Israel okays new buildings in east Jerusalem while Palestinians await UN vote

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] and at the same time , no one can force me to take in Palestinians, Israel is a Jewish state, and will remain a Jewish state, its really quite as simple as that,, its either a Jewish state (with all that comes with it) , or no peace, just as Palestinians don't agree to settlements (as that means their country would have a significant Jewish minority living in it) , in order to maintain their national identity , so do I , its not a big demand or aspiration. but since we are talking about who owns what, am I getting compensation? somehow I doubt the Arab world will pay anything, while asking me to take in millions of refugees which really will have a country of their own to go to. frankly the money the Arab world made from confiscating Jewish property in the 2nd half of the 20th Century could quite easily pay for the Palestinians and then some. and yes, destruction of Israel as a Jewish state by demographics is still destorying Israel , I want peace, but Im not going to shoot myself in the head while doing so , if my security and demographic concerns are not addressed , then Im not going to have internal conflicts which does nothing for me. if the Palestinians want me to go against my own people, they have to prove to me that my concerns will be addressed. Darkman2007

Nice, expell people and refuse to have them back. If Israel can't handle Palestinians right to return (but somehow magically does well for Jews), maybe Israel was a mistake? At least Americans are taking care of the nativist...

Like I said, be what you want to be, however, don't force it on other people if you have no legality to it. There is currently no admission in the United Nations of the claim, therefore Palestine is not obliged to it.

Also, as how Tzipi defines the Jewish state: "These two goals of Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state must coexist and not contradict each other. So, what does that mean, a Jewish state? It is not only a matter of the number of Jews who live in Israel. It is not just a matter of numbers but a matter of values. The Jewish state is a matter of values, but it is not just a matter of religion, it is also a matter of nationality. And a Jewish state is not a monopoly of rabbis. It is not. It is about the nature of the State of Israel. It is about Jewish tradition. It is about Jewish history, regardless of the question of what each and every Israeli citizen does in his own home on Saturdays and what he does on the Jewish holidays. We need to maintain the nature of the State of Israel, the character of the State of Israel, because this is the raison d'etre of the State of Israel."

So in other words it's not about the majority.

Again: nobody wants you to fight your own. These settlements are illegal. There is no question about the need for evacuation.

And again: how does building 1100 settlements in East Jerusalem contribute to peace?

In practice, no, it's not that simple, in theory, yes, it is pretty similar to the US. European immigrants coming up, displace native population, form their own country. All seem similar to me.

And so you disagree with Tzipi, which means Israelis themselves aren't in agreement on this vague term. Yet, you want Palestinians to accept it? This is exactly why you need to pick words carefully, and obtain a UN admission for it. UN is the basis of global diplomacy, and not having an admission on this definition will never have the term internationally legal or valid as a basis for global diplomacy.

Most "Saudis" don't have a say as it is autocratic, unlike you, a person that live in a democracy. But personally speaking, if I was a part of a Muslim Arabic group that invaded a land with a native population, expelled them, and 40 years later they demanded for return, then I would be more than welcoming, no matter what demographic change will make of it. You need to take responsibility for your actions.

I don't see how reparations are necessary as Israel retaliated way after the 48 war.

And no, you need to do more than acknowledge the problem, we are seeing you right now refusing to evacuate previous settlements. So stop this one before it begins why don't you?

You know, this talk of rights, and international laws, what should be and what should have been is really missing the point:

Israel is a strong military state with a vested interest in controlling its demographics, and surrounded by nations that have gone to war with them in relatively recent history. This diplomatic hand-wringing is merely the background music for what actually occurs, much as is the case with Syria, North Korea, etc...

If you want to be upset and feel that one side has a moral high ground, that's fine, express that. What you shouldn't do is let your personal sentiments cloud your view of reality. The reality is that the Palestinians are not wanted by the majority of Arab nations, have nowhere to go, and that Israel is now and will likely continue to settle the regions they wish. Their policy of strict containment is likely to remain viable unless a major state sponser engages beyond what we've seen so far.

The most extreme outcome would be another war or series of wars, and there is no doubt as to who would win that. The Palestinians have no recourse, and frankly no hope that I can see at this point. They are likely to either remain contained and undergo further social and governmental degeneration (not a vlaue judgement, but a result of circumstances), break out during periods of looming instability and become diasporic in the region. Given trending events in the ME, the last option seems most likely, with the hardliners and hopefuls remaining in the West Bank and Gaza. At that point, I would suspect that Israel would take the opportunity to annex Gaza and the West Bank, and there is your endgame.

If someone else can propose a reasonably likely outcome that doesn't hinge on a sudden and radical change in human nature or the history of the region, I'm all ears. Again, dispassion here, not about who is right or wrong... just about what history and current events are strongly indicating. In my opinion, the very notion of the "peace process" is useful only to Arab nations who have used this issue as a distraction from their own despotism, to Europe in service to a mix of strongly held beliefs about human rights, working with said Arab nations to maintain regional stability, and a relative minority who enjoy this as a means to express anti-semitism. (the latter is obviously a minority) The USA through Clinton has been a genuine peace broker, but since Arafat rejected the last meaningful deal, we've been all talk and no real action except to support Israel materially.

The world has an interest in stability in the region until or unless its oil and shipping are no longer a factor. That FAR outweighs considerations of human rights, except for those nations which get their oil elsewhere, or those wo see a viable agenda here. In addition, as the ME continues to slowly destabilize under its own people's outrage over disparities in opportunity and standards of living WITHIN their nations, attention drifts from this issue. Two wars in the ME have done much the same as well. The time-table that this all takes place in is debatable, but as no true intervention will ever be made... this is the point where you resign in 'Go'.

This is my utterly dispassionate opinion of the situation, ignoring human rights, law, treaty and more. In those cases where realpolitik truly rules the day, I'd rather not be bogged down in the passions and hatreds here, and discuss the situation as it has evolved. I'm not endorsing the courses of action I've described, I just believe they are the most likely to occur.

You know, this talk of rights, and international laws, what should be and what should have been is really missing the point:

This is my utterly dispassionate opinion of the situation, ignoring human rights, law, treaty and more.

Frame_Dragger

There are so many things wrong in your ME mentality I just don't know where to begin, so I just put the first sentence of the first paragraph with the first sentence of the last paragraph.

If someone else can propose a reasonably likely outcome that doesn't hinge on a sudden and radical change in human nature or the history of the region, I'm all ears.

Frame_Dragger

I think if I complain about it sufficiently on the Internet, I can change human nature. :) Really though, what you say seems reasonable.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

You know, this talk of rights, and international laws, what should be and what should have been is really missing the point:

This is my utterly dispassionate opinion of the situation, ignoring human rights, law, treaty and more.

Victorious_Fize

There are so many things wrong in your ME mentality I just don't know where to begin, so I just put the first sentence of the first paragraph with the first sentence of the last paragraph.

Strategic and tactical analysis of a situation require dispassion; I'm describing what I see as the most likely outcomes, not what I WANT to see happen. I don't want people to be put in what amounts to two large ghettos by Israel. I don't want Israel to live in fear of its continued existence, under rocket fire, and terrorist attack.

If you want to ask what my PERSONAL beliefs are, that's a different post, and it doesn't stop me from creating the post I did moments ago. Rejecting what I've said because you can't be dispassionate for a short period of time is a pity, but if you have no response please don't resort to ad hominem and nothing else.

I'd add... if you don't know where to start... don't. Either take the time to consider a response that is more than hand-waving, or don't respond. I'd personally prefer that you provide a meaningful response, but if you can't manage it then please have the grace to refrain from simply being disruptive.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

Nice, expell people and refuse to have them back. If Israel can't handle Palestinians right to return (but somehow magically does well for Jews), maybe Israel was a mistake? At least Americans are taking care of the nativist...

Like I said, be what you want to be, however, don't force it on other people if you have no legality to it. There is currently no admission in the United Nations of the claim, therefore Palestine is not obliged to it.

Also, as how Tzipi defines the Jewish state: "These two goals of Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state must coexist and not contradict each other. So, what does that mean, a Jewish state? It is not only a matter of the number of Jews who live in Israel. It is not just a matter of numbers but a matter of values. The Jewish state is a matter of values, but it is not just a matter of religion, it is also a matter of nationality. And a Jewish state is not a monopoly of rabbis. It is not. It is about the nature of the State of Israel. It is about Jewish tradition. It is about Jewish history, regardless of the question of what each and every Israeli citizen does in his own home on Saturdays and what he does on the Jewish holidays. We need to maintain the nature of the State of Israel, the character of the State of Israel, because this is the raison d'etre of the State of Israel."

So in other words it's not about the majority.

Again: nobody wants you to fight your own. These settlements are illegal. There is no question about the need for evacuation.

And again: how does building 1100 settlements in East Jerusalem contribute to peace?

Victorious_Fize

In practice, no, it's not that simple, in theory, yes, it is pretty similar to the US. European immigrants coming up, displace native population, form their own country. All seem similar to me.

And so you disagree with Tzipi, which means Israelis themselves aren't in agreement on this vague term. Yet, you want Palestinians to accept it? This is exactly why you need to pick words carefully, and obtain a UN admission for it. UN is the basis of global diplomacy, and not having an admission on this definition will never have the term internationally legal or valid as a basis for global diplomacy.

Most "Saudis" don't have a say as it is autocratic, unlike you, a person that live in a democracy. But personally speaking, if I was a part of a Muslim Arabic group that invaded a land with a native population, expelled them, and 40 years later they demanded for return, then I would be more than welcoming, no matter what demographic change will make of it. You need to take responsibility for your actions.

I don't see how reparations are necessary as Israel retaliated way after the 48 war.

And no, you need to do more than acknowledge the problem, we are seeing you right now refusing to evacuate previous settlements. So stop this one before it begins why don't you?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

If someone else can propose a reasonably likely outcome that doesn't hinge on a sudden and radical change in human nature or the history of the region, I'm all ears.

I think if I complain about it sufficiently on the Internet, I can change human nature. :) Really though, what you say seems reasonable.

dispassionate? Ok, what I really see happening is Palestinains going to the general assembly. That way they will have a power on thier side. After that it would make it extremely difficult to unilaterally annex anything. And negotiations would have to take place. this will However become a huge problem due to the fact that the actually eneral assembly vote won't happen until a while after the security council vetos. Problem will lie on East jersulem. Okay palestinains will have a non member state but I think that it'll stay in negotiations for a long time in that state. However as a non member state it'd grant palestinains a better position and loosen the grip of the settler movement. The only genuine Issue i see is Hamas. and the possiblity of sactions against palestine due to them.mayceV

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

I think if I complain about it sufficiently on the Internet, I can change human nature. :) Really though, what you say seems reasonable.

dispassionate? Ok, what I really see happening is Palestinains going to the general assembly. That way they will have a power on thier side. After that it would make it extremely difficult to unilaterally annex anything. And negotiations would have to take place. this will However become a huge problem due to the fact that the actually eneral assembly vote won't happen until a while after the security council vetos. Problem will lie on East jersulem. Okay palestinains will have a non member state but I think that it'll stay in negotiations for a long time in that state. However as a non member state it'd grant palestinains a better position and loosen the grip of the settler movement. The only genuine Issue i see is Hamas. and the possiblity of sactions against palestine due to them.mayceV

well you brought up a pretty big issue. Other arabs towards palestinians. yeha its bad but that kinda strengthens the arguemnet of compesation but seeing you agree with compensation we can out that o the side. however right of return. do you think that some palestian would be able to go back to isreal? As in not all refugees but a select number? because estimates I heard go as low as 600k. granted it probably wouldn't hit that low but do you think that around 900k refugees would ruin the balance in the immediate future? (within the next 60 years) because statistically speakining the jewish population double every 3 generations will the Arab population doubles every generation. This doubling time will definetly change though. It will decrease when the population realizes the amount of over population it causes so it'll take longer but if it did stay at this ratio it'd take 75 years to even get to an equal amount with jews at a small lead. However the arab double rate would inevitably slow down. so it'll stay a jewish state for atleast 75 years. however don't think that Isreal will stay a jewish state forever. trust me arabs are crazy man they are like rabbits one day there's 2 the next theres 16 then out of no where they'll become a majority. Why? well as you know the arab mindset is based mostly on Islam and in islam Allah tells us not to abstain from having children due to fear you can't take care of them because Allah will take care of them for you. And suprisingly enough all the instances I've known it holds true. My mom's side was dirt poor and she had 9 siblings. yet every single one of them grew up went to University and now are middle class in Jordan or upper class US. My dad's sides home was burened down ( even before it was burnt down they were broke) and he had 5 sibblings. At one point all my dad had was a pair of cotton paints ( around 12 years old) but just 4 years ago my dad was in the high class of the US as a succesful businessman. Granted that WAS 4 years ago currently.... we're middle class in Jordan which actually is extremely pleasant despite the akward and sometimes stupid policies in the country.So maybe not in our lifetime but difenetly in our childrens I'm sorry to say but isreal won't be jewish majority forever- unless they deny arabs right to vote or boot them out into another exodous. Both of which are either illegal or against the isreali constisution.mayceV

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Palantas"] H[QUOTE="mayceV"]dispassionate? Ok, what I really see happening is Palestinains going to the general assembly. That way they will have a power on thier side. After that it would make it extremely difficult to unilaterally annex anything. And negotiations would have to take place. this will However become a huge problem due to the fact that the actually eneral assembly vote won't happen until a while after the security council vetos. Problem will lie on East jersulem. Okay palestinains will have a non member state but I think that it'll stay in negotiations for a long time in that state. However as a non member state it'd grant palestinains a better position and loosen the grip of the settler movement. The only genuine Issue i see is Hamas. and the possiblity of sactions against palestine due to them.mayceV

[QUOTE="mayceV"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I can imagine that being a likely scenario, but not one that results in any stability for the Palestinians, just more vocal support as history continues to grind them ever finer. Israel holds Jerusalem, and while I personally think a reaonable solution exists (three-way control; Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and a state with in a state like the Vatican) which would allow co-existence, I dont' see that as likely.

Heh, thanks for the vote of confidence Palantas, I mean that.Frame_Dragger

I'm of the opinion that neither side of this long-term confrontation is willing to take sufficient measures in order to secure a peaceful solution.

[QUOTE="mayceV"]well you brought up a pretty big issue. Other arabs towards palestinians. yeha its bad but that kinda strengthens the arguemnet of compesation but seeing you agree with compensation we can out that o the side. however right of return. do you think that some palestian would be able to go back to isreal? As in not all refugees but a select number? because estimates I heard go as low as 600k. granted it probably wouldn't hit that low but do you think that around 900k refugees would ruin the balance in the immediate future? (within the next 60 years) because statistically speakining the jewish population double every 3 generations will the Arab population doubles every generation. This doubling time will definetly change though. It will decrease when the population realizes the amount of over population it causes so it'll take longer but if it did stay at this ratio it'd take 75 years to even get to an equal amount with jews at a small lead. However the arab double rate would inevitably slow down. so it'll stay a jewish state for atleast 75 years. however don't think that Isreal will stay a jewish state forever. trust me arabs are crazy man they are like rabbits one day there's 2 the next theres 16 then out of no where they'll become a majority. Why? well as you know the arab mindset is based mostly on Islam and in islam Allah tells us not to abstain from having children due to fear you can't take care of them because Allah will take care of them for you. And suprisingly enough all the instances I've known it holds true. My mom's side was dirt poor and she had 9 siblings. yet every single one of them grew up went to University and now are middle class in Jordan or upper class US. My dad's sides home was burened down ( even before it was burnt down they were broke) and he had 5 sibblings. At one point all my dad had was a pair of cotton paints ( around 12 years old) but just 4 years ago my dad was in the high class of the US as a succesful businessman. Granted that WAS 4 years ago currently.... we're middle class in Jordan which actually is extremely pleasant despite the akward and sometimes stupid policies in the country.So maybe not in our lifetime but difenetly in our childrens I'm sorry to say but isreal won't be jewish majority forever- unless they deny arabs right to vote or boot them out into another exodous. Both of which are either illegal or against the isreali constisution.Darkman2007

who cares? if it is being built on israel land, then they should have that right.

I'm of the opinion that neither side of this long-term confrontation is willing to take sufficient measures in order to secure a peaceful solution.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="mayceV"]well you brought up a pretty big issue. Other arabs towards palestinians. yeha its bad but that kinda strengthens the arguemnet of compesation but seeing you agree with compensation we can out that o the side. however right of return. do you think that some palestian would be able to go back to isreal? As in not all refugees but a select number? because estimates I heard go as low as 600k. granted it probably wouldn't hit that low but do you think that around 900k refugees would ruin the balance in the immediate future? (within the next 60 years) because statistically speakining the jewish population double every 3 generations will the Arab population doubles every generation. This doubling time will definetly change though. It will decrease when the population realizes the amount of over population it causes so it'll take longer but if it did stay at this ratio it'd take 75 years to even get to an equal amount with jews at a small lead. However the arab double rate would inevitably slow down. so it'll stay a jewish state for atleast 75 years. however don't think that Isreal will stay a jewish state forever. trust me arabs are crazy man they are like rabbits one day there's 2 the next theres 16 then out of no where they'll become a majority. Why? well as you know the arab mindset is based mostly on Islam and in islam Allah tells us not to abstain from having children due to fear you can't take care of them because Allah will take care of them for you. And suprisingly enough all the instances I've known it holds true. My mom's side was dirt poor and she had 9 siblings. yet every single one of them grew up went to University and now are middle class in Jordan or upper class US. My dad's sides home was burened down ( even before it was burnt down they were broke) and he had 5 sibblings. At one point all my dad had was a pair of cotton paints ( around 12 years old) but just 4 years ago my dad was in the high class of the US as a succesful businessman. Granted that WAS 4 years ago currently.... we're middle class in Jordan which actually is extremely pleasant despite the akward and sometimes stupid policies in the country.So maybe not in our lifetime but difenetly in our childrens I'm sorry to say but isreal won't be jewish majority forever- unless they deny arabs right to vote or boot them out into another exodous. Both of which are either illegal or against the isreali constisution.mayceV

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="mayceV"] Oh palestine and stable in the same sentence :lol: palestine is easily the least stable country that isn't in Africa. It may get better in a way but as long as Hamas exsists it won't be stable. BUT one good thing did come out of the UN bid. Hamas is quickly losing populartiy. and if a vote does go through in two years I'm almost positive that hamas will lose. Granted.... The reconcilation is more or less for show. actually in all honesty hamas doesn't need to disappear it needs reforms. It needs an actual form of control over "it's" "military wing". Hamas itself isn't a terrorist group however that statment only works if it had some obedience in its ranks and reforms in its charter. Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] the US took in the native Americans after most of them were slaughtered/put into reserves, its not quite as simple as that. Tzipi Livni can say what she likes, she in opposition , and thus can say alot of things that mean nothing , the concepts of a Jewish state are based are based on the fact that Jews are majority, and that Jewish values and nationalism are dominant, the same as most states would want. what she means is that its not about religion , its about the character of the state , by that she means the Jewish character., which is exacly tied to nationalism and numbers. but let me turn this around and ask what would most Saudis say if they were told that they were going to have to accept millions of non Arab, non Muslim refugees, essentially making it not possible for the country to be a Muslim Arab state , I would have to assume most people would be firmly against that. fine, so they don't have to say anything, but if they want to let me define my own country myself, then they should not force on me something which would change the nature of the state, it goes both ways here . and this isn't some sort of game where destroying the Jewish state by force didn't work , therefore we will use treaties to do it, the Arabs tried to destroy us in 48 , it didn't work , borders changed, people moved, we all have to accept it Im afraid. so where is my compensation? if they want anything from me, then I want the Arab world to pay compensation to the millions of Jews who potentially deserve it if you set a precedent. and the settlements don't help, no question about it, but Im only going to do as much as anybody else, retreating while not doing anything regarding rockets for instacne will just make me look week.Darkman2007

In practice, no, it's not that simple, in theory, yes, it is pretty similar to the US. European immigrants coming up, displace native population, form their own country. All seem similar to me.

And so you disagree with Tzipi, which means Israelis themselves aren't in agreement on this vague term. Yet, you want Palestinians to accept it? This is exactly why you need to pick words carefully, and obtain a UN admission for it. UN is the basis of global diplomacy, and not having an admission on this definition will never have the term internationally legal or valid as a basis for global diplomacy.

Most "Saudis" don't have a say as it is autocratic, unlike you, a person that live in a democracy. But personally speaking, if I was a part of a Muslim Arabic group that invaded a land with a native population, expelled them, and 40 years later they demanded for return, then I would be more than welcoming, no matter what demographic change will make of it. You need to take responsibility for your actions.

I don't see how reparations are necessary as Israel retaliated way after the 48 war.

And no, you need to do more than acknowledge the problem, we are seeing you right now refusing to evacuate previous settlements. So stop this one before it begins why don't you?

Jesus Christ, it was over 3000 years ago, actually, it was even before Jesus Christ. :|

Europeans obviously means Ashkenazi Jews came from Europe, and were well integrated in European society. They had absolutely little to do with the Jews 3000 years ago aside from the same beliefs.

More so, modern state of Israel itself has little to do with the Kingdom of old. It is a secular democracy with many Atheist Jews and established gay rights.

I was not around when the wars happened, but that was a time of mutual hostility with mutual retaliation. Now is different, now Israel is here to stay and leave us and them alone, which is why we both must take responsibility, else, it'll go worse from here on out. But still, that is a good use of tango there, it's always reassuring to know that Israel is on the same level of Hamas, but it makes me ponder, how does that relate to East Jerusalem? Which has absolutely no Hamas control? Why not build settlements in Gaza instead?

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

In practice, no, it's not that simple, in theory, yes, it is pretty similar to the US. European immigrants coming up, displace native population, form their own country. All seem similar to me.

And so you disagree with Tzipi, which means Israelis themselves aren't in agreement on this vague term. Yet, you want Palestinians to accept it? This is exactly why you need to pick words carefully, and obtain a UN admission for it. UN is the basis of global diplomacy, and not having an admission on this definition will never have the term internationally legal or valid as a basis for global diplomacy.

Most "Saudis" don't have a say as it is autocratic, unlike you, a person that live in a democracy. But personally speaking, if I was a part of a Muslim Arabic group that invaded a land with a native population, expelled them, and 40 years later they demanded for return, then I would be more than welcoming, no matter what demographic change will make of it. You need to take responsibility for your actions.

I don't see how reparations are necessary as Israel retaliated way after the 48 war.

And no, you need to do more than acknowledge the problem, we are seeing you right now refusing to evacuate previous settlements. So stop this one before it begins why don't you?

Victorious_Fize

Jesus Christ, it was over 3000 years ago, actually, it was even before Jesus Christ. :|

Europeans obviously means Ashkenazi Jews came from Europe, and were well integrated in European society. They had absolutely little to do with the Jews 3000 years ago aside from the same beliefs.

More so, modern state of Israel itself has little to do with the Kingdom of old. It is a secular democracy with many Atheist Jews and established gay rights.

I was not around when the wars happened, but that was a time of mutual hostility with mutual retaliation. Now is different, now Israel is here to stay and leave us and them alone, which is why we both must take responsibility, else, it'll go worse from here on out. But still, that is a good use of tango there, it's always reassuring to know that Israel is on the same level of Hamas, but it makes me ponder, how does that relate to East Jerusalem? Which has absolutely no Hamas control? Why not build settlements in Gaza instead?

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I agree, and as long as that situation remains other Arab nation will remain closed to the Palestinian people, and Israel will advance or hold the walls. There ARE solutions to this that don't violate law, rights, and basic humanity, but the people involved are racing in the opposite direction from those possible solutions. mayceV

[QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] the big difference is that the land of Israel is my ancestral home, the Europeans had 0 claim to the land wheter you like it or not, the situation is quite different.. the only difference is, native americans aren't getting a chunk of the US to form their own state, . while the Palestinians will get what is technically historic Israel to form their own state (something I have no issues with). and the governments position regarding the Jewish state is generally the accepted view , that is, the nature of the state as prescribed in the parameters I mentioned beforehand, and I don't care wheter the Palestinians want it or not, that point is not negotiable, wheter they like it or not, that is the essence of a 2 state solution , if they want a right of return , then why lobby for 2 states? they may as well lobby for 1 state (something they will never get of course , since it brings them back to the 1970s). and youre telling me to take responsiblity, I could say the same to the Arab world, it had a chance to throw me into the sea and it tried, it failed, and didn't manage to do it, this isn't some game where if it didn't work one way we reverse the clock. the Palestinians will go back to their own state, that is the real essence of a 2 state solution , just like they wouldn't want to have the settlers in the west bank. lastly, it takes two to tango here, they want the settlement building to stop, they have to stop the rockets, can they guarantee that? I don't think so. peace is something that both sides work on , not a matter of me retreating while getting rockets launched at me.Darkman2007

Jesus Christ, it was over 3000 years ago, actually, it was even before Jesus Christ. :|

Europeans obviously means Ashkenazi Jews came from Europe, and were well integrated in European society. They had absolutely little to do with the Jews 3000 years ago aside from the same beliefs.

More so, modern state of Israel itself has little to do with the Kingdom of old. It is a secular democracy with many Atheist Jews and established gay rights.

I was not around when the wars happened, but that was a time of mutual hostility with mutual retaliation. Now is different, now Israel is here to stay and leave us and them alone, which is why we both must take responsibility, else, it'll go worse from here on out. But still, that is a good use of tango there, it's always reassuring to know that Israel is on the same level of Hamas, but it makes me ponder, how does that relate to East Jerusalem? Which has absolutely no Hamas control? Why not build settlements in Gaza instead?

the big difference is that the land of Israel is my ancestral home, the Europeans had 0 claim to the land wheter you like it or not, the situation is quite different.. the only difference is, native americans aren't getting a chunk of the US to form their own state, . while the Palestinians will get what is technically historic Israel to form their own state (something I have no issues with). and the governments position regarding the Jewish state is generally the accepted view , that is, the nature of the state as prescribed in the parameters I mentioned beforehand, and I don't care wheter the Palestinians want it or not, that point is not negotiable, wheter they like it or not, that is the essence of a 2 state solution , if they want a right of return , then why lobby for 2 states? they may as well lobby for 1 state (something they will never get of course , since it brings them back to the 1970s). and youre telling me to take responsiblity, I could say the same to the Arab world, it had a chance to throw me into the sea and it tried, it failed, and didn't manage to do it, this isn't some game where if it didn't work one way we reverse the clock. the Palestinians will go back to their own state, that is the real essence of a 2 state solution , just like they wouldn't want to have the settlers in the west bank. lastly, it takes two to tango here, they want the settlement building to stop, they have to stop the rockets, can they guarantee that? I don't think so. peace is something that both sides work on , not a matter of me retreating while getting rockets launched at me.Darkman2007

Jesus Christ, it was over 3000 years ago, actually, it was even before Jesus Christ. :|

Europeans obviously means Ashkenazi Jews came from Europe, and were well integrated in European society. They had absolutely little to do with the Jews 3000 years ago aside from the same beliefs.

More so, modern state of Israel itself has little to do with the Kingdom of old. It is a secular democracy with many Atheist Jews and established gay rights.

I was not around when the wars happened, but that was a time of mutual hostility with mutual retaliation. Now is different, now Israel is here to stay and leave us and them alone, which is why we both must take responsibility, else, it'll go worse from here on out. But still, that is a good use of tango there, it's always reassuring to know that Israel is on the same level of Hamas, but it makes me ponder, how does that relate to East Jerusalem? Which has absolutely no Hamas control? Why not build settlements in Gaza instead?

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]Jesus Christ, it was over 3000 years ago, actually, it was even before Jesus Christ. :|Europeans obviously means Ashkenazi Jews came from Europe, and were well integrated in European society. They had absolutely little to do with the Jews 3000 years ago aside from the same beliefs.More so, modern state of Israel itself has little to do with the Kingdom of old. It is a secular democracy with many Atheist Jews and established gay rights.I was not around when the wars happened, but that was a time of mutual hostility with mutual retaliation. Now is different, now Israel is here to stay and leave us and them alone, which is why we both must take responsibility, else, it'll go worse from here on out. But still, that is a good use of tango there, it's always reassuring to know that Israel is on the same level of Hamas, but it makes me ponder, how does that relate to East Jerusalem? Which has absolutely no Hamas control? Why not build settlements in Gaza instead?Victorious_Fize

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

Jesus Christ, it was over 3000 years ago, actually, it was even before Jesus Christ. :|

Europeans obviously means Ashkenazi Jews came from Europe, and were well integrated in European society. They had absolutely little to do with the Jews 3000 years ago aside from the same beliefs.

More so, modern state of Israel itself has little to do with the Kingdom of old. It is a secular democracy with many Atheist Jews and established gay rights.

I was not around when the wars happened, but that was a time of mutual hostility with mutual retaliation. Now is different, now Israel is here to stay and leave us and them alone, which is why we both must take responsibility, else, it'll go worse from here on out. But still, that is a good use of tango there, it's always reassuring to know that Israel is on the same level of Hamas, but it makes me ponder, how does that relate to East Jerusalem? Which has absolutely no Hamas control? Why not build settlements in Gaza instead?

Victorious_Fize

how are European Jews related to Biblical Jews? essentially because there was very little intermarriage with non Jews, nor was conversion a big factor since conversions are very difficult in Judaism .

think about it , who in their right mind would convert to a religion which makes you a 2ns cla-ss citizen in most countries (Im talking about the past 2000 years)? it simply didn't happen , likewise marriage with non Jews was rare until about 100 years ago.

hence we are not too different from the Jews of 2000 ago , there was not much outside influence genetically, what difference is there is due even to climate and what influence there was.

wheter you like it or not, the Jewish quarter will remain in Israel, its not a matter of law , its a matter of religion , just like I respect the Palestinians wanting the Al Aqsa mosque (though its also a Jewish holy site).

wheter Israel is western or not is for it to decide, though honestly, Israel's version of western isn't quite the same as that of Western Europe or the US, its western , but not the same (you could argue the same about a country like Japan , western in almost every way, but its not western Europe by any means)

well the fact that Israel is not in Gaza makes the rockets even less justifiable, its their territory, the only reason there is a blockade is exactly because of the rockets. its funny, but alot of the raw materials for the rockets , used to be smuggled from Israel (things like metal pipes, fertilzer which can be chemically processed into explosives , etc), thats stopped , but sadly the rockets didn't , simply because they use tunnels from Egypt to get their supplies. although its important to note that goods still make it into Gaza, and not a small amount either, its just very controlled.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Victorious_Fize"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

mayceV

I am not joking, it did happen , the Tomb of Joseph was burned , though it wasn't destroyed.

actually, the Palestinian Authority has tried to also delegitimize Rachel's Tomb as a Jewish holy site, they claim its a Muslim site, despite the fact that it was a Jewish site for centuries.

it was attacked as well ,but unlike in Joseph's tomb, the IDF was there.

it wasn't burned it was torahs and prayer books destroyed. man you made my heart stop. No muslim would ever destroy a tomb of a prophet because Islam is the same message as Judaism and Christainity. Except that it was never altered at all where as the other two have been in one way or another. almost every Prophet in the Torah is in The quran and in Islam same thing with the Bible. There is no possible way any thing would happen to a holy site.mayceV

[QUOTE="mayceV"]it wasn't burned it was torahs and prayer books destroyed. man you made my heart stop. No muslim would ever destroy a tomb of a prophet because Islam is the same message as Judaism and Christainity. Except that it was never altered at all where as the other two have been in one way or another. almost every Prophet in the Torah is in The quran and in Islam same thing with the Bible. There is no possible way any thing would happen to a holy site.Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="mayceV"]it wasn't burned it was torahs and prayer books destroyed. man you made my heart stop. No muslim would ever destroy a tomb of a prophet because Islam is the same message as Judaism and Christainity. Except that it was never altered at all where as the other two have been in one way or another. almost every Prophet in the Torah is in The quran and in Islam same thing with the Bible. There is no possible way any thing would happen to a holy site.mayceV

eh, just wanted to shed light on the reason Islamic sites happen to be religous sites in other religions namely Judaism. What isreal does it does its not like the PA can do anything about it. mayceV

This strikes me as one of the risks of having a religion that co-opts the general history and belief structure of two other religions. If a thousand years from now, there is a religion, "Fedont" (totally made up name), which believes in one more prophet and holds Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sites to be holy, how are Muslims going to react to that? After all, adherents to each religion believe THEY are right, and the others are wrong in their complete forms. Adoptions of holy sites of a religion and people that pre-dates Arabs as an ethnicity can be seen either as a very open-minded love, or as a passive-agressive virtual annexation. In short, each new religion that decides Site 'X' is holy, adds fuel to a fire.

At that point it SHOULD come down to mutual respect and access, without conflict. In reality everyone just wants it in their custody, and the arguments come down to:

1.) Who has current custody?

2.) Who has the oldest claim?

Well Islam is the last abrahamic religion. the previousreligions each had about a melinium between them. its been nearly a melinium and a half since Islam was spread.mayceV

I don't think you can be so sure. Remember, none of us are interested in whether the question of a new Abrahamic religion arising would fit into your current model of beliefs. Each successive entry didn't fit into the beliefs of the previous entries. Your reaction is no more open-minded than Jewish beliefs that Christianity isn't true belief, or Christian beliefs that Islam isn't true belief.

If an Abrahamic religion rose up in the future that treated Mecca as a holy city and required its adherents to make religious pilgrimates there, I am not at all confident that Moslems would be any more open-minded about another group wanting access to that city and those sites treated as holy than Jews or Christians have been to Moslems in regard to their reverance for Jerusalem.

Well Islam is the last abrahamic religion. the previousreligions each had about a melinium between them. its been nearly a melinium and a half since Islam was spread. So its obvious that there won't be anoher abrahamic religion. So you're first point is addressed ( also Christianity and Judaism both never said that they are the fina relgion. islam does) Also islam doesn't believe Christianit or Judaism is completely worng. All 3 worship the same one God. The reasons there was a following religion was because of the alteration of judaism which led to Christianity and The alteration of the bible lead to islam. Islam recognized that the other two are fully correct- with the exception of the parts altered by man. Which parts were and weren't? its very hard to tell. So that's why Islam was sent down. if you want proof that it wasn't altered they faound a manuscript of the Quran that is around 1400 years old. in 1400 years it was unaltered ( the letters now have dots and things called harakaat to help pronounciation) but it hasn't been altered in 1400 years. There is no manuscript diffrent that that single one ( which was found in a cave in Yemen) Why? because Umar bin al Khattab ordered the destruction of any manuscript that wasn't written exactly how the Prophet's accent and pronounciation was. As for hadith ( prophet's words) they were gathered b a few ulama recent to the prophets death then compiled. Each one was tested to make sure it didn't rhyme because the prophet never spoke in rhymes- only when a Quranic revelation was sent to him from God did he rhyme not because he wanted to but because that's the way the most high (God) spoke his message to man. Also the hadith were ested based on source has the source told any lies before? What was the sources source? does it contradict in ANY way to the Quran? most hadith were compiled by the 8th century when they were still well known and recited widely. Also if you want something that'll probably blow your mind go to youtube and type in Ahmad Deedat Muhammad in the bible wel here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhazm0UdlTc listen to the guy. He memorized the Quran the Bible and the Torah each in the native language ( arabic and hebrew) He's passed away now but I met his son who's carrying on the fantastic debates as his father did (also memorized all 3 books in thier native language).mayceV

I don't want to tread on sensitive ground here, and to be clear I respect (but don't share) your beliefs. In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm agnostic, so please keep that in mind. I'm pretty sure that after nearly two millenia, the Jews were shocked when another Abrahamic religion (Christianity) arose. I'm fairly sure it came as a shock to Christians when Islam emerged, and it goes without saying that your view is that of Islam, that Muhammed is the seal of the prophets... the end of story so to speak. I understand that your faith respects what those who believe take to be divine revelations, but that only the Quran represents the unadulterated and exact word of god. By the way, please correct me if I"m wrong here, I just want to make sure I have this right.

That said, from my secular point of view the possiblity of another such religion emerging seem MORE likely because of the success of Christianity and Islam. From my secular view, that of one who doesn't believe in a god, these are temporal claims and each religion is a work built on the prior ones. Where you believe that this is a provess of refinement, I see it is a kind of religious branching/mutation/evolution. This isn't to say one is better, just different and based on the Abrahamic "DNA" for a monotheistic/monolatrist religion. It seems likely that Judaism evolved from its monolatrist roots to the current form in a similar fashion, based on proto-canaanite religions.

Given that, if you're secular then the view is simply that whoever holds the "prize" wins. From the point of view of Judaism, you'd argue that it's a matter of posession AND a first claim; a covenant made before Chrstianity or Islam. From the Christian view, the Jews and Muslims are flat-out wrong, and... well... history has shown how that goes and it involves crusades and other ways to "help" what are seen as heathens. From the Muslim view, it seems that the thinking is Judaism and Christianity are ancestors who missed something in translation, to be respected, but that Islam is the final word on the subject from the same one god.

If that's an accurate description, it's hard to imagine the four groups (secular, Jewish, Christian, Muslim) agreeing on who should possess a holy site, with the extreme elements of each wanting control to "do it right". That does seem like a recipe for disaster...

the core Jewish bible was never changed, and I really have no idea where Islam got that from .

what does change, is the interpretations of things, or facing current situations which the old text doesn't deal with.

otherwise, its no different than it was 2000 years ago and more, what is written is the word of god, and thus is not changed.

of course, if Muslims believe that something is wrong or has been changed, I can't stop them from thinking that way , and are free to think that way, but thats the truth .

the only major change was Christianity, which started as a Jewish sect, beyond that, nothing,

[QUOTE="mayceV"]Well Islam is the last abrahamic religion. the previousreligions each had about a melinium between them. its been nearly a melinium and a half since Islam was spread.m0zart

I don't think you can be so sure. Remember, none of us are interested in whether the question of a new Abrahamic religion arising would fit into your current model of beliefs. Each successive entry didn't fit into the beliefs of the previous entries. Your reaction is no more open-minded than Jewish beliefs that Christianity isn't true belief, or Christian beliefs that Islam isn't true belief.

If an Abrahamic religion rose up in the future that treated Mecca as a holy city and required its adherents to make religious pilgrimates there, I am not at all confident that Moslems would be any more open-minded about another group wanting access to that city and those sites treated as holy than Jews or Christians have been to Moslems in regard to their reverance for Jerusalem.

[...]

The most extreme outcome would be another war or series of wars, and there is no doubt as to who would win that. The Palestinians have no recourse, and frankly no hope that I can see at this point. They are likely to either remain contained and undergo further social and governmental degeneration (not a vlaue judgement, but a result of circumstances), break out during periods of looming instability and become diasporic in the region. Given trending events in the ME, the last option seems most likely, with the hardliners and hopefuls remaining in the West Bank and Gaza. At that point, I would suspect that Israel would take the opportunity to annex Gaza and the West Bank, and there is your endgame.

[...]

Frame_Dragger

I trust you realize that as soon as Israel annexed Gaza and the West Bank, the country's new demographics would effectively erase the Jewish identity of the state?

That is unless you envision the annexation's being accompanied by "ethnic cleansing" on a vast scale, implemented by total genocide or systematic displacement of the Palestinians. Somehow, I doubt the international community would be prepared to countenance that.

To me, the most likely outcome would appear to be one similar to post-apartheid South Africa: Like the Afrikaners, Jewish people will lose political control of the country they once ruled, but will probably remain economically dominant nonetheless.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[...]

The most extreme outcome would be another war or series of wars, and there is no doubt as to who would win that. The Palestinians have no recourse, and frankly no hope that I can see at this point. They are likely to either remain contained and undergo further social and governmental degeneration (not a vlaue judgement, but a result of circumstances), break out during periods of looming instability and become diasporic in the region. Given trending events in the ME, the last option seems most likely, with the hardliners and hopefuls remaining in the West Bank and Gaza. At that point, I would suspect that Israel would take the opportunity to annex Gaza and the West Bank, and there is your endgame.

[...]

I trust you realize that as soon as Israel annexed Gaza and the West Bank, the country's new demographics would effectively erase the Jewish identity of the state?

That is unless you envision the annexation's being accompanied by "ethnic cleansing" on a vast scale, implemented by total genocide or systematic displacement of the Palestinians. Somehow, I doubt the international community would be prepared to countenance that.

To me, the most likely outcome would appear to be one similar to post-apartheid South Africa: Like the Afrikaners, Jewish people will lose political control of the country they once ruled, but will probably remain economically dominant nonetheless.

[QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[...]

The most extreme outcome would be another war or series of wars, and there is no doubt as to who would win that. The Palestinians have no recourse, and frankly no hope that I can see at this point. They are likely to either remain contained and undergo further social and governmental degeneration (not a vlaue judgement, but a result of circumstances), break out during periods of looming instability and become diasporic in the region. Given trending events in the ME, the last option seems most likely, with the hardliners and hopefuls remaining in the West Bank and Gaza. At that point, I would suspect that Israel would take the opportunity to annex Gaza and the West Bank, and there is your endgame.

[...]

Frame_Dragger

I trust you realize that as soon as Israel annexed Gaza and the West Bank, the country's new demographics would effectively erase the Jewish identity of the state?

That is unless you envision the annexation's being accompanied by "ethnic cleansing" on a vast scale, implemented by total genocide or systematic displacement of the Palestinians. Somehow, I doubt the international community would be prepared to countenance that.

To me, the most likely outcome would appear to be one similar to post-apartheid South Africa: Like the Afrikaners, Jewish people will lose political control of the country they once ruled, but will probably remain economically dominant nonetheless.

The slow erosion on the other hand, behind advancing walls?... is already happening. After all, the Israelis have time on their side, and the Palestinians become more desperate and depleted with time. I only posulated a possible annexation after a mass exodus of Palestinians who want jobs, land, a life, and other basic needs more than a state that by then, would be even more obviously unlikely. Frankly, there would already have been such a movement if not for the strict policies in place by their Arab "brothers", who will give them things... just not a place to live outside of Israel for the most part.

Well, I'll give you this: At least you're honest.

I've watched the Mideast conflict being debated on OT for many years and I don't think I've EVER seen anybody on the Israeli side who was willing to admit that a systematic land grab is underway.

Now that that's been established, I hope it will be the starting point for future discussions of the topic.

Well Islam is the last abrahamic religion. the previousreligions each had about a melinium between them. its been nearly a melinium and a half since Islam was spread. So its obvious that there won't be anoher abrahamic religion. So you're first point is addressed ( also Christianity and Judaism both never said that they are the fina relgion. islam does) Also islam doesn't believe Christianit or Judaism is completely worng. All 3 worship the same one God. The reasons there was a following religion was because of the alteration of judaism which led to Christianity and The alteration of the bible lead to islam. Islam recognized that the other two are fully correct- with the exception of the parts altered by man. Which parts were and weren't? its very hard to tell. So that's why Islam was sent down. if you want proof that it wasn't altered they faound a manuscript of the Quran that is around 1400 years old. in 1400 years it was unaltered ( the letters now have dots and things called harakaat to help pronounciation) but it hasn't been altered in 1400 years. There is no manuscript diffrent that that single one ( which was found in a cave in Yemen) Why? because Umar bin al Khattab ordered the destruction of any manuscript that wasn't written exactly how the Prophet's accent and pronounciation was. As for hadith ( prophet's words) they were gathered b a few ulama recent to the prophets death then compiled. Each one was tested to make sure it didn't rhyme because the prophet never spoke in rhymes- only when a Quranic revelation was sent to him from God did he rhyme not because he wanted to but because that's the way the most high (God) spoke his message to man. Also the hadith were ested based on source has the source told any lies before? What was the sources source? does it contradict in ANY way to the Quran? most hadith were compiled by the 8th century when they were still well known and recited widely. Also if you want something that'll probably blow your mind go to youtube and type in Ahmad Deedat Muhammad in the bible wel here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhazm0UdlTc listen to the guy. He memorized the Quran the Bible and the Torah each in the native language ( arabic and hebrew) He's passed away now but I met his son who's carrying on the fantastic debates as his father did (also memorized all 3 books in thier native language).mayceV

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

I trust you realize that as soon as Israel annexed Gaza and the West Bank, the country's new demographics would effectively erase the Jewish identity of the state?

That is unless you envision the annexation's being accompanied by "ethnic cleansing" on a vast scale, implemented by total genocide or systematic displacement of the Palestinians. Somehow, I doubt the international community would be prepared to countenance that.

To me, the most likely outcome would appear to be one similar to post-apartheid South Africa: Like the Afrikaners, Jewish people will lose political control of the country they once ruled, but will probably remain economically dominant nonetheless.

Stesilaus

The slow erosion on the other hand, behind advancing walls?... is already happening. After all, the Israelis have time on their side, and the Palestinians become more desperate and depleted with time. I only posulated a possible annexation after a mass exodus of Palestinians who want jobs, land, a life, and other basic needs more than a state that by then, would be even more obviously unlikely. Frankly, there would already have been such a movement if not for the strict policies in place by their Arab "brothers", who will give them things... just not a place to live outside of Israel for the most part.

Well, I'll give you this: At least you're honest.

I've watched the Mideast conflict being debated on OT for many years and I don't think I've EVER seen anybody on the Israeli side who was willing to admit that a systematic land grab is underway.

Now that that's been established, I hope it will be the starting point for future discussions of the topic.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Stesilaus"]

I trust you realize that as soon as Israel annexed Gaza and the West Bank, the country's new demographics would effectively erase the Jewish identity of the state?

That is unless you envision the annexation's being accompanied by "ethnic cleansing" on a vast scale, implemented by total genocide or systematic displacement of the Palestinians. Somehow, I doubt the international community would be prepared to countenance that.

To me, the most likely outcome would appear to be one similar to post-apartheid South Africa: Like the Afrikaners, Jewish people will lose political control of the country they once ruled, but will probably remain economically dominant nonetheless.

Stesilaus

The slow erosion on the other hand, behind advancing walls?... is already happening. After all, the Israelis have time on their side, and the Palestinians become more desperate and depleted with time. I only posulated a possible annexation after a mass exodus of Palestinians who want jobs, land, a life, and other basic needs more than a state that by then, would be even more obviously unlikely. Frankly, there would already have been such a movement if not for the strict policies in place by their Arab "brothers", who will give them things... just not a place to live outside of Israel for the most part.

Well, I'll give you this: At least you're honest.

I've watched the Mideast conflict being debated on OT for many years and I don't think I've EVER seen anybody on the Israeli side who was willing to admit that a systematic land grab is underway.

Now that that's been established, I hope it will be the starting point for future discussions of the topic.

As I've said earlier, I look at this in the most dispassionate terms possible for the sake of discussion. Anything less leads to entrenched position and fighting, and my personal views on why nations behave in a specific fashion is based on reasoning and not right. I have ideas about what should and shouldn't be, but I have no expectation that anyone involved in a such a conflict is likely to share that view.

A reasonable person would want peace for everyone involved, a home for everyone involved, and mutual respect from both sides. Neither side seems to show much in the way of mutual respect, and in my view what we've seen is Israel trying to contain a threat to its security, and the Palestinians trying to undermine a threat to their existence. I can think of fewer intractable situations in nature, or the realm of human interactions.

I will say however, that I didn't say they're land-grabbng in a boarder sense. Rather, they're expanding from wtihin to the borders of current Palestinian regions. Whether that's a land grab, reclamation, staging for security, or more is more of a characterization that goes beyond the basic facts. That said, whether or not I agree with it, there is a highly agressive element to the behaviour, whether or not it's their land to begin with. It's... a really REALLY complex interplay between more than just the Israelis and Palestinians, and really tragic for those groups more than everyone else who seems to feel most wronged by it. In the long run, there may be victory on the ground in the strictest sense, but IMO nobody is "winning" here.