69 replies to this topic

[mentatpsi]

it's cool, it's mainly my fault for not rereading that particular area more carefully.

I don't believe they should be discarded away but there has to be a solution somewhere... unfortunately this whole area is riddled with political bull. I'm also not exactly sure when it gets this far in depth because that's when the ethical aspect of it makes this whole area expand rapidly with complexities.

The problem is exactly what you specified, in a democratic manner they'd get most of the votes... it would be the same way as with the National Assembly of the French Revolution that was formed to represent the third estate, a group much bigger than the other two estates of the Old Regime. Things like that can get out of hand easily, but that's not to say they don't deserve a say. As such the issues presented is the birth rate differences and the numbers that would be brought over.

The area on the refugee camps is sketchy since from what i heard it resides in other countries that could easily have assimilated them to provide for a higher quality of life. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel would even pay for increasing the quality of life there, but as it stands i doubt anyone would know how that money is distributed. One must wonder why not give Israel more land this way they can situate both populations, it's so damn small...

Anyways, i really feel that the surrounding nations are exploiting the situation big time. If i understand the refugee camps situation correctly (correct me if i'm wrong), if in the 60 years of relocation, they haven't developed suitable habitats for the people who had to leave their homes then it isn't only Israel that is to be blamed. The most intelligent thing to do would be to increase their quality of life to a point where they can enjoy their lives, then if there are people that still want to come back it would be a fraction of that. As the percentage decreases the amount would be much easier to deal with. I'm sure that if this plan was ever a reality Israel would chip in to finance these areas. Quality of life and secularism go hand in hand.

I wonder... would it be wise to dedicate a thread to this Israel situation?

[mike250]

it's cool, it's mainly my fault for not rereading that particular area more carefully.

I don't believe they should be discarded away but there has to be a solution somewhere... unfortunately this whole area is riddled with political bull. I'm also not exactly sure when it gets this far in depth because that's when the ethical aspect of it makes this whole area expand rapidly with complexities.

The problem is exactly what you specified, in a democratic manner they'd get most of the votes... it would be the same way as with the National Assembly of the French Revolution that was formed to represent the third estate, a group much bigger than the other two estates of the Old Regime. Things like that can get out of hand easily, but that's not to say they don't deserve a say. As such the issues presented is the birth rate differences and the numbers that would be brought over.

The area on the refugee camps is sketchy since from what i heard it resides in other countries that could easily have assimilated them to provide for a higher quality of life. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel would even pay for increasing the quality of life there, but as it stands i doubt anyone would know how that money is distributed. One must wonder why not give Israel more land this way they can situate both populations, it's so damn small...

Anyways, i really feel that the surrounding nations are exploiting the situation big time. If i understand the refugee camps situation correctly (correct me if i'm wrong), if in the 60 years of relocation, they haven't developed suitable habitats for the people who had to leave their homes then it isn't only Israel that is to be blamed. The most intelligent thing to do would be to increase their quality of life to a point where they can enjoy their lives, then if there are people that still want to come back it would be a fraction of that. As the percentage decreases the amount would be much easier to deal with. I'm sure that if this plan was ever a reality Israel would chip in to finance these areas. Quality of life and secularism go hand in hand.

I wonder... would it be wise to dedicate a thread to this Israel situation?

some of the surrounding countries do indeed share the blame for not providing a suitable habitat for the palestinien refugees, lebanon ranks high on that list, but then lebanon can't provide for their own people. However a high quality of life doesn't necessarily mean that they will give up on their right of return. Some do want to come back and some don't. Its a choice that they have every right to make. The two state solution with a shared Jersulaem is the way to go. But neither Israeli nor the palestiniens will reach a compromise, there has to be pressure from the international community on both parties, and specifically the USA has to act more like an honest broker. This isn't an issue of muslim fundemantalism and the destruction of Israel like Kostas tries to make it out to be. Israel has already signed peace treaties with countries like Jordan and Egypt, is starting to talk to the Syrians-- much to the dislike of the US government-- and has good ties with states like Qatar. Not to mention the IP comedy tour and similar ventures.

mysticpsi, the american invasion of iraq made it a lot easier for Iran to meddle in Iraq's affairs. Yes the region had problems long before the invasion but since you were concerned about Iran's presence in Iraq, the invasion added more fuel on fire and really gave them a golden oppotunity.

Edited by mike250, 11 June 2008 - 06:03 AM.

[mentatpsi]

Israel is way too damn small for all this... Why don't we just call the refugee camps Israel as well and deal with their development? Clearly the nations using it aren't doing anything productive with it (sarcasm). Why aren't they just assimilated into the countries that host them? What would happen if instead of setting up refugee camps they had introduced into their countries to be treated as citizens? It's been half a century... You think after all that time, all of them would want to come back? This is such a war of manipulation it is beginning to sicken me. If the countries cared one bit about the Palestinian refugees they would introduce them as citizens and give them all the rights...

The reason i mention the problems before was because i misinterpreted you to say that the Iraq war started the problem, my apologies on that. I do know where you're coming from, I just think the morality demonstrated is simply; "i'm going to shoot you but ask to live in your house when i miss. If i had succeeded i would have just taken your house and all your possessions. I expect your compassion though".

There needs to be peace, but we need to consider the actions of the past in how it will be handled.

Anyways, I think this thread has gone off topic enough... anyone in favor of opening a new thread to discuss this?

Edited by mysticpsi, 11 June 2008 - 08:16 AM.

[mike250]

Israel is way too damn small for all this... Why don't we just call the refugee camps Israel as well and deal with their development? Clearly the nations using it aren't doing anything productive with it (sarcasm). Why aren't they just assimilated into the countries that host them? What would happen if instead of setting up refugee camps they had introduced into their countries to be treated as citizens? It's been half a century... You think after all that time, all of them would want to come back? This is such a war of manipulation it is beginning to sicken me. If the countries cared one bit about the Palestinian refugees they would introduce them as citizens and give them all the rights...

The reason i mention the problems before was because i misinterpreted you to say that the Iraq war started the problem, my apologies on that. I do know where you're coming from, I just think the morality demonstrated is simply; "i'm going to shoot you but ask to live in your house when i miss. If i had succeeded i would have just taken your house and all your possessions. I expect your compassion though".

There needs to be peace, but we need to consider the actions of the past in how it will be handled.

Anyways, should we have a limit of Israel related posts and just start a new thread once it's reached? I think soon enough McCain will have to make a guest appearance in order to bring back relevance

you are right in regards to the way other countries treat their palestinien refugees, they treat them like second class citizens. In lebanon for example if you're a palestinian you can't practice 72 jobs and the refugee situation is miserable to say the least. In syria it is better but now you have an influx of exiled Iraqis as well- thanks once again to the Iraq war- In other arab countries like Egypt and the Gulf nations, no comment there.

Whether or not all of them would like to come back is up for question. Some do want to return and some don't. "Home" has different meanings for them. Some have vivid memories of that place and simply can't just "forget" while others are content with where they are. Do you not believe in a two state solution? or in a shared Jersulaem?

Lik I stated before, the international community has to play a part in this for neither side is willing to compromise. I'm pretty optimistic about the future however

Edited by mike250, 11 June 2008 - 08:29 AM.

[mentatpsi]

I just don't see the middle east crisis being solved that simply. I don't believe a debate will get us any farther though, i see your points, i just don't agree with them all.

Some do want to return and some don't. "Home" has different meanings for them. Some have vivid memories of that place and simply can't just "forget" while others are content with where they are. I don't see why you struggle to comprehend with that.

Memories are but fleeting images of times lost, they're barely ever returned untainted... you come to grips with that as you grow up. You don't make the whole world suffer because of your loses, especially those you've caused yourself. You choose the consequences of every action you take, knowingly or not. If they choose war over diplomacy then they choose that fate... this isn't meant to justify what's going on... it's just meant to add perspective... the essential question is why they are treated like crap in countries that caused the situation.

Do you not believe in a two state solution? or in a shared Jersulaem?

I don't know what to believe with Israel, I have no solution, and as enjoyable as the conversation may be, we are extremely off topic . But to answer your question, if it works and both are happy then it works... but it's not about what works... if it was... the Palestinian people would be treated better instead of being put in refugee camps, in the end "it's all mirrors".

Edited by mysticpsi, 11 June 2008 - 06:05 PM.

[mike250]

I just don't see the middle east crisis being solved that simply. I don't believe a debate will get us any farther though, i see your points, i just don't agree with them all.

Some do want to return and some don't. "Home" has different meanings for them. Some have vivid memories of that place and simply can't just "forget" while others are content with where they are. I don't see why you struggle to comprehend with that.

Memories are but fleeting images of times lost, they're barely ever returned untainted... you come to grips with that as you grow up. You don't make the whole world suffer because of your loses, especially those you've caused yourself. You choose the consequences of every action you take, knowingly or not. If they choose war over diplomacy then they choose that fate... this isn't meant to justify what's going on... it's just meant to add perspective... the essential question is why they are treated like crap in countries that caused the situation.

Do you not believe in a two state solution? or in a shared Jersulaem?

I don't know what to believe with Israel, I have no solution, and as enjoyable as the conversation may be, we are extremely off topic . But to answer your question, if it works and both are happy then it works... but it's not about what works... if it was... the Palestinian people would be treated better instead of being put in refugee camps, in the end "it's all mirrors".

you have no solution lol, ok no problem but at least your open to a solution. Anyhow treating the Palestinien people in refugee camps is an issue that needs to be resolved but while it is a legitimate concern (and yes there were missed opportunities by the palestiniens) it is not the main issue at hand and detracts from other things. If debates doesn't get us further then what will? More "crusades" and preemptive strikes?. I think not. Maybe MCcain (Bush + steriods) can offer a solution.

Edited by mike250, 11 June 2008 - 09:40 AM.

[Cyberbrain]

Tying the issue to muslim fundemantalism is really naive.

This isn't an issue of muslim fundemantalism and the destruction of Israel like Kostas tries to make it out to be.

So the only sure way, in my opinion, to end most disputes is to end fundamentalism.

I meant fundamentalism in general, not just a specific group. Second, Islamic and Judeo fundamentalism is responsible for the fighting in Israel. I said both sides are responsible, not just fundamentalist Muslims. The only other fundamentalism that I know that could be tied into this conflict is the one coming from neoconservatives here in the US.

I never said Islamic fundamentalism was the only thing in the way of achieving peace in the middle east and Israel. All I said is that its one obstacle in the peace process and that fundamentalism in general is an obstacle to world peace.

How exactly did it become the sole possession of Israel, anyway? Who decided that, and by what right?

The U.N. gave it to them after world war two in 1947. And in the 1948 civil war and Israeli and Arab war, Britain and America defended Israel from attacks from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

Aside from the ethical problem of the Palestinian situation, there is a large practical problem: it inflames a large fraction of the world.

I agree, but how about the millions of people displaced in conflicts in Africa or Eastern Europe or Southern East Asia. Why is the Palestinian situation any more important than other parts of the world? Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with the Palestinians. I have friends from both sides in this conflict and I want there to be peace just like you do. But you seem upset with this ethnic group more than any other in the world (I could be wrong ).

"This kind of thing happens all the time"?

I said in history. Don’t take things out of context.

Are you saying that it's OK to take another culture's land?

No, of course not!

It sounds like you are trying to say that the Muslims will never be happy, so there's no point in a fair solution.

No, just fundamentalists. I never said that about all Muslims. There are a lot of moderate Muslims who don’t care what happens to Israel.

If the Palestinian issue were solved fairly, and the US ended its occupation of Iraq, they wouldn't have much ammunition left with which to recruit new Jihadis.

I totally agree.

But the point I was trying to make was beyond Israel. Hate among and between religions will still exist, look at the civil war in Iraq, or watch the film Jesus Camp. That is why I said that in order to end such disputes (in any religion, not just Islam) fundamentalism must end.

Going back to the Palestinians, they deserve justice and I believe Israel should be more open to Palestine by lifting the sanctions, embargo's, walls, etc, and allowing them to have a united government and to allow diplmacy to work. But as long as fundamentalism exists on both sides, than I don't see how a peaceful resolution can come. That was my point

Edited by Kostas, 11 June 2008 - 03:42 PM.

[inawe]

I'm sorry I misunderstood, mysticpsi. I'm glad that it was a misunderstanding, and not your actual feelings on the matter. Do you mean that Palestinians should be able to participate in Israel as in living there? Like "Right of Return"? That usually seems like it's off the table due to the demographic threat. I know there's a spectrum of views inside Israel, not everyone is Likud, but it seems like there's a large focus on the relatively small percentage of Muslims who want to remove Israel. Like I said, I think that a fair settlement for the Palestinians would probably cause the "remove Israel" contingent of the Muslim world to gradually dry up. This would especially be the case if Israel were to develop mutually beneficial relationships with its Arab neighbors, as in trade, culture, and defense pacts. Such a relationship would at first be more beneficial for the neighbors than for Israel, but it would be an investment in a better future. This probably sounds like dreamland, but people like us have to think big...

Navegator, in the Cost of War thread you blamed Israel for the Iraq war. On this thread on McCain record you managed again to insert your bias against Israel.
Do you know any history? That the land east of the Jordan was populated by Palestinians? In 1921 the British brought in an Hashemite family from Saudi Arabia an put them in charge of what's now officially called the HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN. When Palestians went there and tried to have some say they were massacred by the King Hussein army. Ever heard of Black September? What about returning Jordan to the control of the Palestinians. After all they are the majority. You have any opinion about this?
What about the right of return of all the Jews who were kicked out from Arab lands? Do you know there were Jews in Saudi Arabia before there were Muslims?
Are you that much ignorant or just antisemitic?

[mike250]

Tying the issue to muslim fundemantalism is really naive.

This isn't an issue of muslim fundemantalism and the destruction of Israel like Kostas tries to make it out to be.

So the only sure way, in my opinion, to end most disputes is to end fundamentalism.

I meant fundamentalism in general, not just a specific group. Second, Islamic and Judeo fundamentalism is responsible for the fighting in Israel. I said both sides are responsible, not just fundamentalist Muslims. The only other fundamentalism that I know that could be tied into this conflict is the one coming from neoconservatives here in the US.

I never said Islamic fundamentalism was the only thing in the way of achieving peace in the middle east and Israel. All I said is that its one obstacle in the peace process and that fundamentalism in general is an obstacle to world peace.

How exactly did it become the sole possession of Israel, anyway? Who decided that, and by what right?

The U.N. gave it to them after world war two in 1947. And in the 1948 civil war and Israeli and Arab war, Britain and America defended Israel from attacks from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

Aside from the ethical problem of the Palestinian situation, there is a large practical problem: it inflames a large fraction of the world.

I agree, but how about the millions of people displaced in conflicts in Africa or Eastern Europe or Southern East Asia. Why is the Palestinian situation any more important than other parts of the world? Don't get me wrong, I sympathize with the Palestinians. I have friends from both sides in this conflict and I want there to be peace just like you do. But you seem upset with this ethnic group more than any other in the world (I could be wrong ).

"This kind of thing happens all the time"?

I said in history. Don’t take things out of context.

Are you saying that it's OK to take another culture's land?

No, of course not!

It sounds like you are trying to say that the Muslims will never be happy, so there's no point in a fair solution.

No, just fundamentalists. I never said that about all Muslims. There are a lot of moderate Muslims who don’t care what happens to Israel.

If the Palestinian issue were solved fairly, and the US ended its occupation of Iraq, they wouldn't have much ammunition left with which to recruit new Jihadis.

I totally agree.

But the point I was trying to make was beyond Israel. Hate among and between religions will still exist, look at the civil war in Iraq, or watch the film Jesus Camp. That is why I said that in order to end such disputes (in any religion, not just Islam) fundamentalism must end.

Going back to the Palestinians, they deserve justice and I believe Israel should be more open to Palestine by lifting the sanctions, embargo's, walls, etc, and allowing them to have a united government and to allow diplmacy to work. But as long as fundamentalism exists on both sides, than I don't see how a peaceful resolution can come. That was my point

thank you for clarifying your point. with regards to the civil war in Iraq, I think a lot more elements go into shaping that war. True, fundemaltalism is one contributing factor but isn't the only one.

[mentatpsi]

I will say this much... you guys are being easily deceived by smoke and mirrors. I believe inawe touched on some of those mirrors.

I think the whole point is politics are built on this stuff, how easy it is to blind people with smoke and mirrors. How quickly people jump to conclusions using their moral systems based on only the information provided. I agree with niner ethics is important, but taking inawe's words into consideration, can't you also see that Israel has been the one acting the most ethically?