Question for buildings in the conflict of Israel and Palestine

[Pekka]

That's even better. The best would be, if the forces that are for peace together and acceptance of the other would gain more power. That is, that the more extreme minds would be such minority that they coudl easily overtake those extremists and not make it a battle of extreme minds but both sensibles joining together to fight these together.

I think a fair trade is that settlements are taken off altogether and aid given to Palestine to build infrastructure (and promote democracy), and the hunt of the terrorists and declare open war on their heads, but domestically and internationally, meaning that they should be on the run and the chaser is Israel AND Palestine together.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by LordShiva


You mean like apartheid?

No, I mean separate states.

The good solution is for Israelis and Palestinians to make babies together so that the kids don't know whether they're Israeli or Palestinian.

That's good too
Only sadly it's not realistic.

[Barnabas]

I recall reading that without the west bank Israel would be "too thin", like only 15 kilometers and invading troops would be able to divide Israel in just half an hour, so for israelis it is hard to let go those lands that make them safer

[Pekka]

Uhh, Stalin used the same excuse to start winter war...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by VetLegion


No, I mean separate states.

Like apartheid.

[LordShiva]

Az, Siro, etc., get busy

[Pekka]

Maybe they are busy making those babies? Or at least practicing making babies....

[Eli]

Uhh, Stalin used the same excuse to start winter war...

Well, the SU was a bit wider than Israel. Not by much of course, but nevertheless the comparison doesnt hold.

[Barnabas]

I think Pekka means the distance from finland to Saint Petersburg is also small, but I agree it is a bad comparison,

[Pekka]

Yes, and the reason Stalin felt he needed to attack was to secure some areas that could be used against SU to attack them, mostly that we let nazis come and use our lands, or submit under nazi power. The idea is, Stalin attacked, because he was afraid that the border won't hold anyway.

What Stalin didn't know was that we weren't going to let anyone use it without a fight, but he chose to be safe and take the area by force, to give buffer to vital places, so that you can't use artillery right away anyway.

If Israel is 15km narrow at some spots, and the logic is that you need much land to create that buffer for those narrow spots etc.. well.. that's pretty much the same demand. Land for security, in advance.

If you look at nations, anyone can make the same claim. Besides, I bet there are solutions that can be done with those areas... I'm not saying that Israel should be left with bad options or spots where you can cut the country in half with 2 tanks. If you take out the settlements, status quo of israeli security should remain the same, yes?

Furthermore, such claims have been made many times before. The question is, what is offered in return for the lands?

[VetLegion]

Israel is nowhere very deep, it's a tiny country. The solution to the narrowness problem is to have it heavily urbanized. There hasn't been an army since WWII that managed to advance 15 km through a densly populated city in a couple of days.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion
There hasn't been an army since WWII that managed to advance 15 km through a densly populated city in a couple of days.

And we know what happens when one tries

Today is the 24th anniversary of the massacre at Sabra & Shatila by the Phalangists.

...