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

[CyberGnu]

Well, not so much demanded, but I do appreciate it. This might be the first time we have something even bordering on a sane debate on possible solutions to the problem.

Natan and GePap, IIRC was that part of africa struck by a pretty nasty drought a few yeas in a row. The tribes living in the area moved to more fertiles places. Left behind was an area bigger than all of palestine.

[The Mad Monk]

Might its rejection by the Zionist movement have been because of the "very nasty drought"?

[Az]

Originally posted by 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.

That has never been proved. Technicality ? in your opinion.
I don't think he wanted to massacre hundreds of people.

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'.

.... I always felt that this is what the palestinians are doing ... 'If we can keep the conflict simmering at a low boil, we'll be able to put constant pressure on the other side'.....
the wierd thing is that a prolonged conflict is Israel's biggest weakness, wtf would it want to go that way ? plus, Israel wouldn't have to give back anything. Not the way the cards show today in the realpolitik world of diplomacy . ( You know , the one that makes the difference , and calls the shots, not ideology)

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.

so? part of the west bank can be called irrevocably Israeli, if you're talking about population.

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.

so they keep that's why they keep the conflict going? If they've realized that this is an trap , as it is alleged by you , why do they keep bombing things? Is it because of anger and frustration ? politicans don't get angry and frustrated due to occupation. They strive for a goal , ( it doesn't matter if it's good or bad in this case) .

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

yes , that's of course a great proof :

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....

yeah. you got me convinced now.

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.

even that we say that he trigger it ,so that guy that killed that Austo-hungarian prince is to blame at millions of deaths all over europe and the world ?

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.

1) they do not suffer from hunger.
2)daily humiliation ? oh dear . I suffer it as well when I wait in lines.
3) Indiscriminately killed ? yeah, the Israeli army massacres innocent palestinians. when innocent people are killed , the government admits it was wrong ! It is as clear as that ! (but no, I suppose it's all just a show to the world . actually we want to kill them all).maybe they're TOLD BY THEIR MEDIA that the army indiscriminately kills civilians , but that's different.

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.

you got me confused. what do you mean by "this" ? ( sorry , this is an arguement that spans over days ,so I can't get it in one peace... )

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

so , currently , the Palestinians just have to take the deal israel gives them ... coz you know ... it is the best option there is ....

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.

yeah , Las Vegas.....

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...

it's not jerusalem.... it is near jerusalem.

but those areas are also near gaza. so ****ing what?

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

who else ? the jews , for trusting the emansipation and liberal movements , and being dissapointed by them?

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

you're forgiven.

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.

well ,it will happen sooner or later by itself. the Hashemite's Kingdom's days are numbered. I could be wrong there , but I don't care.

(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.).

this can be adressed together with the 78% claim.
well , half of the territory of Israel is desert . the other half is where we live . so our denesty is even more so. and there is plenty of room , believe me.

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

well, dear , I forgot the value of human life. But I guess you have to have it first to be able to lose it . . Anyway , they're not realistic. The Israelis won't move .

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...

I know that. I even think that it's not partly. but mostly.

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!

yeah. and 50% of it is desert

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.

muhahahahah .

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?

and how much of that is arable land?

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.

I wasn't tired. noone forces them. but international 'observers' spring to mind.

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

so far, Israel keeps it's promises. After all, the Israelis commited to the creation of the PNA , and stepping out of controlling the areas in which 99% of palestinians live.

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.

the plan was actually ACCEPTED by the congress , but the people rejected it in the notion that "there cannot be zionism without zion" . Plus , the Brits said it would be a safe heaven for jews, and the issue of the land between Jordan and the sea will be solved later. People were afraid that once they're in Uganda , there won't be able to leave, because the world will say : hay, you have a land.

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.

why?

*has the "it didn't bother them to do that with the Kosovar serbs" answer on standby*

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?

Actually it is possible . note that during the beginning of the century , the number of people living in "Palestine" was way below million . But with immigration , large population growth , created by the great economical conditions that were in turn created by the Jews , the figure rised to 10 million now.
Before the 20th century it was a distant , arid , and uncultivated province of a crumbling empire.


but there was no great change , no sudden economic growth in Uganda.

[Sikander]

Re: Sharon does not want peace

Originally posted by GePap
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.

Rufus' Jordan plan is the best one presented here so far. I'm the third American who thinks so to say so. Perhaps you are the one in need of an education in American values. Your hatred of Israel has been palpable from the first post of yours I saw on an ME thread. You talk about peace and justice just like those lefty losers in the 1980s. What they really mean:

Peace = The U.S. backed side (in this case Israel) unilaterally disarms

Justice = Nature takes it's course.

I don't see you as believing any differently. You think Israel is morally wrong because their state somehow violated your sense of fair play in 1948. You don't care that a vast majority of the Israeli public was born there, while a vast majority of the Palestinian refugees were not. You don't have any real solutions for dealing with a nuclear weapon armed country which has never been defeated in a conventional war other than to have the entire world gang up on it and basically destroy it in stages. Good luck finding a powerful enough state willing to walk point.

Any solution has to be a bridge between reason and fairness and a realistic appraisal of the power dynamics. The Palestinians murder civilians every day, and then complain about Israeli massacres. This (Ge)pap is produced mainly for the benefit of the European press. If the Israelis ever decide to massacre the Palestians there will be no doubt about it. The Palestinian casualties of the whole 'second intafada' would be exceeded in the first hours of the application of a significant fraction of Isreal's military power. This is the reality that the Palestinian's must confront. It is the reality which has their much more numerous and better armed Arab brothers standing on the sidelines. The Palestinians have had the luxury of the fig leaf of being an unarmed non-state entity. They may yet force the Israelis to recognize them unilaterally and then declare war upon them.

Rufus' idea understands the power differential, and achieves a seperation by moving the weaker party to a safer place, and disarming to the extent possible the thorny issue of Jerusalem. Neither side is ready for an agreement that in any way is acceptable to the other. Once the two side fight a while in a true test of strength, the Palestinians will be much more willing to accept a plan like Rufus'.

[Az]

bumpe

[Imran Siddiqui]

Rufus' Jordan plan is the best one presented here so far. I'm the third American who thinks so to say so.

It's an absolutely impractical and bad idea, says this American .

Would make the situation worse, bet you.


Oh, btw, according to Sharon:

If the Palestinians aren't being beaten, there will be no negotiations. The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered will we be able to conduct talks

Sounds like a man of peace, right?

[Az]

So Imran , everyone who's waging war is not a man of peace ?

he's explaining his position to public , saying that :
we can only negotiate from the strong side. Because if we were on the losing side we'd wouldn't be forced to negotiate , but rather be overrun.

If you say that in case of a looming Israeli defeat , America would step in and provide Israel with military shipments or so , that takes us back to the strong side.

Would make the situation worse, bet you

that's clearly a matter of opinion.
I see it as realistic , in the current order of things in the world.

[Alinestra Covelia]

The only cure that I found was to reformat the hard drive and install 98. I have heard that 2000 can work well but have not got a copy of my own. It seems that Microsoft is more interested in just pushing out a barely-beta version of the operating system, and then stripping all DOS functions so you have no backup when the main system goes wrong. Your only recourse is to constantly go online and check at their website (which requires you to register for something ominous sounding called a "Microsoft passport") and then searching for hours for the updates you require.

As you can see, Millennium Edition sucks goat chunks. >

[GePap]

Re: Re: Sharon does not want peace

Originally posted by Sikander


Rufus' Jordan plan is the best one presented here so far. I'm the third American who thinks so to say so. Perhaps you are the one in need of an education in American values. Your hatred of Israel has been palpable from the first post of yours I saw on an ME thread. You talk about peace and justice just like those lefty losers in the 1980s. What they really mean:

First of all, I do not hate Israel: this is the oldest cheap excuse of those who back Israel. I find their policies in the occupied territories repulsive andf I do hate those policies- but israel has the right to exist within its recognized borders, and they can do within those borders what they want. BUt they don't have the right, never will, to dictate to 2.8 million human beings how they will live without giving them a say.

Peace = The U.S. backed side (in this case Israel) unilaterally disarms

Justice = Nature takes it's course.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

I don't see you as believing any differently. You think Israel is morally wrong because their state somehow violated your sense of fair play in 1948. You don't care that a vast majority of the Israeli public was born there, while a vast majority of the Palestinian refugees were not. You don't have any real solutions for dealing with a nuclear weapon armed country which has never been defeated in a conventional war other than to have the entire world gang up on it and basically destroy it in stages. Good luck finding a powerful enough state willing to walk point.

First of all, your demographic statement is, well, ludicrous. The vast majority of israelis are the decendents of recent immigrants, while the vast majority of Palestinians are decendents of people living there long before 1948. To state otherwise is to ignore textbook history. This is far more true for the occupied territories. Any person older than 34 in any settlement was not born there, period, because the settlemnts did not exist. Most palestinians in the occupied territories are refugees, born in what is today Israel, who fled to these areas in 1948. And on top of that are all the Palestinians who live in the villages in which their relatives have lived for centuries- far longer than the existence of Tel Aviv.
As for the 'nuclear armed bit', those nukes meant nothing towards the maintenace of the occupation. I strongly belive that the Israeli middle class wants to live in a normal country at peace, in which they would be free to interact with the world as other peoples do. If the international community forces them, through sanctions, to decide between a normal life among nations, or backing the dreams of chauvinists, crypto-facists, and religious zealots, I believe strongly that the Israeli middle class would abandon the right.

Any solution has to be a bridge between reason and fairness and a realistic appraisal of the power dynamics. The Palestinians murder civilians every day, and then complain about Israeli massacres. This (Ge)pap is produced mainly for the benefit of the European press. If the Israelis ever decide to massacre the Palestians there will be no doubt about it. The Palestinian casualties of the whole 'second intafada' would be exceeded in the first hours of the application of a significant fraction of Isreal's military power. This is the reality that the Palestinian's must confront. It is the reality which has their much more numerous and better armed Arab brothers standing on the sidelines. The Palestinians have had the luxury of the fig leaf of being an unarmed non-state entity. They may yet force the Israelis to recognize them unilaterally and then declare war upon them.

Power differential is meanisgless when speaking of morals and justice, which you, im sorry, seem to be rather ignorant of, or contemptuous about. The power differential between Poland and germany was large in 1939- would you state that Poland should have surrendered the Danzig Corridor and other lands, just to be realistic about 'power differentials'? And then, of course, the power differential between the residents of the warsaw ghetto and the Wehrmacht was huge- should the residents have gladly steped on the cattle cars as a recognition of their lack of power? Do Palestinians committ acts of terrorism? Yes they do, I have nevver said otherwise. But how the US and Israel deal with them is instructive of those american values I speak of. The US went after those responsible while trying to provide aid to the vast majority of the population, to relieve their missery. israel punishes aall palestiinas for the acts of a few, which is the same reasoning of those few. I reject wholeheartedly any notion of collective punishment, any colectivism, which seems to be your basis of analysis. An innocent palestinian can't be forced to give up their property rights, their civic rights, their human rights, because another Palestiians, committed a crime. This is wholy unamerican. To agree with the 'they are part of' logic is to say that soemthing like 9/11 is justifiable because the US is Osama's enemy, and thus all Americans are fair targets.

Rufus' idea understands the power differential, and achieves a seperation by moving the weaker party to a safer place, and disarming to the extent possible the thorny issue of Jerusalem. Neither side is ready for an agreement that in any way is acceptable to the other. Once the two side fight a while in a true test of strength, the Palestinians will be much more willing to accept a plan like Rufus'.

'Battles of strenghts and wills'? Hmmm, how Nazi.... The Palestinians people have the right to excersise sorveriegnty over their homes, so do israelis, so does the Kingdom of Jordan. Rufus's idea, which interestingly enough is a very common one among the israeli right wing, will never occur. It has been relegated to the dustbin of history, along with your mentality Sikander. Notions based on simple force have shown their moral emptyness and the horrors (the Gulag, Mathuausen, Rwanda) they lead to. Your time, Sikander, has come and gone. Get used to it.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Re: Re: Re: Sharon does not want peace

Originally posted by GePap
I reject wholeheartedly any notion of collective punishment, any colectivism, which seems to be your basis of analysis. An innocent palestinian can't be forced to give up their property rights, their civic rights, their human rights, because another Palestiians, committed a crime. This is wholy unamerican.

[Az]

Mind you , the kingdom of Jordan is an artificial country. It's barely a geographical region.

It's sovereignety is the product of pure imperialist goals of Great Britain , 'Divide and Conquer'.

Do you agree that Israel has the right to exist a jewish state , with mosty equal rights ? Then can it defend itself ? thank you.

[Jules]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
The only cure that I found was to reformat the hard drive and install 98. I have heard that 2000 can work well but have not got a copy of my own. It seems that Microsoft is more interested in just pushing out a barely-beta version of the operating system, and then stripping all DOS functions so you have no backup when the main system goes wrong. Your only recourse is to constantly go online and check at their website (which requires you to register for something ominous sounding called a "Microsoft passport") and then searching for hours for the updates you require.

As you can see, Millennium Edition sucks goat chunks. >

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????

Ok, so if I'm following the argument here: we could "reformat" the entire Middle East, presumably employing some kind of Genesis Device technology, and then deposit new life forms there that won't be antagonistic to one another. Do I have the idea?

Either that or wrong thread Alinestra.

[Caesar the Great]

the entire world turns away for 1 year....

whoevers left there wins

[Eli]

Yes!

WMD are allowed, right?

[Az]

Jules : I am glad I wasn't the only one who was pussled by this reply.