Why I dont post here

[Charles_Main]

as if whites and blacks didn't HATE one another.


get over yourselves and your rationalized segregation. It's still racism.

I disagree with all due respect sir

 

[dilloduck]

I agree 100%, I would add that it may require an international force to keep the 2 parties apart, and too keep both states viable. I would like to see Israel returned to the 67 Borders, and a the nation of Palestine set up in the west bank and gaza. However I would agree this is not likely to happen with the current leadership or Both Israel and the Palestinians.

You don't seriously think the UN is going to send in more observers do you? Again-Who is going to pay for this force that would have no clue what it's doing ?

 

[Charles_Main]

You don't seriously think the UN is going to send in more observers do you? Again-Who is going to pay for this force that would have no clue what it's doing ?

No idea bud, Was just telling you what I think it would take to keep the peace over there. I never claimed to know how we would actually pull it off. Personally I think nothing will ever change over there, and in 100 years we will still be talking about the Arab/Israeli conflict. Assuming we are even still here of course.

 

[Shogun]

I disagree with all due respect sir

dammit.. now how can I call you names with a reply like that?


for real though, dude... whites and blacks HATED each other during segregation. MANY still do. to say that jews and muslims CANT live together is no different than saying the same in the south circa 1967. WE DID. THEY CAN. It;s just a matter of removing the excuses for inequality.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I agree 100%, I would add that it may require an international force to keep the 2 parties apart, and too keep both states viable. I would like to see Israel returned to the 67 Borders, and a the nation of Palestine set up in the west bank and gaza. However I would agree this is not likely to happen with the current leadership or Both Israel and the Palestinians.

!!! Agreed 110%.

A one state solution is never going to work. It might've worked at one point, but the best possible solution would just be to split up peacefully and quickly. There's nothign segregationalist about that. The Soviet Union split up, Czechoslovakia split up, Israel can be split up, so long as it's 1967 borders. Palestine should be it's own independent state if Palestinians so choose. It's the only real way to stop abuses on both sides.

 

[Shogun]

You silly bastards would have given Governor wallace and stom thurman a fucking HARDON.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Palestinians:Israelis =/= Blacks:Whites. It's a totally different monster. I don't know if there was ever a serious proposal for Blacks to form their own country, but most of them (I think) wished to remain part of the US, and fought for equal liberties within the same country because obviously they weren't going to get an independent piece of land in the US. Palestinians don't want equal rights in Israel, they want to be a sovereign nation in a free Palestine. Why would you be against that? Granted, obviously it'd be unbearable in a bantustan-like settlement chopped up into pieces, but if the vast majority of palestines (and arabs in general in the middle east) want to have their own country and agree with the 1967 borders (not with a archipelago state surrounded by checkpoints in the middle of Israel), then I don't see how that could be equated with the situation of Blacks in the first half of the 20th Century in the states.

 

[coolgeee]

Who cares what people think...speak your mind.

 

[Charles_Main]

Who cares what people think...speak your mind.

I am sure people here will tell you I do

 

[Epsilon Delta]

^ He does.

 

[José]

Heya, Dillo!!

Nice to see you again, buddy.

Do you remember our first debate when I joined the board in 2004?

Comrade and ajwps defending Israel...

That palestinian canadian guy with a weird nick, 03486, or something like that, and I advocating racial equality in Palestine...

And you in the middle of the brawl, playing devil’s advocate for good measure (as you always do).

Boy, that debate went down in History as The Mother Of All Smackdowns!!

 

[José]

Sorry, dillo, couldn't reply to you sooner. I’m a hunter-gatherer, if I don’t leave my cave every morning and kill an antelope a day I will starve to death and then you’ll never read my posts again!!

 

[José]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Who is gonig to pay for this and what makes you think they would accept the presence of foreign troops on their soil ?

First, what makes me think they’re gonna accept this plan.

As I said before, dillo, as far as the jewish population of Palestine is concerned, the psychological perception of security is even more important than reality.

What I’m basically proposing is the international community approaching Israel as an impartial negotiator and promising to guarantee the security of the jewish people.

“You don’t have to worry about palestinian majority rule, we’ll provide security for both ethnic groups and will only leave the region when you tell us to do so.”

I believe this pledge would soften much of the resistance against the establishment of a functional state in Palestine by removing the palestinian demographic threat from the horizon until things settle down.

It will help but obviously it won’t be enough so the real answer to your question is:

The international community would “convince” Israel to desegregate the same way they “convinced” South Africa, through arm twisting, a mix of diplomatic pressure, santions, boycotts, etc, etc... Israel coudn’t survive international isolation, even ultra zionists concede this fact.

As I said before, the political will of the international community to implement a plan like this is currently non existent but so was the political will to pressure South Africa in the 50s.

Mark my words, the same international community who came up with the money to establish a half-assed international protectorate in Kosovo, a god forsaken part of world with 0 geo-political importance will EASILY find the money to finance a protectorate in a vital region like Palestine, once the political will is there.

I’m not downplaying the importance of bringing peace to Kosovo, far from it. Human suffering is the same everywhere.

I’m just recognising a fact:

The palestinian issue is, by far, the most emotional issue in the arab and muslim world.

Nothing that happens in the Balkans enrages arabs to the point of knocking down american skyscrappers, but what happens in Palestine does.

I’ll justify the money spent on this protectorate using your own words to ajwps many years ago (referring to the United States):

“Our support for Israel puts us in the line of fire.”

So America is undoubtedly one of the countries that would benefit the most from the desegregation of Palestine but the entire world, from Saudi Arabia to China, would gain with a more stable Middle East.

The cost-benefit analysis clearly shows that the investment would be peanuts.

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry, dillo, couldn't reply to you sooner? I’m a hunter-gatherer, if I don’t leave my cave every morning and kill an antelope a day I will starve to death and then you’ll never read my posts again!!

np--I gotta kill one every once in awhile too. The guvment can't hunt worth a shit much less cook.

 

[José]

But I’ll be 100% honest with you, dillo.

The peaceful dismantlement of Israel is gonna be a hard medicine for the jewish population of Israel to swallow.

The democratisation of Palestine through an international protectorate would mean that, once again in the history of the jewish people, the safety of jews would be in foreign hands.

Once again, the jewish people would depend on foreign powers to guarantee their safety.

It was hard for afrikaners to dismantle the white racial dictatorship they set up in Africa and I won’t hide under the carpet the fact that it’s gonna be painful for the jewish population of Israel, too.

The state of Israel exists on the premise that a group of human beings, by virtue of their common ethnic affiliation, are entitled to more rights than the natives of the land.

The continued existence of Israel cannot be disassociated from the enforcement of this basic act of ethnic supremacism:

A group of human beings denying another group of human beings their right to live in their homeland.

Anyone who thinks Israel has any right to exist is a fully fledged racist more than ready to join the KKK or any other supremacist organisation.

So the peaceful dismantlement of the jewish racial dictatorship is the only moral thing to do. But this doesn’t change the fact that it’s gonna be a bitter pill for the jewish people to swallow.

 

[Charles_Main]

First, what makes me think they’re gonna accept this plan.

and what in gods name makes you think either state would accept a single state solution?

 

[dilloduck]

First, what makes me think they’re gonna accept this plan.

As I said before, dillo, as far as the jewish population of Palestine is concerned, the psychological perception of security is even more important than reality.

What I’m basically proposing is the international community approaching Israel as an impartial negotiator and promising to guarantee the security of the jewish people.

“You don’t have to worry about palestinian majority rule, we’ll provide security for both ethnic groups and will only leave the region when you tell us to do so.”

I believe this pledge would soften much of the resistance against the establishment of a functional state in Palestine by removing the palestinian demographic threat from the horizon until things settle down.

It will help but obviously it won’t be enough so the real answer to your question is:

The international community would “convince” Israel to desegregate the same way they “convinced” South Africa, through arm twisting, a mix of diplomatic pressure, santions, boycotts, etc, etc... Israel coudn’t survive international isolation, even ultra zionists concede this fact.

As I said before, the political will of the international community to implement a plan like this is currently non existent but so was the political will to pressure South Africa in the 50s.

Mark my words, the same international community who came up with the money to establish a half-assed international protectorate in Kosovo, a god forsaken part of world with 0 geo-political importance will EASILY find the money to finance a protectorate in a vital region like Palestine, once the political will is there.

I’m not downplaying the importance of bringing peace to Kosovo, far from it. Human suffering is the same everywhere.

I’m just recognising a fact:

The palestinian issue is, by far, the most emotional issue in the arab and muslim world.

Nothing that happens in the Balkans enrages arabs to the point of knocking down american skyscrappers, but what happens in Palestine does.

I’ll justify the money spent on this protectorate using your own words to ajwps many years ago (referring to the United States):

“Our support for Israel puts us in the line of fire.”

So America is undoubtedly one of the countries that would benefit the most from the desegregation of Palestine but the entire world, from Saudi Arabia to China, would gain with a more stable Middle East.

The cost-benefit analysis clearly shows that the investment would be peanuts.

Israel will never allow an international force. Never.

 

[José]

Originally posted by GunnyL
Israel exists. It isn't going away. The entire ME will be destroyed before that happens, and in that destruction, so too will the rest of world go from the fallout.

Originally posted by editec
Now, is that a lament or a promise? Hard to tell.

It’s neither, editec. This is what we call in Political Science, “pathological political thinking”.

The idea that the triumph of a given ideology or the end of a given regime is worse than the nuclear destruction of our species.

Examples of pathological political thinking:

“Better dead than red.”

“Israel will continue to exist even if it means the nuclear destruction of human civilisation.”

etc, etc, etc...

 

[José]

Originally posted by editec
Of course, I have no hope that it make a tinkers damn difference to those who are ethnocentrically disposed to take one side over the other.

ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY WRONG, editec.

Partisans are people who support the continued existence of a jewish racial dictatorship in Western Palestine that keeps the palestinian people herded like cattle in Gaza and the West Bank. These people “are ethnocentrically disposed to take the jewish side”.

Partisans are people who support the ideals of HAMAS and ISLAMIC JIHAD: the establishment of a muslim theocratic state in Palestine where the jewish population will be protected as “guests” of the islamic state. The jewish people do not want to live under islamic theocratic rule and I support them 100%. These people “are ethnocentrically disposed to take the arab side”.

People who support the establishment of a non confessional state with equal rights for all peoples who call Palestine their homeland ARE NOT PARTISANS BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

Much on the contrary, these individuals are the only ones who can be called impartial and moderate people.

Contrary to popular belief, radicals are the ones who justify jewish supremacist on the palestinian people through the denial of the right of return OR palestinian supremacism on the jewish people through the establishment of an islamic theocratic state.

Moderates and impartial observers are people who support a democratic state with equal rights for jews and arabs alike.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your definition of impartiality, editec.

 

[Glori.B]

It’s neither, editec. This is what we call in Political Science, “pathological political thinking”.

The idea that the triumph of a given ideology or the end of a given regime is worse than the nuclear destruction of our species.

Examples of pathological political thinking:

“Better dead than red.”

“Israel will continue to exist even if it means the nuclear destruction of human civilisation.”

etc, etc, etc...

live free or die...