel actually adheres to the deal...

I'll take it , if you give me sovereignty.

Unfortunately, this was already suggested once before... in 1901, I believe. and it was an uninhabiated part of Uganda, not Arizona. But this was rejected by the zionist movement.

[Natan]

Unfortunately, this was already suggested once before... in 1901, I believe. and it was an uninhabiated part of Uganda, not Arizona. But this was rejected by the zionist movement.

No such place exists. If you look at a map of African population density, there's no black hole in Uganda. It's the nature of humans to expand and fill their sorroundings; no part of the earth which is habitable is uninhabited. You could never find an uninhabited and unowned yet habitable swath of land large enough to form even a tiny country.

[CyberGnu]

Unfortunately, this was already suggested once before... in 1901, I believe. and it was an uninhabiated part of Uganda, not Arizona. But this was rejected by the zionist movement.


No such place exists. If you look at a map of African population density, there's no black hole in Uganda. It's the nature of humans to expand and fill their sorroundings; no part of the earth which is habitable is uninhabited. You could never find an uninhabited and unowned yet habitable swath of land large enough to form even a tiny country.

Let's examine the above statement again, shall we? think about it for a while. do you see the flaw in your reasoning?

No?

Scroll down, I don't want to give it away to easily...














Ah, yes, it's the four digit number up there!!!! 1901!!!!!!! In 1901 there was a large portion of what is now called Uganda that was uninhabited. Should have thought of that, shouldn't you?

BTW, haven't I already told you this once before?

[Natan]

According to the Library of Congress, in the most sparsely populated areas of Uganda, there are about 30 people per square kilometer. Would you care to explain exactly why this one corner of central Africa had a hole in it where no people lived? It seems a bit improbable, to say the least.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan
According to the Library of Congress, in the most sparsely populated areas of Uganda, there are about 30 people per square kilometer. Would you care to explain exactly why this one corner of central Africa had a hole in it where no people lived? It seems a bit improbable, to say the least.

First of all, that's today, or in the near past, not 1901 as Gnu stated. I don't know if back in 1901 a very large area of good land was uninhabited- but for Zionism to get of to a fair start, it would have had to be. Why is the basic slogan of early Zionism "A people without a land for a land without a people"? becuase to admit there was a people there, would have created (and did create) fundamental problems which are very difficult to resolve

[Tom201]

@ Siro
CyberGnu demanded that I discuss in the other thread.
No Problem with that, read my answers there.


Tom