What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Israel has committed too many crimes. It’s time to stop supporting them. (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
9 Presidents since 1967 have attempted to solve the Israel-Palestine dilemma. Nobody's done it. Clinton came the closest, but the Palestinians backed out. Before proposing my solution, let me summarize the problems:

Israel

1. Israel will refuse any solution that she believes will endanger her security or increase the chance of terrorist attacks.

2. Israel regards Jerusalem as the capital and a Jewish holy city and will refuse to give it up.

3. Israel will not agree to any Right of Return for Palestinians which would allow them to enter Israel and swamp the Jewish population.

4. Israel has settlers who continue to move into sections of the Occupied territories. Much like Ulster Protestants and Afrikaners, these settlers comprise the hard core of Israeli resistance to any agreement with the Palestinians. They believe they are God's chosen to occupy these lands. They and their supporters represent a minority among the Israeli population, but it is a powerful minority and they may fight rather than be forcibly relocated to support any peace plan.

Palestine

1. There are two Palestinian areas: Gaza and the West Bank. They are not contiguous. Israel separates them from each other. While the Palestinian Authority is in nominally in charge of both areas, in point of fact Gaza is ruled by Hamas, while the West Bank is governed by the inheritors of Yassir Arafat's PLO. The latter is thought to be much weaker.

2. Palestinians regard Jerusalem as a Muslim holy city and refuse to give it up. They demand it as the capital of any state of Palestine.

3. Palestinians demand as part of any peace agreement the Right of Return, which allows any Palestinian who fled or was forced out after 1948, or their descendants, to return to the state of Israel.

4. Palestinian extremists do not recognize the state of Israel and seek it's destruction. These extremists may or may not represent a majority of the entire Palestinian population. They certainly represent a majority of those who live in Gaza (ruled by Hamas) and those Palestinians who continue to live in Lebanon (dominated by Hezbollah.)

Now, here is my 4 point plan:

1. We're going to set up 2 Palestinian states- one in Gaza and one in the West Bank. The historical precedence for this would be the separate but friendly Orange Free State and Transvaal which were set up in northern South Africa in the late 19th century. (Or, as a much larger example, the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh as separate Muslim states divided by India following the end of the British Raj.) These states will be self-governing, and, so long as they remain at peace, will receive trading benefits and foreign aid from the United States.

2. The state of Gaza will be whole because earlier in this decade Sharon forced the Jewish settlers in Gaza to withdraw. In order to make the West Bank whole, Israel will have to remove it's settlers from enough of the West Bank so as to allow for a contiguous state of the West Bank for Palestine. This was previously agreed to in 1999 by the Israelis and Clinton, though it falls short of Obama's vague idea that Israel would remove from 100% of the West Bank. The Jewish settlers on the West Bank will be compensated monetarily for their loss of land by the government of Israel with help from the United States.

3. Israel will grant the Right of Return to any Palestinians who fled or was forced out in 1948 and is still alive. No descendants. The descendants will receive a monetary compensation IF they can show evidence of forced removal. The compensation will be paid for by the State of Israel with help from the United States.

4. Jerusalem is the hardest part to resolve. I'm going to adopt the West Wing proposal: Tel Aviv becomes the capital of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem is named an international city (as it was before 1967), with it's holy sites protected and governed by an international force which will include the US military.

That's it. Obviously this would take a lot of work, and it would involve a greater involvement from us, which I'm sure some people around here will object to. But I think it's worth it, because any settlement would save us even more lives and money in the long run.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
9 Presidents since 1967 have attempted to solve the Israel-Palestine dilemma. Nobody's done it. Clinton came the closest, but the Palestinians backed out. Before proposing my solution, let me summarize the problems:

Israel

1. Israel will refuse any solution that she believes will endanger her security or increase the chance of terrorist attacks.

2. Israel regards Jerusalem as the capital and a Jewish holy city and will refuse to give it up.

3. Israel will not agree to any Right of Return for Palestinians which would allow them to enter Israel and swamp the Jewish population.

4. Israel has settlers who continue to move into sections of the Occupied territories. Much like Ulster Protestants and Afrikaners, these settlers comprise the hard core of Israeli resistance to any agreement with the Palestinians. They believe they are God's chosen to occupy these lands. They and their supporters represent a minority among the Israeli population, but it is a powerful minority and they may fight rather than be forcibly relocated to support any peace plan.

Palestine

1. There are two Palestinian areas: Gaza and the West Bank. They are not contiguous. Israel separates them from each other. While the Palestinian Authority is in nominally in charge of both areas, in point of fact Gaza is ruled by Hamas, while the West Bank is governed by the inheritors of Yassir Arafat's PLO. The latter is thought to be much weaker.

2. Palestinians regard Jerusalem as a Muslim holy city and refuse to give it up. They demand it as the capital of any state of Palestine.

3. Palestinians demand as part of any peace agreement the Right of Return, which allows any Palestinian who fled or was forced out after 1948, or their descendants, to return to the state of Israel.

4. Palestinian extremists do not recognize the state of Israel and seek it's destruction. These extremists may or may not represent a majority of the entire Palestinian population. They certainly represent a majority of those who live in Gaza (ruled by Hamas) and those Palestinians who continue to live in Lebanon (dominated by Hezbollah.)

Now, here is my 4 point plan:

1. We're going to set up 2 Palestinian states- one in Gaza and one in the West Bank. The historical precedence for this would be the separate but friendly Orange Free State and Transvaal which were set up in northern South Africa in the late 19th century. (Or, as a much larger example, the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh as separate Muslim states divided by India following the end of the British Raj.) These states will be self-governing, and, so long as they remain at peace, will receive trading benefits and foreign aid from the United States.

2. The state of Gaza will be whole because earlier in this decade Sharon forced the Jewish settlers in Gaza to withdraw. In order to make the West Bank whole, Israel will have to remove it's settlers from enough of the West Bank so as to allow for a contiguous state of the West Bank for Palestine. This was previously agreed to in 1999 by the Israelis and Clinton, though it falls short of Obama's vague idea that Israel would remove from 100% of the West Bank. The Jewish settlers on the West Bank will be compensated monetarily for their loss of land by the government of Israel with help from the United States.

3. Israel will grant the Right of Return to any Palestinians who fled or was forced out in 1948 and is still alive. No descendants. The descendants will receive a monetary compensation IF they can show evidence of forced removal. The compensation will be paid for by the State of Israel with help from the United States.

4. Jerusalem is the hardest part to resolve. I'm going to adopt the West Wing proposal: Tel Aviv becomes the capital of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem is named an international city (as it was before 1967), with it's holy sites protected and governed by an international force which will include the US military.

That's it. Obviously this would take a lot of work, and it would involve a greater involvement from us, which I'm sure some people around here will object to. But I think it's worth it, because any settlement would save us even more lives and money in the long run.
Do you even read your own posts?
 
1. We're going to set up 2 Palestinian states- one in Gaza and one in the West Bank. The historical precedence for this would be the separate but friendly Orange Free State and Transvaal which were set up in northern South Africa in the late 19th century. (Or, as a much larger example, the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh as separate Muslim states divided by India following the end of the British Raj.) These states will be self-governing, and, so long as they remain at peace, will receive trading benefits and foreign aid from the United States.
I doubt this works in a vacumm or with the rest of the picture. It's an interesting thought though.
2. The state of Gaza will be whole because earlier in this decade Sharon forced the Jewish settlers in Gaza to withdraw. In order to make the West Bank whole, Israel will have to remove it's settlers from enough of the West Bank so as to allow for a contiguous state of the West Bank for Palestine. This was previously agreed to in 1999 by the Israelis and Clinton, though it falls short of Obama's vague idea that Israel would remove from 100% of the West Bank. The Jewish settlers on the West Bank will be compensated monetarily for their loss of land by the government of Israel with help from the United States.
This probably has to happen for any settlement of any kind.
3. Israel will grant the Right of Return to any Palestinians who fled or was forced out in 1948 and is still alive. No descendants. The descendants will receive a monetary compensation IF they can show evidence of forced removal. The compensation will be paid for by the State of Israel with help from the United States.
Not gonna happen. Israel can't let it happen and it will look like nothing more than a token gesture anyway and not something the so-called palestinians could agree to. It's an interesting thought though.
4. Jerusalem is the hardest part to resolve. I'm going to adopt the West Wing proposal: Tel Aviv becomes the capital of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem is named an international city (as it was before 1967), with it's holy sites protected and governed by an international force which will include the US military.
This is probably, again, the only way to make Jerusalem work and it's a mess anyway. I can't see either side being ok with this. At least not now.But basically, your plan is to tell Israel, you lose your settlements, you have to pay palestinians probably a ton of money, you have to allow some palestinians back into the polity and you have to give up Jerusalem. You are telling the palestinians that you can't have one state but two, you can have some of the borders back you claim but not all, you don't get the right of return in any meaningful way but the people will get money, meaning the leadership loses some power, and you don't get Jerusalem.

I think you have the palestinians giving up more, from their point of view. Not gonna happen.

 
We fully realize that this is something that will require 100% or your dedication and time, but everyone here at the FFA fully supports this noble endeavor.

We'll leave a light on for you.

 
Ok, so actually after reading this 4 point plan, I see two things coming out of this:

1. We (US) and Israel will foot the bill for this.

2. Israel will lose land.

How the #### is this good at all for Israel and the US?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, so actually after reading this 4 point plan, I see two things coming out of this:1. We (US) and Israel will foot the bill for this.2. Israel will lose land.How the #### is this good at all for Israel and the US?
You don't understand - it worked when it was a t.v. script.
 
Ok, so actually after reading this 4 point plan, I see two things coming out of this:1. We (US) and Israel will foot the bill for this.2. Israel will lose land.How the #### is this good at all for Israel and the US?
You don't understand - it worked when it was a t.v. script.
I'm really surprised because the 4 point plan is coming from Tim, who is Jew. You would think he would want better for Israel. Unless Tim is fooling us all and is actually a Muslim. This would make sense because he is always claiming to vote for Romney yet we all know he will vote for Obama.
 
Ok, so actually after reading this 4 point plan, I see two things coming out of this:

1. We (US) and Israel will foot the bill for this.

2. Israel will lose land.

How the #### is this good at all for Israel and the US?
You don't understand - it worked when it was a t.v. script.
I'm really surprised because the 4 point plan is coming from Tim, who is Jewish. You would think he would want better for Israel. Unless Tim is fooling us all and is actually a Muslim. This would make sense because he is always claiming to vote for Romney yet we all know he will vote for Obama.
 
Ok, so actually after reading this 4 point plan, I see two things coming out of this:

1. We (US) and Israel will foot the bill for this.

2. Israel will lose land.

How the #### is this good at all for Israel and the US?
You don't understand - it worked when it was a t.v. script.
I'm really surprised because the 4 point plan is coming from Tim, who is Jew. You would think he would want better for Israel. Unless Tim is fooling us all and is actually a Muslim. This would make sense because he is always claiming to vote for Romney yet we all know he will vote for Obama.

:lmao: To answer your initial question: the goal of the plan is to bring about a sustainable peace. If that doesn't happen, then the plan is a failure.

 
1. We're going to set up 2 Palestinian states- one in Gaza and one in the West Bank. The historical precedence for this would be the separate but friendly Orange Free State and Transvaal which were set up in northern South Africa in the late 19th century. (Or, as a much larger example, the formation of Pakistan and Bangladesh as separate Muslim states divided by India following the end of the British Raj.) These states will be self-governing, and, so long as they remain at peace, will receive trading benefits and foreign aid from the United States.
I doubt this works in a vacumm or with the rest of the picture. It's an interesting thought though.
2. The state of Gaza will be whole because earlier in this decade Sharon forced the Jewish settlers in Gaza to withdraw. In order to make the West Bank whole, Israel will have to remove it's settlers from enough of the West Bank so as to allow for a contiguous state of the West Bank for Palestine. This was previously agreed to in 1999 by the Israelis and Clinton, though it falls short of Obama's vague idea that Israel would remove from 100% of the West Bank. The Jewish settlers on the West Bank will be compensated monetarily for their loss of land by the government of Israel with help from the United States.
This probably has to happen for any settlement of any kind.
3. Israel will grant the Right of Return to any Palestinians who fled or was forced out in 1948 and is still alive. No descendants. The descendants will receive a monetary compensation IF they can show evidence of forced removal. The compensation will be paid for by the State of Israel with help from the United States.
Not gonna happen. Israel can't let it happen and it will look like nothing more than a token gesture anyway and not something the so-called palestinians could agree to. It's an interesting thought though.
4. Jerusalem is the hardest part to resolve. I'm going to adopt the West Wing proposal: Tel Aviv becomes the capital of Israel, and the city of Jerusalem is named an international city (as it was before 1967), with it's holy sites protected and governed by an international force which will include the US military.
This is probably, again, the only way to make Jerusalem work and it's a mess anyway. I can't see either side being ok with this. At least not now.But basically, your plan is to tell Israel, you lose your settlements, you have to pay palestinians probably a ton of money, you have to allow some palestinians back into the polity and you have to give up Jerusalem. You are telling the palestinians that you can't have one state but two, you can have some of the borders back you claim but not all, you don't get the right of return in any meaningful way but the people will get money, meaning the leadership loses some power, and you don't get Jerusalem.

I think you have the palestinians giving up more, from their point of view. Not gonna happen.
All of your criticisms are justified. This will be a hard plan to achieve. There is a reason no one has been successful bringing peace to the region. I think this, or something like it, is worth a try. Israel has to face the fact that ultimately the demographics are going to favor the Palestinians, even those Palestinians already living in the State of Israel. Simply put, the Muslims are producing much more children than the Jews are. At some point in the future the Israeli Jews will be left with two dire alternatives: either give up their existence as a Jewish state, or give up on democratic institutions and freedom and impose an Apartheid like regime in order to suppress the majority of the population. The only way to avoid these choices in the future is to try to achieve a peace now, no matter how painful the effort.

 
Your plan doesn't take into account the fact that the leadership of the Palestinian areas, along with a number of other Arab countries (Iran et. al.), have no wish to "solve" the problem or create peace, even if they got everything they claim to want. The leaders of those countries need Israel as a focus for the anger of their people, so they don't rise up against the leadership itself.

 
Your plan doesn't take into account the fact that the leadership of the Palestinian areas, along with a number of other Arab countries (Iran et. al.), have no wish to "solve" the problem or create peace, even if they got everything they claim to want.
His plan also doesn't take into account that he's not a diplomat, and he's posting on a football message board. This is why people are annoyed by Tim.

 
Your plan doesn't take into account the fact that the leadership of the Palestinian areas, along with a number of other Arab countries (Iran et. al.), have no wish to "solve" the problem or create peace, even if they got everything they claim to want. The leaders of those countries need Israel as a focus for the anger of their people, so they don't rise up against the leadership itself.
It's an unsolvable problem. You're certainly correct that it's been true more often than not in the past; yet there have been Arab leaders who have been willing to engage in peace. Actually, though, I did take it into account. (See point 4 of my summary on the Palestinians.) I am hoping that the establishment of two Palestinian states will help. One of these states, the West Bank, will likely be friendlier to Israel (or at least less hostile) than Gaza will, and the result will be more benefits from the west, more trade: in general more positive results.Perhaps a good historical example is Ireland. We are looking for a Palestinian Michael Collins to work with. There are plently of Eamon De Valeras.
 
Your plan doesn't take into account the fact that the leadership of the Palestinian areas, along with a number of other Arab countries (Iran et. al.), have no wish to "solve" the problem or create peace, even if they got everything they claim to want.
His plan also doesn't take into account that he's not a diplomat, and he's posting on a football message board. This is why people are annoyed by Tim.
This is a free for all. Why would it annoy you that we discuss this topic? Have I claimed to be a diplomat? Is the subject too high brow for you?
 
For this plan to work, we need to send Tim over there. At the end of three months, the Jews and Palestinians will be so pissed at the number of threads he has started on their local blogs and news sites that they will agree to anything just to send him back to California.

 
Your plan doesn't take into account the fact that the leadership of the Palestinian areas, along with a number of other Arab countries (Iran et. al.), have no wish to "solve" the problem or create peace, even if they got everything they claim to want. The leaders of those countries need Israel as a focus for the anger of their people, so they don't rise up against the leadership itself.
Arab Spring and the Israeli enemy

Abdulateef Al-Mulhim

Saturday 6 October 2012

Thirty-nine years ago, on Oct. 6, 1973, the third major war between the Arabs and Israel broke out. The war lasted only 20 days. The two sides were engaged in two other major wars, in 1948 and 1967.

The 1967 War lasted only six days. But, these three wars were not the only Arab-Israel confrontations. From the period of 1948 and to this day many confrontations have taken place. Some of them were small clashes and many of them were full-scale battles, but there were no major wars apart from the ones mentioned above. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the most complicated conflict the world ever experienced. On the anniversary of the 1973 War between the Arab and the Israelis, many people in the Arab world are beginning to ask many questions about the past, present and the future with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The questions now are: What was the real cost of these wars to the Arab world and its people. And the harder question that no Arab national wants to ask is: What was the real cost for not recognizing Israel in 1948 and why didn’t the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars? But, the hardest question that no Arab national wants to hear is whether Israel is the real enemy of the Arab world and the Arab people.

I decided to write this article after I saw photos and reports about a starving child in Yemen, a burned ancient Aleppo souk in Syria, the under developed Sinai in Egypt, car bombs in Iraq and the destroyed buildings in Libya. The photos and the reports were shown on the Al-Arabiya network, which is the most watched and respected news outlet in the Middle East.

The common thing among all what I saw is that the destruction and the atrocities are not done by an outside enemy. The starvation, the killings and the destruction in these Arab countries are done by the same hands that are supposed to protect and build the unity of these countries and safeguard the people of these countries. So, the question now is that who is the real enemy of the Arab world?

The Arab world wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of innocent lives fighting Israel, which they considered is their sworn enemy, an enemy whose existence they never recognized. The Arab world has many enemies and Israel should have been at the bottom of the list. The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for the human lives and finally, the Arab world had many dictators who used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people.

These dictators’ atrocities against their own people are far worse than all the full-scale Arab-Israeli wars.

In the past, we have talked about why some Israeli soldiers attack and mistreat Palestinians. Also, we saw Israeli planes and tanks attack various Arab countries. But, do these attacks match the current atrocities being committed by some Arab states against their own people.

In Syria, the atrocities are beyond anybody’s imaginations? And, isn’t the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country? Wasn’t it Tunisia’s dictator who was able to steal 13 billion dollars from the poor Tunisians? And how can a child starve in Yemen if their land is the most fertile land in the world? Why would Iraqi brains leave Iraq in a country that makes 110 billion dollars from oil export? Why do the Lebanese fail to govern one of the tiniest countries in the world? And what made the Arab states start sinking into chaos?

On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine. The war ended on March 10, 1949. It lasted for nine months, three weeks and two days. The Arabs lost the war and called this war Nakbah (catastrophic war). The Arabs gained nothing and thousands of Palestinians became refugees.

And on 1967, the Arabs led by Egypt under the rule of Gamal Abdul Nasser, went in war with Israel and lost more Palestinian land and made more Palestinian refugees who are now on the mercy of the countries that host them. The Arabs called this war Naksah (upset). The Arabs never admitted defeat in both wars and the Palestinian cause got more complicated. And now, with the never ending Arab Spring, the Arab world has no time for the Palestinians refugees or Palestinian cause, because many Arabs are refugees themselves and under constant attacks from their own forces. Syrians are leaving their own country, not because of the Israeli planes dropping bombs on them. It is the Syrian Air Force which is dropping the bombs. And now, Iraqi Arab Muslims, most intelligent brains, are leaving Iraq for the est. In Yemen, the world’s saddest human tragedy play is being written by the Yemenis. In Egypt, the people in Sinai are forgotten.

Finally, if many of the Arab states are in such disarray, then what happened to the Arabs’ sworn enemy (Israel)? Israel now has the most advanced research facilities, top universities and advanced infrastructure. Many Arabs don’t know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoy more political and social rights than some places in the Arab World. Wasn’t one of the judges who sent a former Israeli president to jail is an Israeli-Palestinian?

The Arab Spring showed the world that the Palestinians are happier and in better situation than their Arab brothers who fought to liberate them from the Israelis. Now, it is time to stop the hatred and wars and start to create better living conditions for the future Arab generations.

— This article is exclusive to Arab News.

almulhimnavy@hotmail.com
 
1. There are two Palestinian areas: Gaza and the West Bank. They are not contiguous. Israel separates them from each other. While the Palestinian Authority is in nominally in charge of both areas, in point of fact Gaza is ruled by Hamas, while the West Bank is governed by the inheritors of Yassir Arafat's PLO. The latter is thought to be much weaker.
How about a bridge from Gaza to the West Bank which is considered Palestinian territory? The area under the bridge is Israel. This allows for a single connected Palestinian state.
 
1. There are two Palestinian areas: Gaza and the West Bank. They are not contiguous. Israel separates them from each other. While the Palestinian Authority is in nominally in charge of both areas, in point of fact Gaza is ruled by Hamas, while the West Bank is governed by the inheritors of Yassir Arafat's PLO. The latter is thought to be much weaker.
How about a bridge from Gaza to the West Bank which is considered Palestinian territory? The area under the bridge is Israel. This allows for a single connected Palestinian state.
It's 4 kilometers. Pretty damn long bridge.
 
Ok, so actually after reading this 4 point plan, I see two things coming out of this:1. We (US) and Israel will foot the bill for this.2. Israel will lose land.How the #### is this good at all for Israel and the US?
1. We're footing the bill now2. Enjoy using land at the expense of being in an eternal war with Palestinians.
 
1. There are two Palestinian areas: Gaza and the West Bank. They are not contiguous. Israel separates them from each other. While the Palestinian Authority is in nominally in charge of both areas, in point of fact Gaza is ruled by Hamas, while the West Bank is governed by the inheritors of Yassir Arafat's PLO. The latter is thought to be much weaker.
How about a bridge from Gaza to the West Bank which is considered Palestinian territory? The area under the bridge is Israel. This allows for a single connected Palestinian state.
It's 4 kilometers. Pretty damn long bridge.
China has a 164 km (102 mile) bridge. I think it can be done.
 
1. There are two Palestinian areas: Gaza and the West Bank. They are not contiguous. Israel separates them from each other. While the Palestinian Authority is in nominally in charge of both areas, in point of fact Gaza is ruled by Hamas, while the West Bank is governed by the inheritors of Yassir Arafat's PLO. The latter is thought to be much weaker.
How about a bridge from Gaza to the West Bank which is considered Palestinian territory? The area under the bridge is Israel. This allows for a single connected Palestinian state.
It's 4 kilometers. Pretty damn long bridge.
China has a 164 km (102 mile) bridge. I think it can be done.
It was completed in 2010 and opened in 2011. Employing 10,000 people, construction took four years and cost about $8.5 billion. That's about half the cost of Boston's Big Dig project.
 
Your plan doesn't take into account the fact that the leadership of the Palestinian areas, along with a number of other Arab countries (Iran et. al.), have no wish to "solve" the problem or create peace, even if they got everything they claim to want. The leaders of those countries need Israel as a focus for the anger of their people, so they don't rise up against the leadership itself.
It is interesting. I was in the UAE (emirates of Dubai and Abu Dhabi) for a week last month on business, and even in the UAE, which is probably one of the more "Western" and tolerant/accepting of the GCC nations, you can tell that there is a genuine dislike (to the polite/tolerant) to hatred (less civil/tolerant/fanatics) of Israel. Not of Jews ...I need to make that very important distinction! They just view Israel more as "occupiers" since what Russia, Great Britain, and the United States did to "re-draw the map" after World War II. If all the Jews in Israel picked up and moved to South Florida? Cool by the Emirati! Have a long and healthy/prosperous life! Just get them out of the region and let the Palestinians "have what's theirs" again.What is REALLY interesting in the UAE, in relation to the Arab Spring, is that I think only 13% of their population is Emirati. The vast, VAST majority of their population is Indian and Philipino. The "working class" who is often-times treated like it, subtly or not-so-subtly. It's a very modern, cosmopolitan place that is probably the jewel of the GCC! But even as the equivalent of Switzerland to the EU in the GCC, there are issues...as well as strong dislike for the nation of Israel.

Long story short? I don't see the issue/problem between Israel and its Muslim neighbors being resolved anytime soon. :kicksrock:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All of your criticisms are justified. This will be a hard plan to achieve. There is a reason no one has been successful bringing peace to the region. I think this, or something like it, is worth a try.

Israel has to face the fact that ultimately the demographics are going to favor the Palestinians, even those Palestinians already living in the State of Israel. Simply put, the Muslims are producing much more children than the Jews are. At some point in the future the Israeli Jews will be left with two dire alternatives: either give up their existence as a Jewish state, or give up on democratic institutions and freedom and impose an Apartheid like regime in order to suppress the majority of the population. The only way to avoid these choices in the future is to try to achieve a peace now, no matter how painful the effort.
I think your plan is very fair and as so it's unlikely either side will agree to it. Definitely agree with the bolded. The situation has always been untenable and the demographics are going to make it a dire situation in the near future.

 
1. There are two Palestinian areas: Gaza and the West Bank. They are not contiguous. Israel separates them from each other. While the Palestinian Authority is in nominally in charge of both areas, in point of fact Gaza is ruled by Hamas, while the West Bank is governed by the inheritors of Yassir Arafat's PLO. The latter is thought to be much weaker.
How about a bridge from Gaza to the West Bank which is considered Palestinian territory? The area under the bridge is Israel. This allows for a single connected Palestinian state.
It's 4 kilometers. Pretty damn long bridge.
China has a 164 km (102 mile) bridge. I think it can be done.
does the bridge go over another country?
 
Well thankfully the Jews have no historical presence in the Holy Land so the solution should be as easy as shipping them somewhere else.

 
The end of Mahmoud Abbas


Like it or not, the day is fast approaching when the Palestinian Authority we have known for the past 22 years will cease to exist.

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas’s US-trained Palestinian security forces have lost control over the Palestinians cities in Judea and Samaria. His EU- and US-funded bureaucracies are about to lose control over the local governments to Hamas. And his Fatah militias have turned against him.

Palestinian affairs experts Pinchas Inbari of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Khaled Abu Toameh of the Gatestone Institute have in recent weeks reported in detail about the insurrection of Fatah militias and tribal leaders against Abbas’s PA.

In Nablus, Fatah terrorist cells are in open rebellion against PA security forces. Since August 18, Fatah cells have repeatedly engaged PA forces in lethal exchanges, and according to Inbari, the town is now in a state of “total anarchy.”

In Hebron, tribal leaders, more or less dormant for the past 20 years, are regenerating a tribal alliance as a means of bypassing the PA, which no longer represents them. Their first major action to date was to send a delegation of tribal leaders to meet with King Abdullah of Jordan.

Even in Ramallah, the seat of Abbas’s power, the PA is losing ground to EU-funded NGOs that seek to limit the PA’s economic control over the groups and their operations.

All of this fighting and maneuvering is taking place against the backdrop of the encroaching PA municipal elections, scheduled for October 8.

Hamas is widely expected to win control over most of the local governments in Judea and Samaria. Hamas’s coming takeover of the municipalities is likely playing a role in decisions by Fatah terrorist cells to reject the authority of the PA. Many of those cells can be expected to transfer their allegiance to Hamas once the terrorist group wins the elections.

Given his Fatah party’s looming electoral defeat, more and more PA functionaries are wondering why Abbas doesn’t use the growing anarchy in Palestinian cities as a reason to cancel them. Abbas seems to have calculated that Israel will step in and, as it has repeatedly done over the past 20 years, cancel the elections for him.

Media organs Abbas controls are full of conspiracy theories whose bottom line is that Israel is not canceling the elections Abbas declared because it is in cahoots with Hamas and other “collaborators” to undermine the PA.

Although Israel, of course, is in cahoots with no one, it is the case that the government has apparently finally lost its patience with Abbas and is looking past him.

Repeated angry denunciations by government leaders of Abbas for his lead role in inciting violence against Israelis, leading the international movement to delegitimize Israel, refusing to negotiate anything with its leaders, and radicalizing Palestinian society, are finally being translated into policy.

Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman’s recent announcement that Israel is adopting a carrot-andstick approach not toward the PA but toward the Palestinians themselves, and will advance development projects in areas where terrorism levels are low and take a hard line against areas where terrorist cells are most active, has sent shock waves through Abbas’s palaces.

For 22 years, Israel has bowed to Palestinian and Western demands and agreed to speak only to PA functionaries and Palestinian civilians authorized by the PA to speak to Israelis. Liberman’s decision to base Israel’s actions on the ground on the behavior of the Palestinians themselves rather than act in accordance with PA directives, along with his decision to speak directly to Palestinian businessmen and others, marks the end of Israel’s acceptance of this practice.

Without a doubt, Israel’s willingness to let Abbas fall is in part a function of the wider Arab world’s increased indifference to, if not disgust with the Palestinians. As MEMRI has documented, the Arab media is registering growing impatience with PA spokespeople. Arab commentators have harshly criticized PA functionaries who continue to insist their conflict with Israel is the most pressing issue on the pan-Arab agenda.

The disintegration of Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya and the rise of Iran as a mortal threat, along with Israel’s growing importance as an ally to Sunni Arab regimes have made the Palestinian cause look downright offensive to large swaths of the Arab world.

Part of Israel’s willingness to let Abbas fall also owes to its inevitability. Once Hamas wins the elections and takes control over the local governments, Abbas’s already weakened position will become unsustainable. As is already happening in towns and villages throughout the areas, Fatah cells will transfer their allegiance to Hamas. The areas will become Balkanized and radicalized still further.

Confrontation between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Palestinians in Judea and Samaria is inevitable.

Moreover, this process will likely be rapid. Just as Hamas’s complete takeover of Gaza from Fatah forces happened seemingly overnight in June 2007, so its seizure of control over Judea and Samaria will happen in the blink of an eye.

Many Westerners, Israeli leftists and PA functionaries hope that some deus ex machina will fall from the sky at the last minute and cancel the elections.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0816/glick083116.php3

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very informative.

The delusion of Israeli settlers is incredible.  Friends of mine are Israelis that moved to California and part of the reason they left is that they know there will never be peace there.  In order to give Palestine their own state, Israel wants to keep most of the settlements plus an additional 10% of the West Bank. 

 
The US generally vetoes this type of resolutions.
Okay, but isn't this all wink wink nudge nudge because Israel doesn't care what the UN says?  So what does it matter how the US votes?  UIt's not like the US is pulling out military/economic support of Israel, which would be meaningful.  TIA, I really don't know much about this relationship.

 
As part of this resolution, it calls any Jewish person living in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem an illegal occupier subject to being prosecuted by International Courts.
That's awful, did not know that.

I thought it was just a condemnation of the state of Israel for allowing the settlements. Does it turn the settlers themselves into possible criminals? I'm guessing there are some unsavory quarters that really love this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, but isn't this all wink wink nudge nudge because Israel doesn't care what the UN says?  So what does it matter how the US votes?  UIt's not like the US is pulling out military/economic support of Israel, which would be meaningful.  TIA, I really don't know much about this relationship.
It's less about the UN than about the US' previously unquestioned support regardless of Israel's actions.

By not vetoing the US tells Israel that carte blanche is off the table 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top