Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Facts about the war in Israel


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like the OP. Thanks for posting.

In the words of James, the mighty worm, 'Haven't we all had enough of wars?'

Everyone, 'No!'

Qadira

BigNorseWolf wrote:
cp wrote:


Israel recognizes the nations of Egypt, Jordan, and Syrian. And while there are hundreds of thousands of dispossessed- to call them Palestinians is not factual. Israel did not seize land from 'Palestinians'.

So what, individuals don't have rights unless they're banded together by borders on a map that someone in europe drew up while in the bathtub?

Which I did not say, nor did I think. Way to change the subject. *You* stated they were a nation. I merely pointed out they were not.

Quote:


There is a group of people. We call them palastinians. Semantic arguments about what they are or aren't are completely irrelevant.

Symantic arguments are NOT irrelevent - symbols are some of the most important things in the world. If you accept by the default logic that there is and ought to be a palestinian nation you start with blinders on understanding the middle-east situation.

Pre WWII, the British administered an area called Palestine. Which was then split up into Israel and trans-jordan. Israel had roughly 27% of the land, transjordan 73%.

Later, the westbank area was added to transjordan, leading to the name change of Jordan. Israel ended up with about 18% of the land area.

So, there already *is* a palestinian nation. Its called Jordan.
So the question isn't whether Israel is denying people rights. Say what you will - the 'palestinians' have never had any rights to gaza or the golan heights.

The question really is how to get the people in the refuge naturalized and productive. And what should the Israel / Jordon borders be like.
It is by no means a certain thing that there *should* be the creation of a *new* palestinian state.

It benefits Hamas, off course, as well as Fatah. But that is not necessarily the best solution for the area.

Personally, I think the current leader of Fatah (Abbas) has been a good partner for peace. But Israel actions in making him look week may doom the Israel's best prospect.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cp wrote:


Which I did not say, nor did I think. Way to change the subject. *You* stated they were a nation.

Quotation?

Quote:


There is a group of people. We call them palastinians. Semantic arguments about what they are or aren't are completely irrelevant.
Quote:

So, there already *is* a palestinian nation. Its called Jordan.

So the question isn't whether Israel is denying people rights. Say what you will - the 'palestinians' have never had any rights to gaza or the golan heights.

This is complete malarky- specifically a fallacy of composition. The palastinians were living in the geographic area of Israel. there are people in west bank and the gaza strip who, if allowed, could walk through tel aviv and say "Thats my living room" There were people living in the golan heights. You can't just arbitrarily group people together and say "you're a jordinian therefore you go to jordan" if the man, his father and his father before him have lived in the golan heights.

People left because it was about to become a war zone. Israel wouldn't let them back in.

Quote:

The question really is how to get the people in the refuge naturalized and productive. And what should the Israel / Jordon borders be like.

It is by no means a certain thing that there *should* be the creation of a *new* palestinian state.

Jordan and Egypt won't take them, and with good reason. Provocation by the people living in those areas would be an excuse for Israel to invade.

Quote:
Personally, I think the current leader of Fatah (Abbas) has been a good partner for peace. But Israel actions in making him look week may doom the Israel's best...

We don't get to pick other peoples leaders.


cp wrote:


Pre WWII, the British administered an area called Palestine. Which was then split up into Israel and trans-jordan. Israel had roughly 27% of the land, transjordan 73%.

Later, the westbank area was added to transjordan, leading to the name change of Jordan. Israel ended up with about 18% of the land area.

So, there already *is* a palestinian nation. Its called Jordan.
So the question isn't whether Israel is denying people rights. Say what you will - the 'palestinians' have never had any rights to gaza or the golan heights.

The question really is how to get the people in the refuge naturalized and productive. And what should the Israel / Jordon borders be like.
It is by no means a certain thing that there *should* be the creation of a *new* palestinian state.

Not quite. The British Mandate did include both what is now called Israel/Palestine and Jordan. It was administratively divided into Palestine and Transjordan. They were separate from 1921, with Britain administering Palestine and Transjordan being semi-autonomous.

After WWII (and various insurgencies and much politicking) Palestine was split into a Jewish State and an Arab State, which was not really completed before war began. Jordan was already independent by then and did annex the West Bank, but lost it again in the 67 war.

So, yes. There was a Palestine. It was not TransJordan.


EDIT: This was supposed to go after BNW's post.

Yeah, I don't see the Palestinian Arabs assimilating well into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan with the son of the guy who ordered the Black September massacre on the throne.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do lines on a map matter but individuals don't?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why do lines on a map matter but individuals don't?

Lines on map drawn by European colonialists, usually with the direct intent of dividing existing groupings up into weak states.


People always yell at me about semantics when I say things like this, but:

A nation is a group of people, whereas a country is the physical land occupied by a nation. There's a Palestinian nation (it's all the Palestinians), but no country of Palestine (I mean anymore, Jeff's correct).

Given a few more beers, I'll probably say more on the subject, but the thread may not survive the experience.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

IIRC, didn't Europe engage it its own 'ethnic clensing' post WWII? (I'm thinking the Sudetenland).

Assistant Software Developer

I removed some posts and the replies to them. This is a sensitive issue for many people, please treat it as such.


Hitdice wrote:

People always yell at me about semantics when I say things like this, but:

A nation is a group of people, whereas a country is the physical land occupied by a nation. There's a Palestinian nation (it's all the Palestinians), but no country of Palestine (I mean anymore, Jeff's correct).

Given a few more beers, I'll probably say more on the subject, but the thread may not survive the experience.

Oh no, please continue.

Since Comrade Kirth is on (hopefully short) sabbatical from these boards, and you've already picked up the mantle of razzing AZ in the Did You Know? thread (internet miscommunication, methinks), you might as well assume the role of Stuffy Grammarian as well, you stinking aristo language Nazi!

Srly though, I think we've got a lot of non-native English speakers in this thread, Lord Dice, but, uh, did I make any grammatical mistakes?


Well, you should never begin a sentence with "yeah," to start with...

SIKE!! The joke is, you never begin a sentence with "well"!

(I'd make the the worst Stuffy Grammarian ever. I view proper grammar as moving target, decided by consensus.)


Icyshadow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
It's been said before, and been said again. I still say the jews shouldn't be driven out from the place they were given.
Given by whom?

Response to bolded part.

Did the jews just suddenly conquer the area on their own?

Last time I checked, Europe was involved in the whole thing too.

Also, what's your supposed solution to the problem of "jews have no place to go to, but they cannot stay in Israel either", then?

1a) I don't think anyone here has said "Jews cannot stay in Israel".

I think establishing the state of Israel was a bad idea in the first place, but it's there now and it's not going away.
1b) I don't think Jews have any more right to a state of their than any other ethnic/religious/cultural minority does. Particularly one which didn't even have a majority population in the area it was trying to claim at the time.
2) The question is "How can they live in peace with their neighbors?" I think the first step in that process would be to withdraw the settlements from the Occupied territories. Give up any pretense of a claim to Eretz-Israel. Abandon all the controlled areas and checkpoints within the West Bank.
It's somewhat disingenuous to talk about Hamas refusing to admit Israel's right to exist while continuing to undermine the actual physical existence of the Palestinian state.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why do lines on a map matter but individuals don't?

We're human beings, we don't often make sense when it comes to stuff like this.

Same with the whole "your skin color is different, so we can freely kill you" thing.


Hitdice wrote:

Well, you should never begin a sentence with "yeah," to start with...

SIKE!! The joke is, you never begin a sentence with "well"!

Pfft.

In English, maybe. I speak Gobonics.

[Throws gang signs]


Icyshadow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why do lines on a map matter but individuals don't?

We're human beings, we don't often make sense when it comes to stuff like this.

Same with the whole "your skin color is different, so we can freely kill you" thing.

Hmm, I'm going to take a wild guess and say everybody on here is against that, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why do lines on a map matter but individuals don't?

We're human beings, we don't often make sense when it comes to stuff like this.

Same with the whole "your skin color is different, so we can freely kill you" thing.

But we often ignore obvious examples, too.

I would love to see Israel 1) give Palestinian residents of Israel full civil rights (worked in South Africa), and 2) commit to a peaceful resolution of the issue, no matter what the nut-job factions on either side do to derail the process (worked in Ireland).


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why do lines on a map matter but individuals don't?

We're human beings, we don't often make sense when it comes to stuff like this.

Same with the whole "your skin color is different, so we can freely kill you" thing.

Hmm, I'm going to take a wild guess and say everybody on here is against that, too.

If we were, we wouldn't be separated into nations, and racism would also be less prevalent.

We haven't made progress in either of those as a species, and I'm cynical enough to believe we never will.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why do lines on a map matter but individuals don't?

We're human beings, we don't often make sense when it comes to stuff like this.

Same with the whole "your skin color is different, so we can freely kill you" thing.

So perhaps a different way of thinking is required in both cases, rather than simply giving in to traditional thinking just because it gives us the answer we want?

I don't accept the validity of Europe giving away the the house that a man halfway around the world has either built himself or bought and paid for. I don't buy the validity of England declaring that the fields where his family has been grazing his goats for 200 years now belong to someone else. I'm chaotic, i believe that rights belong with the individual. So if your argument comes down to "well england said we could " then I'm not buying it.

Now, this does NOT mean that we wipe Israel off the map, much less harm the people that are now living there. That wouldn't be fair to the vast majority of them. Israel is there, Israel is there to stay, Israel isn't going anywhere. I think any sane person knows this regardless of what kind of rhetorical advantage they try to gain by claiming they'll be able to get rid of it.

What it does mean is that when Isreal acts towards the palastinians it should do so with a certain level of "mea culpa". Israel is the only one with the power to set things right even if it costs Israel a great deal of the national and racial identity its trying to hard to hold onto. Either clear out of the west bank, settlers and all, or just admit that Israel effectively controls the area those people are living on and that makes the people living there Israeli nationals.

People are not going to put down their guns when its their only protest against living in squalor. People are not going to go with a system that gives the jewish settlers with 20% of the population 60% of the water supply. People will not put up with having to stop for 4 hours to get through a military check point every 20 miles. (numbers vaugely recalled from Jimmy carters book peace not apartheid)

The Palestinians can't realistically do anything to solve the problem. They have no control over the myriad of armed groups running around their streets. Even if they wanted to control them they cant: Israel won't let the governments of the areas have the weaponry they'd need to do it themselves (with good reason).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Paul Watson wrote:
However, Israel has to decide if it wishes to remain Jewish, remain dmeocratic or be greater Israel. I

Eventually the choice is going to be forced on it. The non-Jewish proportion of Israel's citizen population. (not counting the occupied areas) is growing.

In an age of growing empowerment, apartheid is simply going to become unsustainable in a modern country, no matter who's practicing it.

Shadow Lodge

Icyshadow wrote:
We haven't made progress in either of those as a species, and I'm cynical enough to believe we never will.

We have a Black president in the oval office when 60 years ago he couldn't get a seat in a restaurant. Its not perfect, but it is progress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is, can Israel really risk letting them all in? Jews will become a minority in "their own country".

Not too long after, they'll either be the ones persecuted again, or driven out completely like they have usually been.


Icyshadow wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Why do lines on a map matter but individuals don't?

We're human beings, we don't often make sense when it comes to stuff like this.

Same with the whole "your skin color is different, so we can freely kill you" thing.

Hmm, I'm going to take a wild guess and say everybody on here is against that, too.

If we were, we wouldn't be separated into nations, and racism would also be less prevalent.

We haven't made progress in either of those as a species, and I'm cynical enough to believe we never will.

Personally, I think we have made progress, on both of those, as a species, but I believe that Comrade Anklebiter's point was that you're addressing the people reading this thread rather than the entire species.

I think the elephant in the room of Israeli/Palestinian relations is natural resources, but really good desalinization plants could solve that problem, and that's a technology issue.

Shadow Lodge

Icyshadow wrote:

The thing is, can Israel really risk letting them all in? Jews will become a minority in "their own country".

Not too long after, they'll either be the ones persecuted again, or driven out completely like they have usually been.

They were a minority in the area for almost 500 years after being tossed out of Spain with relatively few problems. The amount of time it would take the Palestinian population to become a majority of voters, much less a majority of those with political power, should be enough time for tensions to cool off a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

The thing is, can Israel really risk letting them all in? Jews will become a minority in "their own country".

Not too long after, they'll either be the ones persecuted again, or driven out completely like they have usually been.

Well, this is where South Africa becomes a very pertinent example. If you give the entire population of your land-space the vote, and your government gets voted into non-existance, your government was never all that stable to begin with.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:

I never said there have been no civilian deaths involved, but I'm pretty sure they don't kill them for cheap laughs either.

Unless the fact that the terrorists hide in areas filled with civilians means that they are deliberately killing the civilians with them.

The IDF keeps its headquarters smack-dab in the middle of downtown Tel-Aviv.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff.

My personal problem with the 'just withdraw' argument, is it's already been done, and all it did was bring the rockets closer.

I read once that it's not the first election that is important, it's the second. The 'Palistinians' have never had that second one.

Re: Comparing Ertez to Hamas/Gaza One is a small group that is no longer in existance. The other is the ruling body of the area. There's no comparison.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Samnell wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

I never said there have been no civilian deaths involved, but I'm pretty sure they don't kill them for cheap laughs either.

Unless the fact that the terrorists hide in areas filled with civilians means that they are deliberately killing the civilians with them.

The IDF keeps its headquarters smack-dab in the middle of downtown Tel-Aviv.

When they hide it under a hospital, get back to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

The thing is, can Israel really risk letting them all in? Jews will become a minority in "their own country".

Not too long after, they'll either be the ones persecuted again, or driven out completely like they have usually been.

Well, this is where South Africa becomes a very pertinent example. If you give the entire population of your land-space the vote, and your government gets voted into non-existance, your government was never all that stable to begin with.

Or Jim Crow America, of course.

I'm a casual fan of Jewish culture. Like most Americans I've probably consumed more output from Jewish creators than anything but white anglo-saxon protestants. I'm not very concerned about ethnic heritage and all that, but if I had to pick a culture to have been raised in, American Jewish culture would at least make the shortlist. But the notion of a Jewish state has always been ominous to me. I mean ethnic nationalism never works out well for local minorities, something that European Jews (admittedly not a majority in Israel) have probably noticed.

So why would it work any better this time? Preserving the Jewish character of Israel is deeply suspicious, especially when that character preservation requires massive disenfranchisement. Needing tactics like this to achieve one's goals is a good indicator that one has a horrible set of goals even absent the rest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

thejeff.

My personal problem with the 'just withdraw' argument, is it's already been done, and all it did was bring the rockets closer.

I read once that it's not the first election that is important, it's the second. The 'Palistinians' have never had that second one.

Re: Comparing Ertez to Hamas/Gaza One is a small group that is no longer in existance. The other is the ruling body of the area. There's no comparison.

Eretz-Israel not as a group, but as an ideology.

Annexation of the Palestinian territories (the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is part of the platform of the Israeli Likud party, and of some other Israeli political parties.

And when did Israel withdraw from the Occupied territories? They removed settlements from Gaza, but settlements, roads and checkpoints still cut the West Bank into little pieces.

I agree with the second election thing, though it's not really the second election but the first peaceful transfer of power. No one's claiming that the Palestinians are an innocent model society. They are however a population that's been under occupation for more than 40 years.


Samnell wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

The thing is, can Israel really risk letting them all in? Jews will become a minority in "their own country".

Not too long after, they'll either be the ones persecuted again, or driven out completely like they have usually been.

Well, this is where South Africa becomes a very pertinent example. If you give the entire population of your land-space the vote, and your government gets voted into non-existance, your government was never all that stable to begin with.

Or Jim Crow America, of course.

I'm a casual fan of Jewish culture. Like most Americans I've probably consumed more output from Jewish creators than anything but white anglo-saxon protestants. I'm not very concerned about ethnic heritage and all that, but if I had to pick a culture to have been raised in, American Jewish culture would at least make the shortlist. But the notion of a Jewish state has always been ominous to me. I mean ethnic nationalism never works out well for local minorities, something that European Jews (admittedly not a majority in Israel) have probably noticed.

So why would it work any better this time? Preserving the Jewish character of Israel is deeply suspicious, especially when that character preservation requires massive disenfranchisement. Needing tactics like this to achieve one's goals is a good indicator that one has a horrible set of goals even absent the rest.

Maybe I didn't explain it clearly, but my point about South Africa was that the whites gave the blacks the votes in national elections, and the government stayed exactly the same.

I mean, Nelson Mandela went from a prison cell to the presidential mansion, and he didn't call for all out race war; if there's one dude in the 20th century who would have been justified in calling for such, it's him.

I think the Israeli/Palestinian situation will remain a subject until the Israelis start talking like they're in a position of responsibility or something. :P


Samnell wrote:
I'm a casual fan of Jewish culture. Like most Americans I've probably consumed more output from Jewish creators than anything but white anglo-saxon protestants.

Maybe you're a whitebread chickenshiznit mo'fo', but most Americans get their culture from Jewish and Afro-Americans, not Wasps.

[Throws gang signs]

Also, I've held out for almost 24 hours. I think I should get a cookie:

Spoiler:

International proletarian socialist revolution is the only answer.

Not Arab Against Jew, But Class Against Class!

Down with the Mullahs, Colonels, Sheikhs and Zionist Butchers! Workers, to Power!

For a Socialist Federation of the Near East!

Vive le Galt!

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

*gives Anklebiter a cookie*


Thank you. Sorry about the uncensored swear for a minute there, Moderators.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

M'Lord Dice explained to me how the International Proletarian Socialist Bosses are, in fact, stooges of the plutocracy...

He also went into detail about something Jimmy Carter said about the Cold War increasing the foreign aid budget; I wasn't paying attention, the Pop-Tart in my mouth tasted too good!

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Brownies would quiet him longer.

;)

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Not if you put glue in the biscuit.

Shadow Lodge

Paul Watson wrote:
Not if you put glue in the biscuit.

Sea biscuit biscuit?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:


Maybe I didn't explain it clearly, but my point about South Africa was that the whites gave the blacks the votes in national elections, and the government stayed exactly the same.

I mean, Nelson Mandela went from a prison cell to the presidential mansion, and he didn't call for all out race war; if there's one dude in the 20th century who would have been justified in calling for such, it's him.

I think the Israeli/Palestinian situation will remain a subject until the Israelis start talking like they're in a position of responsibility or something. :P

No worries; I'm agreeing with you. :)

One of the more disturbing moments I had online was when I suggested that Israel, having far greater power, also had a position of greater responsibility. The other guy came right out and said he didn't see why that was so. Told me a lot about him, I suppose.


Samnell wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Maybe I didn't explain it clearly, but my point about South Africa was that the whites gave the blacks the votes in national elections, and the government stayed exactly the same.

I mean, Nelson Mandela went from a prison cell to the presidential mansion, and he didn't call for all out race war; if there's one dude in the 20th century who would have been justified in calling for such, it's him.

I think the Israeli/Palestinian situation will remain a subject until the Israelis start talking like they're in a position of responsibility or something. :P

No worries; I'm agreeing with you. :)

One of the more disturbing moments I had online was when I suggested that Israel, having far greater power, also had a position of greater responsibility. The other guy came right out and said he didn't see why that was so. Told me a lot about him, I suppose.

Yeah, we've all had that moment on the internet, just wanted to be sure I wasn't insulting anyone.

We just got off on the wombly foot is all, SWEET AS CRACKERJACK!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:


Yeah, we've all had that moment on the internet, just wanted to be sure I wasn't insulting anyone.

We just got off an the wombly foot is all, SWEET AS CRACKERJACK!

BJs behind the gym!


"IDF Doesn't Hurt Children When It Bombs Gaza"


Dumb thing to say from the guy. Should have said doesn't "deliberately" hurt children instead.

Sheesh...

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
cp wrote:

After WWII (and various insurgencies and much politicking) Palestine was split into a Jewish State and an Arab State, which was not really completed before war began. Jordan was already independent by then and did annex the West Bank, but lost it again in the 67 war.

So, yes. There was a Palestine. It was not TransJordan.

You contradict yourself. You said it yourself - an arab state was not really completed. In fact, it wasn't even close to completion.

There has always been an area (boundaries various) called palestine.
but you cannot compare apples and banannas. Palestine is an area. Transjordan was a nation (and is a nation that was renamed to Jordan after an expansion westward).

Early in migration to the area jewish settlers were welcomed. But relations after a dozen years or so soured.

There were dozens of arab clashes in the early perod - say 1910-1937. Not just against the french, the british, the israelis -but also between different arab factions.

It was these various claims clashes that made the creation of a palestinian state impossible. If it weren't for the great bugaboo of Israel right now we would still be having these same kind of sectarian clashes that are occuring in lebanon, syria, iraq etc.

The very concept of nationalism is of secondary importance to the influence of tribe, and the idea of uma.

The issue I pointed out is that there was no nation of palestine, and to say that we support a nation of palestine is painting with a rather large brush. Even absent Israel, it is by no means assured that a state could be established (such as, until recently, the conflict between hamas and fatah).

It is easy to paint the Israeli's as agressors. However, Isreal conquered the Sinai - and gave it back to the Egyptians. So Israel has at least demonstrated the desire for peace.

I agree that the partition of the palestine area is wrong and that it decreases the viability of a palestinian state.

However, I also think that actions have consequences. Arafat failed to recognize that the accords were the best deal that could be accomplished. And his signature failure was to give up the right of return, Ie., he would not accept a jewish state.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

The thing is, can Israel really risk letting them all in? Jews will become a minority in "their own country".

Not too long after, they'll either be the ones persecuted again, or driven out completely like they have usually been.

They were a minority in the area for almost 500 years after being tossed out of Spain with relatively few problems. The amount of time it would take the Palestinian population to become a majority of voters, much less a majority of those with political power, should be enough time for tensions to cool off a bit.

I don't understant your proposed solution:

In order to enfranchise the Palestinians you want to disenfranchise the Israeli's? How is that a solution?

The Israelis and the Palestinians can not live in peace together now, so your solution is let the Palestinians take over Israel - and you think that will result in greater peace how?

The Israeli's have a functioning nation, with a working democracy. The have political and economic systems FAR greater than any other nation in the area. Their system of government has the best empirical results of any in the area.

And you want to replace it with.. what?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cp wrote:
thejeff wrote:
cp wrote:

After WWII (and various insurgencies and much politicking) Palestine was split into a Jewish State and an Arab State, which was not really completed before war began. Jordan was already independent by then and did annex the West Bank, but lost it again in the 67 war.

So, yes. There was a Palestine. It was not TransJordan.

You contradict yourself. You said it yourself - an arab state was not really completed. In fact, it wasn't even close to completion.

There has always been an area (boundaries various) called palestine.
but you cannot compare apples and banannas. Palestine is an area. Transjordan was a nation (and is a nation that was renamed to Jordan after an expansion westward).

Early in migration to the area jewish settlers were welcomed. But relations after a dozen years or so soured.

There were dozens of arab clashes in the early perod - say 1910-1937. Not just against the french, the british, the israelis -but also between different arab factions.

It was these various claims clashes that made the creation of a palestinian state impossible. If it weren't for the great bugaboo of Israel right now we would still be having these same kind of sectarian clashes that are occuring in lebanon, syria, iraq etc.

The very concept of nationalism is of secondary importance to the influence of tribe, and the idea of uma.

The issue I pointed out is that there was no nation of palestine, and to say that we support a nation of palestine is painting with a rather large brush. Even absent Israel, it is by no means assured that a state could be established (such as, until recently, the conflict between hamas and fatah).

It is easy to paint the Israeli's as agressors. However, Isreal conquered the Sinai - and gave it back to the Egyptians. So Israel has at least demonstrated the desire for peace.

I agree that the partition of the palestine area is wrong and that it decreases the viability of a palestinian state.

However, I also think that actions have consequences. Arafat failed to recognize that the accords were the best deal that could be accomplished. And his signature failure was to give up the right of return, Ie., he would not accept a jewish state.

Well yes. The fundamental problem with the entire area is that none of the borders are natural. They were all imposed by European colonialist for the purposes of keeping the peoples divided so as to be more easily ruled.

That said, I do notice that you changed your claims. There was a Palestine. It was not a nation, I admit. It was a British Administrative territory. It was not Transjordan or Jordan, which was your claim. Jordan did conquer part of it in 48, but lost it in 67. They were part of the Palestinian Mandate longer than they were held by Jordan and occupied territory held by Israel about as long as both together. To say there is no national identity, whether there is/was a formal nation or not, is nonsense.

Besides, what does it matter? Even if we granted a lack of national identity, does that create a solution? Would Israel then gladly dismantle all it's settlements and control over the West Bank and hand it to Jordan? Would Israel actually annex the territories and makes its inhabitants citizens? Would all the "Palestinians" self-deport to other Arab countries? Does denying Palestinians national identity give us a magical solution?
Or does it just make it easier to keep oppressing them?

And the accords may have been the best deal Arafat could have gotten. They were still a lousy deal. No control over borders or airspace. No military. The 95% territory offered did not include the web of roads and settlements in the West Bank, leaving Israel in control of Palestinian movement within their own borders. No one could have accepted that deal, regardless of the Right of Return.

Shadow Lodge

cp wrote:


In order to enfranchise the Palestinians you want to disenfranchise the Israeli's? How is that a solution?

the solution is incredibly simple. West bank. Gaze. You are now part of israel. You people standing there, here is your Israeli citizenship. Israel has done it before.

How are Israeli's being disenfranchised by extending the rights of all its citizens to all of the people its currently ruling?

Quote:
The Israelis and the Palestinians can not live in peace together now, so your solution is let the Palestinians take over Israel - and you think that will result in greater peace how?

The "take over" would be by democratic vote, and wouldn't happen for some 75 years IF it ever does. (birth rates drop dramatically once you start educating women and they can join the workforce)

Quote:

The Israeli's have a functioning nation, with a working democracy. The have political and economic systems FAR greater than any other nation in the area. Their system of government has the best empirical results of any in the area.

And you want to replace it with.. what?

Not replace: extend. Replace a functioning political and economic system that only applies to 85% of the area israel controls to a slightly more palastinian influenced political and economic system that covers 100% of the area Israel controls. Its not like there aren't already Palestinians that are israeli citizens.

Or in short, you broke it you bought it.

101 to 150 of 668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Facts about the war in Israel All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.