Topic awaiting preservation: READ! Separate states for Palestine and Israel? YES! Arafat says NO! (Page 1 of 2)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide_1.html

This was a very disturbing and enlightening slideshow. I used to be in support of both countries. Now I see that Israel is in its right and someone needs to change the Palestinian's education system.

There is no real solution in sight. I'm still in favor of two states but I completely agree that the reason there is no peace there right now is primarily because the Arabs have not given up hope of driving the Jews into the sea. The Israelis have been ready for a compromise for quite a while now and until the Palestinians can reach that point, it's going to continue to be very bloody.

. . : slicePuzzle

Very interesting...and although some of the 'information' was accredited, some of it was not. Ok, we've discussed this issue before, there is a thread on it...and though it may appear 8and indeed, in many cases true) that the Palestinians do foster Terrorism, be aware that Israel is just as guilty...and despite what Israel says, it has never followed up on any agreements made, and has always attempted to break, or invalidate them.

What does that say about the Israeli government? That it, also, doesn't want peace.

So both sides don't want peace...nothing new. These people have been killing each other since time immortal. They've always been enemies...because they claim the same territory as living space, and as cultural heritage. Back that up with religious overtones, and you have a conflict of interests, that can only be resolved with the complete eradication of the opposer. And so it goes on...

Even were the world to totally disarm, and isolate both Israel and Palastine, they would kill one another. With their bare hands, if need be. Personally, I say - move both peoples to the Sahara desert, and nuke the living s**t out of the middle-east region there, making it uninhabitable for the next thousand or so years...no territory to fight over, no reason to kill one another. Peace? You bet. Just like dealing with two squabbling children...take the toy away. You want it back? Then behave. Conflict and warfare takes two (or more). Otherwise, it is considered to be aggression and/or invasion.

I think now would be a good time to quote (or get as close as I can remember, anyway) a man I respect...more than I respect most anyone else.

quote:

---

Everybody wants peace. Hitler wanted peace, but at what cost? It turned out to be a peace we couldn't accept.

---

Ever wonder why, during the Oslo talks, barely a single map of proposed or actual agreements made it into US press?
They were all over the Israeli press. They certainly were available.
The reason the maps weren't shown in the US press is because we 'Americans' would have realized what a sham it really was.
And settlements continue...

Do any of you think the Palestinians are willing to allow Israel to exist in *any* form? That is not a rhetorical question.

well, according to one of the polls on the website 67% are in support of the suicidal bombings.. and war on isreal.. I think most of the other 33% would perfer peace. If that answers your question, Bug.

-Glory Fades-

I think mobrul brought up a very good point. Sure, 33% of Palestinians may want peace, but that doesn't mean that they want Israel to continue existing. So, no, it doesn't answer Bugs' question.

That being said, it would be difficult to prove one way or another...


Cell 270

I believe the question was asking, how many Palestinians would allow Isreal to exist. It didnt ask if they wanted the country to exist. For the sake of peace, I believe the 33% would allow, keyword, allow Isreal to exist. But alas, this is only my opinion, I cannot speak for the population of Palestine. But your correct, hard to prove either way.

-Glory Fades-

Think about it for a second, if Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza were the cause of the suicide attacks, then why did the Arabs attack Israel BEFORE the current occupation?

It's because the Arabs have never accepted the original creation of Israel in the first place. If Israel were to pull out of all the occupied territories tomorrow, there is absolutely no doubt that the attacks would continue.

Here's some maps for anyone interested: http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

So we can talk 'round and 'round this issue so who's got a course of action? I'll take a stab. How about a physical wall down the 1967 borders and a multinational force to police a neutral zone. Then leave it up for at least a generation in hopes of allowing the current hateful leadership to give way to the next. Then we revisit the situation at that time in hopes of working out a state for both people's where the security of Israel is guaranteed.

. . : slicePuzzle

Are you in support of the Palestinian "academic" institutions, Bugimus? There's two issues on opposite sides of a revolving door here. First, there is Palestine's terrorist training schools. The Palestinians, obviously, have an immense population of trained killers. Second, the Israelis receive incredible amounts of money from the U.S. due to an agreement made by a previous president. Therefore, the Israelis have better technology compared to that of the Palestinians, but they can only buy gear when the President passes the federal budget. Israel is also arrogant and ignorant just like Palestine. Both have political and religious reasons for warring. They have been fighting each other for thousand(s) of years over similar issues.

On the religion side, it all comes down to (I think) Abraham and his bastard (meaning illegitimate) son, Moses. Moses is the prophet of Islam while Abraham's legitimate son, Isaac, has a lofty position in the Jewish religion. Now, because Moses was produced beofre Isaac, the Palestinians believe that the land occupied by Israel is rightfully their own. Of course, it is not because Moses is the bastard of son of Abraham, and Isaac is not.

On the political side, it all comes down to power. While Israel wants to remain in control of the land given to them by (I think) the League of Nations, United Nations, or the United States and her allies because of some other agreement, Palestine wants to control the land in order to be recognized as the rightful manager of those lands. There's other political issues, but there are just too many to describe.

My solution to this raging holy war is to cut off U.S. funding to Israel, (Egypt), and other countries because whatever document that was signed has become invalidated by time. Whatever the result and conditions were of the agreement no longer exist. Once Israel loses U.S. funds, they will be reduced to the level of Palestinians. Although, many people want peace, they do not live in those two areas. Hopefully, the two countries will destroy each other. After all, as naive as it may seem, there cannot be peace without war. Bloodshed must be apparent in order for emotions to betray its victim.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

I think tensions are so fired up (on both sides) no poll, no journalist, no speech is going to accurately reflect what CAN happen. Only good leaders can bring about the best of what can happen...and neither Bush, Arafat, or Sharon (or any of their idiot cronies) are fit for the job.

What to do...
I've said it before -- 2 continuous, autonomous states, 1967 lines, period.
That means the settlers, all the settlers, need to get out. I am willing to believe with a little effort the Palestinians will give up right of return for settlers going away, fair and equitable water rights, and a bit of money. I think that's fair.
I am not in favor of a wall, but I am in favor of an international police force in a dmz/buffer zone.
The reason I'm not in favor of a wall is it seems so permanent. Ideally, what I'd like to see happen, what I think is totally possible (think middle to distant future) is a two nation federation. I'm not sure the details (there would be many) but I do think some sort of arrangement is possible.

Jerusalem. I have to say the Israelis and the Palestinians are both going to just have to be pissed off about Jerusalem -- nobody gets it, at least not yet. Someday I'd like to see Jerusalem become the capitol of this 2 nation federation, but we're not there yet...

I'd like to see the US take some small portion (say, 1/4) of the $6 billion+ military budget we give Israel every year and use it in a Marshal Plan type build up of the Palestinian infrastructure.
You see, half the problems...more than half the problems that exist are because the Palestinians are living in total ridicuous poverty...especially when you compare them to the Israelis 3 miles, 1 mile, .25 miles away. You have to give people an incentive to live. Do it right and you can strenthen ties to Western nations, drive out (by economic factors alone) religious fundamentalism, and pick up a few other Arabic countries with it.

I'd like to see Israel demilitarized.
...not for the sake of peace (don't get me wrong, that would be nice) but for the sake of Israel itself. Israel has existed soley because the US needed a strong-arm in the Middle East, to protect our oil interests. There will come a time, sooner than we all would like to believe, when oil is not going to play the role in international politics it played 50 yrs ago through today. Israel will not be needed. You've all heard me say time and time again what happens to America's bullies when we don't need them anymore...we demonize them and destroy them, for being bullies.
For the sake of the continuation of Israel, I'd like to see Israel demilitarize and start building its own self-sufficient economy.

I think you have to get the Hamas leaders in on the deal. I know we all wish we could say "we don't talk to terrorists..." but they are a sufficiently large political power...you just have to swallow your pride and do it.

2 continuous, autonomous states, 1967 lines. Fair and equitable water rights. Demilitarize Israel. Build Palestinian infrastructure.

mobrul

Interesting thoughts, Mobrul, but that will not work. Not at all. The Palestinians would probably start sending suicide bombers over the wall with make-shift catapults...

And the Israeli's would never allow such a wall to be built...along the 1967 lines. Sure, they might 'agree' to do it...but would find a reason (or incite one) not to do it...

Personally, move both groups out of the region...and I mean each and every one of them. Place them each half way around the world from each other. Bull-doze Jerusuleum into the dirt...otherwise, they will just find more reasons to fight over it. Flatten the entire region...and re-plant it. Wait a couple thousand years (who knows, maybe they will both go extinct, and solve the problem by default)...then attempt to do it again...

Of course, that is also wishful thinking...but I really don't think both want a 'peaceful' solution that leads to co-existence...

Therefore, this situation will just get worse...'an eye for an eye'...just repeating the cycle of violence...

long solution:

quote:

---

who knows, maybe they will both go extinct, and solve the problem by default

---

quick solution: Drown 'em all.

I don't think I'll be needing the sarcasm tags for this post

quote:

---

On the religion side, it all comes down to (I think) Abraham and his bastard (meaning illegitimate) son, Moses. Moses is the prophet of Islam while Abraham's legitimate son, Isaac, has a lofty position in the Jewish religion. Now, because Moses was produced beofre Isaac, the Palestinians believe that the land occupied by Israel is rightfully their own. Of course, it is not because Moses is the bastard of son of Abraham, and Isaac is not.

---

Whoa. Hold up there, cowboy. Before Bugs jumps in, allow me to correct you on a few points. Firstly, Moses was not Abraham's son. He was not even close to being Abraham's son (and, forgive me, but "Abraham and his bastard son Moses" cracked me up--no disrespect, of course). In fact, Moses' father is not named in the Bible; we only know he was of the tribe of Levi. I'm going to assume you mean Ishmael when you talk about Abraham's bastard son. Also, technically speaking, he was not a bastard son, as the practice of having children by maidservants was not uncommon. He wouldn't have had the same privileges as a son of Sarai, but I'm not sure if we could call him "bastard." Perhaps Bugs can clarify that.

At any rate, the importance of Ishmael was that he was a sign of Abraham's lack of faith in God, and thus he and his offspring became the proverbial thorn in the side of Israel (which, by the way, was the name given to Jacob, Abraham's grandson, and later to his offspring as a whole). See Genesis 25:12-18 for some background on this, especially the part about how "they (the children of Ishmael) lived in hostility toward all their brothers." That's the traditional account, anyway.

Just wanted to clear that up. Hope you're not offended.

quote:

---

quick solution: Drown 'em all.

---

That's actually been tried before.


Cell 270


[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 08-09-2002).]

Thanks, Suho. Ishmael was the name. I learned the whole story from an educator with a Bachelor's in Psychology. (Not the teacher) He was really a bastard son, though. He was not pure royalty because he was born from a servant. Unfortunately, the queen's (I'm not too keen on the titles) body decided to give birth to the royal son. Imagine, the core cause of this neverending war was because an old man couldn't keep his legs closed! Sounds like C*****n! JK



[This message has been edited by ramsaydesigns (edited 08-09-2002).]

Please do yourself a favor and read the account in Genesis instead of getting it second hand. It sounds like you still have a few misconceptions about it.

But either way, it's true that much of the struggle between the Jews and Arabs traces back to Isaac and Ishmael.

BTW, thanks Suho for saving me a bit of typing

There's no reason to get pissy about it, Bugimus.

ramsaydesigns, chill. Right now. Bugs (and Master Suho) were just pointing out your blatant mistakes...you could have the courtesy to acknowledge that. Such remarks like yours are inflammatory, and hardly mature.

You are lucky that DL-44, Michael or DG wasn't the one 'correcting' you...

And I have rarely (read - never) seen a case where Bugs was 'pissy' , as you put it

quote:

---

There's no reason to get pissy about it, Bugimus

---

.

WebShaman: Just shut the fuck up and stop attacking me wherever I am.

"Do yourself a favor..." has a negative tone.

So do yourself a fucking favor and leave me alone.

Bugs: Heh, just trying to do my part.

ramsay: OK, let's calm down here, please. No reason to resort to profanity. The best way to defend yourself against attacks here is to maintain your composure at all times. That being said...

I've got to agree with Bugs. Just start with chapter 12, and maybe read up to around chapter 25 or so. That might clear a few things up.

quote:

---

He was really a bastard son, though. He was not pure royalty because he was born from a servant. Unfortunately, the queen's (I'm not too keen on the titles) body decided to give birth to the royal son. Imagine, the core cause of this neverending war was because an old man couldn't keep his legs closed!

---

I've got to admit here, I have no idea what you're talking about. Royalty? Born of a servant? Old man? I have a feeling your educator friend might have embellished a bit. But I think we're getting off the subject a bit here...

No, Suho, that was my opinion, not what my very established English/Philosophy/Psychology educator said.

This is completely off-topic, but Suho... you have to understand that this child (WebShaman) claiming to be an ex-intelligence officer, more mature and more intelligent than I is a complete prick. Wherever I post, there he is putting me down however he can. I don't see where he finds joy in doing this. Maybe it's just the effect of the bandwagon or is he trying to start a new trend?

I never liked anything biblical or anything having a large part in religious patriotism, but here's something I found: http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/judeochr/isaac_ishmael.html

Royalty = wealthy in my previous post. It's been a year since my friend's lecture on Isaac and Ishmael. I've forgotten much of what he's said and replaced some of his words with ones I could come up with.

And yes there was a servant a.k.a. a handmaid named Hagar. Isn't that a Viking male's name? Hmm... I'm also finding some REALLY AWESOME links to other meta religious beliefs like Zarathushtrian Theodicy, but we'll leave that for another topic.

quote:

---

This is completely off-topic, but Suho... you have to understand that this child (WebShaman) claiming to be an ex-intelligence officer, more mature and more intelligent than I is a complete prick. Wherever I post, there he is putting me down however he can. I don't see where he finds joy in doing this. Maybe it's just the effect of the bandwagon or is he trying to start a new trend?

---

OK, I'll admit that I don't all of what's going on here... I'm only going by what I've seen here. I would imagine, though, that saying he puts you down whenever you post is a bit of an overstatement, no? Also, I consider WS a friend, and it seems unlikely that he would claim to be more more mature and intelligent than you are. He just doesn't say things like that.

On the other hand, I will admit that you do have a point about the "bandwagon," in a way. When people post a number of inflammatory/hostile posts, the Asylumites tend to lose patience with that person and bash him/her at the slightest sign. Of course, the bashee usually does something to bring on the bashing in the first place, but it's a lot easier to bash a known bashee.

I said it above, and I'll say it again: the best way to avoid confrontation here is to maintain your composure. Don't lash out when someone says something that ticks you off or insults you in some way. Just keep calm, and if you have to reply, make sure you don't respond in kind. Yes, it's a lot easier said than done, but it's the right thing to do. That's the only advice I have for you.

But if you can do that, I'm sure an apology for the profanity and insults would be welcome. I know, I know, why should you apologize? Because it will defuse the situation, and because you're above the petty nonsense, right?

You're right, Suho. But admittedly, it's very hard to keep your composture after playing a bad game of Counter-Strike because your ISP keeps disconnecting you, slowing down your connection to the Internet, etc. I'm sure we've all felt the anger that results from ISP problems and have at least used that anger once to lash out against anyone.

An overstatement? I guess. A majority of the threads I've posted in has WebShaman acting like the village peace officer telling me who I am and what I know. Just a little while ago he came into my thread and called me a hypocrite. Respect is earned so I don't really a give a shit about flames and the bandwagon. BUT I WILL TREAT YOU IN THE SAME MANNER THAT YOU TREAT ME. (Not specifically directed towards you Suho. You're cool.)

Well, like I said, I don't know all of what goes on elsewhere. But I can understand that people have bad days and things get brought into the Asylum from outside, and people end up thinking, "Where the heck did that come from?" It's happened to me, too.

I think it's time to move on now, though. That's probably the best course of action, don't you think?

Yes, I do.

[The asylum's first ever rhetoric tutorial]

Rhetoric:
The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
--dictionary.com

In the western tradition, rhetoric was first codified and studied in ancient Greece.
They said, I believe rightly so, rhetoric consisted of 3 parts:
Logos
Pathos
Ethos

Logos is the 'logic' part of the argument, the part that attempts to grab the listener's brain. Most people think of this as involving numbers, statistics; but this also include the method you use to get from Fact A to Conclusion E.

Pathos is the 'emotional' part of the argument, the part that attempts to grab the listener's metaphoric heart. When the TV commercials come on asking you to send $5 / day to some fund to feed starving children, they use pathos by showing you pictures of emaciated children playing in sewers and going 'home' to a hole in the ground with a sheet metal roof. You can't possibly know (from that advert alone) how many children actually live in those conditions, or what your $5 / day is going to do to help them, or even if those are actual starving children or actors on a mocked up set; but you are encouraged to send your money because you feel bad for the child(ren) in the ad.

Good orators will try to blur the line between logos and pathos.
When talking about Iraq, for instance, I like to point out that Madalene Albright said on national TV that killing over 1 million innocent Iraqi children was a justifiable price for her political goals.
I am using pathos by pointing out how cold-blooded our leaders are, and by using numbers no human being can possible fathom (nobody can really imagine 1 million children, all starved to death), but I am also using logos by using numbers and pointing to the actual TV program where she said it. Once those facts are established, it is not difficult to draw the logical conclusion -- the US is responsible for much violence in the world.

Finally there is Ethos. Ethos is the part of the argument that attempts to persuade the listener that the speaker is a reputable source of knowledge and is competant to argue the point. It does not have to be in the form of self-flattery. It can be attained by virtue of a title (a white house senior aide said,"...) or it can be hidden. A really good example, my favorite example of this is in Shakespeare's Julius Caeser, Act II Scene II, after Caeser is dead and Brutus stands up to defend the actions...then Mark Antony stands up and delivers:

quote:

---

Good friends, sweet friends, let me not stir you up
To such a sudden flood of mutiny.
They that have done this deed are honourable:
What private griefs they have, alas, I know not,
That made them do it: they are wise and honourable,
And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you.
I come not, friends, to steal away your hearts:
I am no orator, as Brutus is;
But, as you know me all, a plain blunt man,
That love my friend; and that they know full well
That gave me public leave to speak of him:
For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,
Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech,
To stir men's blood: I only speak right on;
I tell you that which you yourselves do know;
Show you sweet Caesar's wounds, poor poor dumb mouths,
And bid them speak for me: but were I Brutus,
And Brutus Antony, there were an Antony
Would ruffle up your spirits and put a tongue
In every wound of Caesar that should move
The stones of Rome to rise and mutiny.

---

By his saying, 'I am no orator...but...a plain, blunt man' he is establishing his place as just a regular joe mourning the death of his friend. The crowd lets down their guard against pathos and, in the end, mutiny agains brutus and company.
Beautiful...

All three parts must be present to effectively argue a point.

A) get your facts straight and don't fall into the known logical pitfalls (slippery slope, etc)
B) appeal to the emotions of your listeners
C) keep your cool (this doesn't mean you can't act passionate about your subject), have your facts straight (even one messed up fact can discount your entire credability to your audience) and present your arguments in such a way that your audience can keep up. (Don't try explaining quantum physics to a 6 yr old, and don't bore college profs with the basic knowledge they all know.)

Consider this a 101 tutorial -- there are many other aspects of classical rhetoric, but this is the stuff that could potentially be a phD subject, no room on an asylum post for everything.

good day
mobrul

Listen up ramsaydesigns...I am not 'hounding you'...not at all. In fact, I have never 'hounded' anyone here at the Asylum.

To the point - I am responding to your posts...and when you start throwing around inflammatory labels, esp. at people you don't know well (like Bugs), well, what kind of reaction did you think you would get?

Now I've waited for awhile on this one...remained calm, and let others 'handle' your outbreaks. But it seems you 'come apart' at the first sign of a little criticism. You really need to take Master Suhos advice (once again, that word, advice) and calm down and start thinking, before you post. I think we have had this discussion before, actually, when you first started posting here.

I am really not known for 'flaming' anyone here at the Asylum. I leave that to others, to those that have been here longer, and are better at it than I. I prefer to build bridges, but to a point. I tend to be patient, but my patience has a limit.

What you should be considering, is why this keeps happening to you. Maybe (and this is what I mean by thinking) you are instigating such behavior with your own. Think about it.

One more thing - if you have personal remarks to get off your chest, then take it to mail. Got it? Good.

And to sum things up

quote:

---

Fuck this. I try to be nice and socialize but no, I get this shitty response. So fuck ozone. I'm out of this shithole.

---

Well, this is exactly what I mean when I mention 'inflammatory remarks'...you will certainly win no friends with this, but you will certainly influence people...in a negative manner. Worse, first you say something, but you don't do it...so maybe you should stop and think next time...just take three deep breaths before you post. Would save a lot of deleting, don't you think? Because quite frankly, that's most of what I've been running across in the threads where you have posted...

The choice is yours.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 08-09-2002).]

WebShaman: I'm not throwing around inflammatory labels. You are.

I was going to quote all the negative phrases you've been throwing at me but instead I'd rather help you realize something.

It is not important to continue with your little vendetta. Would you sacrifice yourself for the words you speak to me? Would you give your life for, in your view, my understanding? I do not think you would. I do not think you would give your life or most cherished items for the understanding or respect of anyone in the Asylum or on the Internet for that matter unless it was someone you knew personally. I will not help you along with your ridicule and laughter in exchange for my pride. This vendetta of yours is beneath me and it as well beneath you.

One more thing. You speak as though I want friends and that I must earn the respect of the people here in order for me to be important. Let me just say that I don't believe in common friendship. I don't want another friend because quite frankly, I have one true friend that would give his life to save mine and I would do the same for him. Common friends (i.e. acquaintances) are not true friends. They will not be there when you need them most. They won't give you their complete support or defend you against injustice. I don't want friends, especially on the Internet. There's no need for common friends other than practicing debate, argumentative techniques, and writing skills. I really don't care for these people but according to my post in the OZONE forum, I would like to contribute to a community in order to improve the writings of others. If I cannot do that here, then as a volunteer at the Weingart Center, a community center for seniors and children, I will contribute there.

By the way, I don't appreciate you misquoting me and I suggest you find a new hobby.

quote:

---

Common friends (i.e. acquaintances) are not true friends. They will not be there when you need them most. They won't give you their complete support or defend you against injustice. I don't want friends, especially on the Internet.

---

ahem

Strangers only support others if others are the victim of a serious real world injustice like 9-11, or hospitalized because of a car crash.

I was in the backseat of my friend's jeep when he hit one of those water drain gutters that go across the streets in residential areas. He's mind was absent and he was cruising at 60+ mph down a hill. When we hit that gutter, we went up 7 feet in the air and landed on the two left tires. We then spun out of control, starting to slide on the left side, we rolled up an embankment of someone's yard, and flipped two times. We landed upside down. We were still strapped to the seats thanks to the seatbelts. Nobody was seriously injured. Jen, she was cut on her hands because she had crawl out the front window across the broken glass in order to get out. The jeep was totaled but we were ok. Jen and I went to school while Kenny stayed behind to talk to his parents and the police.

Let me tell you this that the people I thought of as friends did not believe I was in a car crash. Their response was, "Oh, cool. That must've been sick!" and, "No, you weren't. I think you're lying. You don't have a scratch on you." When I told people on the Internet what happened to me I received the same responses. And trust me, the way I act, the we act on the Internet is not the way we act in real life. I'm a quiet, deep, and very nice guy back in the real world. The girl I was seeing in February told me that I'm "the nicest guy she's ever met" and that she was happy that her and I met.

There's a difference between a friend and a common acquaintance.

We're off-topic.

And your mother probably tells you that you're a wonderful designer.

Subjectivity, and socially accepted forms of qualification are hardly fare for measuring your worth. They're also hardly debatable as you set your self image based on your view of your skills, which (once again) is hardly fare, fair, or objective.

"Strangers" may not empathize as easily with you, but did you ever consider perhaps that that is a more resounding statement about you, and not them? Personally, as I don't know you, I'd say that you're an over-inflated jackass who's trying desperately to compensate for what is a deep lack in his personality. You lack creativity and an ability to learn from critical correction. You fail as an artist and a designer because you don't see the room you have to grow when trying to measure the length of your...stalk.

Were I to be one of your friends though, I'd say precisely the same thing...but your friends wouldn't.

Humans are the only animal stupid enough to defend the weak and the lame outside of bloodlines. "Friends" notoriously say the same things about you behind your back that they get mad at other people for saying to your face. Want praise? Go suckle mommy's teat. Want honesty and an unbiased eye? Welcome to it.

Want to run behind the skirt of a "friend" everytime someone critiques what you think/say/"create", then keep running. It seems a practised trait by now.

LEARNING. It's not just for those you think you have something to teach to. Dig?

No...probably not. Want sympathy, then you're guaranteed it there, as I find it nothing aside from pathetic.

-------------------------------------

Now there was impetus and gleaning in this thread before it became personal whining, wasn't there? Aren't journals better places to decry the inequity of the cruel cruel world?

Peter

quote:

---

Strangers only support others if others are the victim of a serious real world injustice like 9-11, or hospitalized because of a car crash

---

I disagree, but everybody is entitled to their opinions. And ramsay, you should make your e-mail address public. It would save threads like this from turning into personal attacks on each other.

In any case.. attempting to get back on topic.. I'm not quite sure if I believe *everything* they say on that slideshow. A bit of it is cited, however it really doesn't take much to make up a fake resource. Needless to say, until I see a more reputable source of these facts, I'm not convinced; I'm not moved either. Let those two peoples fuck themselves over until all that's left is a smoldering crater.

Suho - LMFAO! I'd forgotten that. I'm not very religious myself (read: I have my beliefs, but I've never been a follower of organized religion). I assume drowning them won't work then.

Hmmm.. OH, idea!! Let's kill three birds with one stone! First, we destroy their international airports (this is crucial). Then, I say we release our convicts from jail and train them as foot soldiers. Then stick them in Iraqi uniforms, and throw them into Israel, and let them solve the Middle East's problems. Then Israel & Palestine (might) stop fighting each other, go destroy Iraq (as impossible as it would be for them), proceed to destroy the convicts, and then each other! Bye bye Iraq, Israel vs Palestine, AND prison crowding!!



[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 08-10-2002).]

Well, Amen DG.

I think this thread has more than run it's course...

It's gotten so off topic, I don't think a 'pleasant' return is possible.

Anyone...?

We can try. I am in the process of reading a good book on the subject. (reading is a slow process for me sometimes) But it's called "O Jerusalem!" by Collins and Lapierre. So far it's a very objective look at the events leading up to the creation of the nation of Israel. I suspect it might be a touch leaning to the Israeli viewpoint but so far it seems more info and less editorial.

For mobrul, I could not help but notice the complete lack of accounting for the *values* of each side in the struggle. You say to "get Hamas in on the deal" and while I would love to do that, I simply can't see how they would be willing. They have stated on many occasions that they are *opposed* to *any* peace deal because they want all the land back... period. How do you get a group like that "in on the deal"?

Poverty no more causes immorality than opulence guarantees the wealthy to be saints. I just don't see how giving a bunch of stuff to one side or taking it away from the other is really addressing the cause of the unrest. I would be very interested to hear some thoughts on that aspect of things.

. . : slicePuzzle

Well Bugs, I really don't think there is a solution to this...because both sides don't want one, apparently (well, at least where they both co-exist with one another).

I saw an interesting docu on the region the other day...it dealt with an Israeli man, and a Palestinian women, who were together...and they could only meet with one another secretly...because the Palestianians would have killed him, and the Isrealis would have killed her. It was very poignant...and a very good example of the problems in the region...from an individual standpoint, I think there are many who want peace on both sides...however, the forces working in the area prevent it.

It's sad, really. An example of religion and belief gone wild...combined with politics, the will to survive, and cultural differences. If this problem ever gets solved peacefully, then I think maybe Mankind has a chance...sort of all the difficult problems of Man thrown into one.

Just finding somewhere to start, is tough. Too bad Begin is dead...he had a really good chance of making progress in the ordeal...but the rabid Israeli faction killed him...

And Anwar Saddat also had some good ideas...too bad he died because of them, as well.

All the greats that attempt to change the situation get killed...what a mess.

bugs, you are correct. Getting Hamas seriously involved will be difficult...but no more difficult than getting Israeli settlers to agree to move back to the 1967 lines.
Believe me, I'm not saying this is going to be a happy tea party...but things can not go on like this forever.

3 things here:
1) the situation we have today is not a sustainable scenario
2) people, any people, will not be happy under an occupation.
3) genocide is not a rational option

Given those three facts (as I see them) the only starting point is to end the occupation. Basically anything else, any other negotiation, is possible after that one move.

Israel justifies the occupation with talk of security. OK, if that is the case (I don't really believe it, but am willing to take them at their word) let's provide security with a UN peacekeeping force.

So now we have a secure Israel and an autonomous, continuous Palestine under no occupation.

(if, then, palestinians or israelis attack the other side, the UN security force should handle it just like they should handle any aggression situation)

Next step is to provide a real democracy to Palestine. This includes, as I've said earlier, a build up of infrastructure. It must be done. You have to give people a reason to live. Economy makes all the difference. Provide people with jobs, a steady diet, clean water, and a chance their kids will go to college...this makes all the difference in the world.

5 yrs from now, set up the first of many 'federation' projects -- an Arab/Israeli road crew to fix the potholes on Jerusalem streets. 10 yrs from now set up an exchange program -- Arab and Israeli families trade kids for the summer.

Those are just two examples. I don't mean the actual actions are important, but that people who are secure will meet each other and will humanize the situation. Once your 'enemy' is the guy you work with everyday, who has kids and a wife just like you, the whole dynamic changes.

The Palestinians and the Jews lived together in the region for hundreds of years in relative peace. They can do it again. It's not going to be easy, it will take lots of energy and money, but if we really desire it to happen it can.

mobrul

I think that people need to just give the Jews some grief! They didn't do anything wrong, and if anybody is going to be driven

quote:

---

out into the sea

---

it should by far be the ones who are bombing their houses, busses and cars almost every day. I am totally in favor of two seperate states, but you need to accomplish peace first.

Ok, so this stuff has probably been covered already, but I am just commenting now.