Have been a huge success...militarily.

Very few rockets landing in Israel.

Very few border incursions, if any really.

Local govts completely whipped into only helping Iran superficially(Syria is now looking for an out).


Assess the judgement.

Question number #2:

I am admittedly PRO Israel...

That being said, why does a peace resolution that is "equitable" leave a homogenous, ethnically cleansed Palestine with virtually no Jews and an Israel with a large and growing Arab minority who unequivocally want to delete Israel's Jewish character.

Doesnt seem very equitable to me...seems like a recipe for disaster...

If you want to REAL resolution why not form two separate countries that are fairly homogenous and durable/stable demographically.

Im less interested in " bc this or that is FAIR" responses and more interestred in responses that are constructive to a durable vision of a stable and safe region for all concerned. Some abstract idea of international law really has nothing to do with the conflict and never has...in 1948 Jews used a UN resolution to establish a country...in 1998 the Arabs use a UN resolution to "prove" Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza...

In both cases the other side simply ignoress the UN when its pronouncements dont fall in line with their interests.

Because one side wants to wipe out Jewish people. Can you imagine the propaganda in the Arab and Muslim world? I have always advocated a two state solution. However, this is where the trouble starts. How can you negotiate with fanatics who want to murder Jewish people?

I can't imagine it being much worse than the propaganda in your first sentence?

One might also give the palestinians some credit for that.

I don't agree that calling for the removal of settlements equates to ethnic cleansing. It does not signify that jews are unwelcomed on palestinian land, it only illustrates that palestinian oppose Israelis taking land.



Again, before you can criticize any palestinian state for not allowing Jews to live there, you first need to wait for that state to exist.


Nor am I interested in fair. I'm interested in legality and I've tried to focus on that in previous threads. I would say that whatever UN mandates and resolutions may conflict, one should put much more weight on the more recent ones.

You have to admit that the UN has been overwhelmingly consistant for the past 3 decades.

Even though your post was rightfully removed I'll give my 2 cents on it.

Your observations can be compared to this. Three white man walk into the house of a poor black family with shotguns. They take the family and stuff them in the closet for 2 weeks. During those 2 weeks the 3 armed men completely refurbish the house. They put new rugs down and brand new furniture. They than let the family out of the closet and castigate them for sitting down on the new couch.

+1

The land of Judea and Samaria where the Jewish people were, has been overthrown and controlled by different people numerous times. The question now is what is the solution for peace? I realise that certain fanatics do not want this and truly believe they are going to Heaven after they blow themselves up and murder innocent people.

grant anyone from either side that wants to leave automatic US citizenship, then ...

Draw the borders on a map, make leaders of both sides sign the map with a sharpie,Bulldoze the "holy sites", Nuke the area from sea at the first violent outburst.

???

there are no innocent people living in that area IMO... jesus you can walk out of there on foot in around a day. If you dont want to be in a war zone then GTFO.

Simple people with simple minds.

Where do I start....

A) Nobody is going to agree with the boarders

B) The leaders will not sign

C) Can't bulldoze the 'holy' sites as there will be huge uproar around the entire world and especially in America. Do you then put the American citizens 'in line' and impose a dictatorship in the US, ripping up the US constitution which is the greatest document of freedom ever written.

D) Would not nuke a close ally, plus that ally has nukes and could nuke you back.

E) Thanks for the contribution, nh wp gg Sir.

www.memri.org

well .... you asked for a solution, I gave you one that would work immediately.

If you want a long term workable peaceful solution, the first and most important step is an immediate withdrawal of all funding, military occupation, and support for either side. Eventually they will work it out and things will be fine.

Or Not.

either way its not our problem, and were making it worse.

2 State solution, worry about consequences later, because it can't be much worse than the status quo really, except Hamas won't have an absolute monopoly over the Palestinians. Then make Jerusalem a neutral city under international jurisdiction... pretty much like the original partition called for. Sure, one secular democratic state would be nice, but so would a bj from Angelina Jolie.

Yeah Hamas has been ****ing it up, but it's really up to Israel whether or not they want to give the Palestinians a state. And purely for their own interests, I think they should (I think they should in the interest of justice as well, but I know that's not especially realistic). Problem is, they have right-wing extremists and religious nuts (just like the US) who think this is a disastrous idea.

Why would the 2 state solution work when it didn't work the first time?

Israel was originally drawn up to comprise what is today Israel and what is today Jordan. That was negotiated down to a slim sliver of land on the coast for the Jews and the rest given to the Arabs in the form of Jordan. That was unacceptable to the pan-Arab world and they attacked. They are claiming to love what they have always despised.

Lol at the classic left wing uninformed "colonial" or "white-black" analysis.

Let me pose to you these ?'s:

Where are ARABS indigenous....

Here is a hint, A&&BIA.

Where is Islam indigenous?

Here is a hint, SE A**B&A.

How did Arab culture/blood and Islam come to Palestine(a purely geographic term I find less than offensive as its used to describe the lower coastal part of the levantine)??

Here is a hint C*L*N*A*ism.

So who is the black and who is the white in this little ridiculous vignette?

And what if most of the "blacks" came to live in the house bc the whites fixed it up and hired "blacks" to help them.. ..would they have more or less rights to the house than either the original Whites....the blacks who had been there, the new Whites....or anyone else?

A simple analysis, however helpful to the petromurders that condone GENOCIDE in Darfur while decrying Jewish rubber bullets, is pretty much indicates gross intellectual laziness at this point.

If you are that ill-informed I suggest just reading about 15 books on the subject and then chiming in with something relevant to the actual history of the region.

BC of the 200 eminently deliverable and highly potent warheads Israel possess.

The fundamental tenor of the conflict changed one day in the 1970s when Israel got the bomb.

There is no military annihilation of Israel possible from the Arab POV right now....at least not one that doesnt include a Massada option where 80--90% of local Arabs are killed and the great Mosque being deleted from existence along with Cairo, Riyadh, Amman, Damascus, Tehran, Medina...etc. etc. etc.

Wat? Islam has been in Palestine since like the 7th century, hardly the "colonial" era, at least in any sense of the word I'm familiar with. It was still endemic to large parts of southern Spain until 1492.

Learn how to use the word endemic properly.

Learn the word indigenous.

Wtf is the "Colonial" era...and who decides when it began and ended?

Hillarious, if Europeans ride in somewhere kill people, rape them, force them to convert and accept their culture....it is "colonialism".

If somewhat darker complexioned Arabians do that its...well.....ill know when you can string together a coherent sentence....nay, word.

Colonialism in the Levantine was at the tip of a sabre in 750?.......how that is substantively different than Cortes marching into Mexico at the end of a musket or canon is really beyond me....How people with agendas CAN PRETEND to not see these parallels is well understood by me.


Im sure some convuluted leftwing arguement can/will be made...but the reality is these nations are "Arab" in so much that they were COLONIZED by bedouins by force.

OK, but what is the point of saying that? I'm just not understanding where you are going with this. I didn't think the rightness or wrongness of people being there was part of the equation, only what the solution to the current conflict should be--I'm not here to mediate every invasion in history. And unless Israel is prepared to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian territories, I think their best option is to create a state in those areas.

PS. If you use words like "colonial," you have to understand what most people are going to infer you mean. "Conquest" is the word you want.

No, I meant COLONIAL.

Just like when the pilgrims landed here....same thing....or when the Greeks settled in Gaza and tried to take over parts of Egypt. Or when the Han colonized large parts of Asia...especially Vietnam .

THESE WERE COLONIAL ENTERPRISES.

What so many 18 yr olds in college who have read nothing that wasnt spoonfed for them really dont seem to get is COLONIALISM is a long running theme throughout human hostory.

It wasnt a one-time WHITE SKINNED EVIL/BROWN SKINNED VICTIM phenomena.(and of course there are plenty of white skinned Palestinians and conversely brown skinned Israelis so this is neither here nor there)


I cant be held responsible if people are so intellectually lazy that they just sop up this Berkely produced garbage and do absolutely no homework on their own. It isnt my poor use of words, rather it is the complete and total abandonement of any sort of historiographical context that so many here have displayed, that is really the problem/.

Why are you going off on a rant against nothing in particular? I thought this was about the current solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Obviously conquest is a human enterprise. No one except your imaginary, supposedly "leftwing" opponents is saying otherwise. But your use of words is poor. When people say "colonial era," certain associations are brought to mind--someone so concerned with historiographical context should understand this. It doesn't matter in the slightest whether these associations are illogical. I might think it's silly to call the period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance the "Middle Ages." But when someone says Middle Ages, I usually know what they mean, and I would be justified in being surprised when they said Christianity originated in the Middle Ages because they meant "the period between the beginning of the universe and the end."

The post I made was in response to one that was deleted. Israel was not the topic of his post nor was my analogy.

I seem to remember the Jews brutally slaughtering the people in Canaan in order to live there.

Is your point that no one is innocent? That would be a good place to start.

How about we look at the history of human conquest and decide that it really isnt all that great. Here we have a relatively recent event that is within the worlds power to correct. This is vastly different that the UK taking over the world or even the US slaughtering the Indians. The Palestine/Israel problem is so young that there are still people who were around for the beginning of it! Settling it civilly could be the first gold star in the history of colonial enterprises! Why not try to overcome these memes instead of looking back and saying that others did much worse?