Conquer Club

tkr4lf wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:So, I am going to ignore your hypothetical, as it does not apply here. Would you care to answer my hypothetical

No, I will - likewise - ignore your hypothetical.

Well, that is your right. But I ignored your hypothetical because it was not relevant to the situation

me too

How was my hypothetical situation not relevant? The original topic was the Suez Canal and Egypt restricting Israel's passage. You came back with what if you wanted to screw my girlfriend, and I said no, and you stabbed me. Not a good hypothetical because that is a personal matter, not a major world affairs matter. Then I came up with a very similar situation, in hypothetical, of panama denying use of its canal to america. Then you came up with China wanting to use the Great Lakes. Again, this does not relate to the others because of it being a regional thing. The Great Lakes are not used for major world shipping like the two canals are. So you cannot equate either of your hypotheticals with the original topic. However, mine directly equates to the original topic, as they are essentially about the same thing, just different countries and different canals. So again, how exactly is my hypothetical irrelevent? And I believe I've sufficiently shown why your's are irrelevent.

Let's take it back one step, before Egypt attempts to close shipping to Israel.

Who's really provoking who in that incident? You say the Egyptians were, but in fact it's the Israelis because the Israelis were receiving massive shipments of weapons that could be used for an offensive nature. By closing the Suez Canal to Israel, Egypt actually engaged in a defensive maneuver against Israel, who then attacked them outright.

I'd argue that what Egypt did was right. Recall how the Israelis justify stopping shipments of weapons to Gaza or Hezbollah. They board ships and confiscate the weapons to prevent them from getting into the hands of their enemies. Same with the Egyptians, who were not in the wrong by denying Israel such weapons. Granted, Egypt may have blocked essential, non-military goods, but those could have been shipped through different routes, or a compromise could've been made to guarantee such products passage. However, the Israelis would never want to be in a position to placate Egypt's demands, so they dealt with the situation in a highly aggressive manner by starting the war.

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Ok though guys, I have to go shower and get ready for class, so I must sign off for a while.

What kind of class? If you say PHYSICS I'm gonna freak. We have enough future physicists here in The Club.

Gang, SRSLY, why does The Club attract Physics majors in such droves?

I just got back from Modern Physics.

tkr4lf wrote:Well, I don't really think it would happen. The Panamanians are generally with the US. They seem to be grateful for the whole "get-Noriega-out-of-there" operation we had, and for building the canal and operating it, as that has brought their country much prosperity. It's just a hypothetical to make a point. But it would be interesting to see it play out. America has basically occupied that country before, don't think it wouldn't do it again. If anything, America loves to spend its money on making war. (Not that I agree with this, just stating a fact.)

What are your thoughts on the allegation that the US bombed Panama and removed Noriega since he was considering replacing the Panama Canal and accepting the Japanese proposal for a more efficient and productive canal?

Noriega didn't want to play the game with US rules, so he got the cut, amirite?

tkr4lf wrote:Anyway, you do bring up a good point about the previous inhabitants, and I'm not sure that there is a good solution. However, I would say that it only seems fair that the Jewish people should have a homeland of their own. This may not be the fairest solution, but why can't the palestinians go live in the other Arab/Muslim countries? It wouldn't be the perfect solution, but at least then Israel wouldn't have a lot of the problems that it now has, and the Palestinians would be somewhat more content, being surrounded by fellow Muslims and Arabs. Like I said, not a perfect solution, maybe not even a viable one, but just my suggestion. Thoughts?

The other Arab countries don't want the Palestinians living permanently with them because they're a burden on the state's already strained services and resources. There's too many people, and nothing's really beneficial enough in allowing such a large influx in those country's populations.

The solution would be to remove their ban upon returning to Israel; however, that's not in Israel's favor in the long-run since it would further decrease the percentage of Jewish voters, and if Israel wants to remain a somewhat democratic country, the Jews would over time lose their power in the legislative branch to Palestinians.

Regarding the return of Palestinians, the chance of any solution proving beneficial to both parties is almost zero.

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Ok though guys, I have to go shower and get ready for class, so I must sign off for a while.

What kind of class? If you say PHYSICS I'm gonna freak. We have enough future physicists here in The Club.

Gang, SRSLY, why does The Club attract Physics majors in such droves?

No, I'm not a physics major. I'm actually a psychology major. Today though, I had US Government. Quite a boring class, if you ask me. But, one that is required, so, it is what it is.

Chemistry is where it's at.

[quote="BigBallinStalin]

Let's take it back one step, before Egypt attempts to close shipping to Israel.

Who's really provoking who in that incident? You say the Egyptians were, but in fact it's the Israelis because the Israelis were receiving massive shipments of weapons that could be used for an offensive nature. By closing the Suez Canal to Israel, Egypt actually engaged in a defensive maneuver against Israel, who then attacked them outright.

I'd argue that what Egypt did was right. Recall how the Israelis justify stopping shipments of weapons to Gaza or Hezbollah. They board ships and confiscate the weapons to prevent them from getting into the hands of their enemies. Same with the Egyptians, who were not in the wrong by denying Israel such weapons. Granted, Egypt may have blocked essential, non-military goods, but those could have been shipped through different routes, or a compromise could've been made to guarantee such products passage. However, the Israelis would never want to be in a position to placate Egypt's demands, so they dealt with the situation in a highly aggressive manner by starting the war.[/quote]

Well, first off, I was completely wrong on the whole canal thing, it was not the Suez Canal but the Straights of Tiran, that were closed to the Israelis. I must have read that part wrong. Here is a link to the wikipedia article for anyone interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

So, to address you, I guess it's really a lot more complicated than either of us are saying. There were many things leading to this war, and the shipping business was mainly just the last straw. I suggest reading the wikipedia article to get more of the background information. (yes, i know its wikipedia, and can be edited by anyone, but it is still much more credible than people give it credit for. There are numerous citations on this page. However, one caveat, it does say that the neutrality of the article is disputed at the top.) So, I can't really say who was to blame, ultimately. I do understand why the Egyptians did what they did, but still I say that you cannot do stuff like that to other countries without expecting a response. And with Israel, they should have known that it would be a swift, military response.

Edit: I don't know what I did to the quotes, but somehow I screwed that up.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Well, I don't really think it would happen. The Panamanians are generally with the US. They seem to be grateful for the whole "get-Noriega-out-of-there" operation we had, and for building the canal and operating it, as that has brought their country much prosperity. It's just a hypothetical to make a point. But it would be interesting to see it play out. America has basically occupied that country before, don't think it wouldn't do it again. If anything, America loves to spend its money on making war. (Not that I agree with this, just stating a fact.)

What are your thoughts on the allegation that the US bombed Panama and removed Noriega since he was considering replacing the Panama Canal and accepting the Japanese proposal for a more efficient and productive canal?

Noriega didn't want to play the game with US rules, so he got the cut, amirite?

Yes, I believe you are right on this one. It makes sense though, as America funded and built the canal, after failed attempts previously. I believe it was the French who tried before. (Not certain of this, I'm too lazy right this second to go check sources, just going by memory, which is not perfect, to be sure.) If I remember correctly, the agreement was for America to build it, and in return for building it, they would maintain control over the Canal Zone until a set date. I believe the handover occured during Carter's administration. So, it seems a little disrespectful to suddenly turn on the ones who have basically given you this great canal, which will bring you enormous sums of revenue, and offer special priveleges to someone else. I don't think that's a great reason to go to war, but America does what it does. As I said before, I do not agree with everything my country does, but it will still do those things, unfortunately.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Anyway, you do bring up a good point about the previous inhabitants, and I'm not sure that there is a good solution. However, I would say that it only seems fair that the Jewish people should have a homeland of their own. This may not be the fairest solution, but why can't the palestinians go live in the other Arab/Muslim countries? It wouldn't be the perfect solution, but at least then Israel wouldn't have a lot of the problems that it now has, and the Palestinians would be somewhat more content, being surrounded by fellow Muslims and Arabs. Like I said, not a perfect solution, maybe not even a viable one, but just my suggestion. Thoughts?

The other Arab countries don't want the Palestinians living permanently with them because they're a burden on the state's already strained services and resources. There's too many people, and nothing's really beneficial enough in allowing such a large influx in those country's populations.

The solution would be to remove their ban upon returning to Israel; however, that's not in Israel's favor in the long-run since it would further decrease the percentage of Jewish voters, and if Israel wants to remain a somewhat democratic country, the Jews would over time lose their power in the legislative branch to Palestinians.

Regarding the return of Palestinians, the chance of any solution proving beneficial to both parties is almost zero.

I agree with you one hundred percent that the chance of any solution benefitting both is almost zero. This whole situation, quagmire, really, is so incredibly complicated. And you are right, the solution I offered would not work. It was an attempt, though. And it makes sense that those other countries wouldn't want them.

On a side note, what would you think of this? Say that Israel, in an attempt to bring the Palestinian's birth rate's more in line with their own, actually started treating them as normal people,citizens, and made a concerted effort to educate them and bring them up to par. Do you think such a solution could work? It is far fetched, but who knows?

mviola wrote:Chemistry is where it's at.

I have a friend who is into chemistry. She is a very smart lady, I could totally see her being a chemist. It would be a cool job, but not my area of expertise. I'm more for the social sciences. Besides, it would be too tempting to become a mad scientist!

On a side not, not relating to this thread in any way, today on my way to school, I ended up waiting at this train crossing for a good twenty minutes. The train was just stopped there in the middle of the road. I finally realized that it wasn't going to be moving any time soon, so I turned around and went up a few roads and bypassed it. Anyway, it turns out that the train hit a pedestrian! That explains the police showing up. Crazy shit!!

2dimes wrote:Aight.

I think you might be right about the "Great Lakes" what about if he used the "Saint Lawrence Seaway"?

I suppose the Saint Lawrence Seaway would be slightly more fitting, but the whole point is moot now. I was wrong, it wasn't even the Suez Canal that was shut off to the Israelis this time. It was the Straights of Tiran. So, all that debate was for nothing.

saxitoxin wrote:So there's not much international trade happening in the Great Lakes.

BINGO Saxi; most of the trade between Canada and the US crosses over the bridges, not across the lakes. If you go by all the legends of the great lakes taking a cargo ship across the great lakes is a sure way of getting your cargo sunk and your crew lost.

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead
When the skies of November turn gloomy.

With a load of iron ore - 26,000 tons more
Than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty
That good ship and true was a bone to be chewed
When the gales of November came early

The ship was the pride of the American side
Coming back from some mill in Wisconsin
As the big freighters go it was bigger than most
With a crew and the Captain well seasoned.

Concluding some terms with a couple of steel firms
When they left fully loaded for Cleveland
And later that night when the ships bell rang
Could it be the North Wind they'd been feeling.

The wind in the wires made a tattletale sound
And a wave broke over the railing
And every man knew, as the Captain did, too,
T'was the witch of November come stealing.

The dawn came late and the breakfast had to wait
When the gales of November came slashing
When afternoon came it was freezing rain
In the face of a hurricane West Wind

When supper time came the old cook came on deck
Saying fellows it's too rough to feed ya
At 7PM a main hatchway caved in
He said fellas it's been good to know ya.

The Captain wired in he had water coming in
And the good ship and crew was in peril
And later that night when his lights went out of sight
Came the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Does anyone know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours
The searchers all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay
If they'd put fifteen more miles behind her.

They might have split up or they might have capsized
They may have broke deep and took water
And all that remains is the faces and the names
Of the wives and the sons and the daughters.

Lake Huron rolls, Superior sings
In the ruins of her ice water mansion
Old Michigan steams like a young man's dreams,
The islands and bays are for sportsmen.

And farther below Lake Ontario
Takes in what Lake Erie can send her
And the iron boats go as the mariners all know
With the gales of November remembered.

In a musty old hall in Detroit they prayed
In the Maritime Sailors' Cathedral
The church bell chimed, 'til it rang 29 times
For each man on the Edmund Fitzgerald.

The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
Superior, they say, never gives up her dead
When the gales of November come early.

tkr4lf wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Ok though guys, I have to go shower and get ready for class, so I must sign off for a while.

What kind of class? If you say PHYSICS I'm gonna freak. We have enough future physicists here in The Club.

Gang, SRSLY, why does The Club attract Physics majors in such droves?

No, I'm not a physics major. I'm actually a psychology major.

You and I are gonna get along famously!

What do you plan on doing after you graduate?

saxitoxin wrote:What kind of class? If you say PHYSICS I'm gonna freak. We have enough future physicists here in The Club.

Not to mention past physicists (with astrophysics minors).

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:Ok though guys, I have to go shower and get ready for class, so I must sign off for a while.

What kind of class? If you say PHYSICS I'm gonna freak. We have enough future physicists here in The Club.

Gang, SRSLY, why does The Club attract Physics majors in such droves?

No, I'm not a physics major. I'm actually a psychology major.

You and I are gonna get along famously!

What do you plan on doing after you graduate?

Well, I'm actually not sure yet. This is my first semester of college at all, so I've got quite a ways to go before I'm out. If I heard correctly, you have to get a masters to practice?

However, I have thought about it somewhat. I've considered becoming either a clinical or counseling psychologist. So, I guess working at a hospital, or mental hospital, or having my own practice, or perhaps joining somebody else's practice. Who knows, though? It's so far off right now I'm just enjoying the schooling.

How about you? Are you currently in school, or out practicing, or what?

tkr4lf wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Let's take it back one step, before Egypt attempts to close shipping to Israel.

Who's really provoking who in that incident? You say the Egyptians were, but in fact it's the Israelis because the Israelis were receiving massive shipments of weapons that could be used for an offensive nature. By closing the Suez Canal to Israel, Egypt actually engaged in a defensive maneuver against Israel, who then attacked them outright.

I'd argue that what Egypt did was right. Recall how the Israelis justify stopping shipments of weapons to Gaza or Hezbollah. They board ships and confiscate the weapons to prevent them from getting into the hands of their enemies. Same with the Egyptians, who were not in the wrong by denying Israel such weapons. Granted, Egypt may have blocked essential, non-military goods, but those could have been shipped through different routes, or a compromise could've been made to guarantee such products passage. However, the Israelis would never want to be in a position to placate Egypt's demands, so they dealt with the situation in a highly aggressive manner by starting the war.

Well, first off, I was completely wrong on the whole canal thing, it was not the Suez Canal but the Straights of Tiran, that were closed to the Israelis. I must have read that part wrong. Here is a link to the wikipedia article for anyone interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

So, to address you, I guess it's really a lot more complicated than either of us are saying. There were many things leading to this war, and the shipping business was mainly just the last straw. I suggest reading the wikipedia article to get more of the background information. (yes, i know its wikipedia, and can be edited by anyone, but it is still much more credible than people give it credit for. There are numerous citations on this page. However, one caveat, it does say that the neutrality of the article is disputed at the top.) So, I can't really say who was to blame, ultimately. I do understand why the Egyptians did what they did, but still I say that you cannot do stuff like that to other countries without expecting a response. And with Israel, they should have known that it would be a swift, military response.

Edit: I don't know what I did to the quotes, but somehow I screwed that up.

Oh yeah, buddy, it's complicated. According to Egypt's enemies (mainly Israel and partly the US), Egypt didn't have the "legitimacy" to block that Strait (whose jurisdiction does fall within Egypt's domain), and therefore from the US/Israel view Israel is justified in invading Egypt and starting the war. Egypt would say otherwise (and probably planned to even attack Israel after they blockaded them, but who knows).

[Also, regarding the Strait: it's control is at both its neighbors' discretion.

Either way, it's relative, and Egypt could've done X, Y, and Z, and Israel could've done so and so, but I'm going to place 60% of the blame on Israel for this one.

To say that Israel is justified in doing so is still a bit of stretch. They declared war way too early and didn't even attempt to negotiate, or go at least go through the acts of the diplomatic process. But, if I was Israel, I would've done the same because I had US-backing, the timing was perfect, and all those countries were hostile anyway. And those hostile countries would've deprived my state of much needed weaponry, which would encourage them at some later time to attack.

So, is it right? Is it wrong? It doesn't matter to them because they don't really need to justify their actions too much because the international court and the UN are a joke for those who are protected. For me, it matters, which is why I'm not very happy with how Israel runs their show. But how else would one run that show given their situation? I'd most likely have done the same as Israel, and the same as Egypt.

Questions? Comments? Criticisms?

(you left out a quotation mark [quote="BigBallinStalin])

tkr4lf wrote:On a side note, what would you think of this? Say that Israel, in an attempt to bring the Palestinian's birth rate's more in line with their own, actually started treating them as normal people,citizens, and made a concerted effort to educate them and bring them up to par. Do you think such a solution could work? It is far fetched, but who knows?

Which Palestinians are you referring to? Those lucky enough to get the Israeli Palestinian citizen status are more or less taken care of (but my word is mainly based from Israelis who are in general alarmingly even more brainwashed than Americans regarding their own countries). And from the news I gather, they seem to be treated not so great but much better than non-citizens.

As for Palestinians in the "Territories," then that responsibility falls upon whatever local authority is in place and not upon Israel. However, Israel is mainly responsible for some degree of the lack of development in the Palestinian lands as can be seen from Israel's settlement expansion, redistribution of Israeli-Palestianian lands on loose legal grounds (like taking someone's house and given it to an Israeli), messing with Palestine's infrastructure thus undermining that semi-State's authority, and all other sorts of fuckry. Of course, the Palestinian governments also bear the blame as well, but they're not nearly in the position to change things for the slightly better as much as Israel is.

Now, Israel does have some legitimate reasons for some of these actions, but at large not really. The question is which policies should it discontinue and to what degree should others be limited? For example, how much of a ban should they lift on Gaza, if at all? Should Israel be allowed to continue its goal of settlement expansion and road/zone meddling in order to undermine Palestinian efforts to become a stronger nation? Wouldn't a stronger Palestine lead to a bigger fight against Israel?
(Just like life: there are questions to which there are no clear answers).

I think that due to Israel's overly aggressive nature since it's birth, it's left a trail of deep hatred towards them. For them to say, "We tried! We tried!" is mostly rubbish due to their history of handling nearly every situation in an extremely violent manner. From then on, they've dug themselves in a pit to which they can't escape within the next 100 years at this current rate. Even if peace was somehow secured, nearly all Palestinians would never forget, or be allowed to forget, the atrocities committed against them by the Israelis--sort of like a mirror reflection of the Jewish reaction to the Holocaust (not quite, but similar). Ironic, isn't it?

Sorry for the length, but it couldn't be avoided. This pretty much covers my view in a nutshell on The Situation there. Questions, comments, and criticisms are welcome.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Let's take it back one step, before Egypt attempts to close shipping to Israel.

Who's really provoking who in that incident? You say the Egyptians were, but in fact it's the Israelis because the Israelis were receiving massive shipments of weapons that could be used for an offensive nature. By closing the Suez Canal to Israel, Egypt actually engaged in a defensive maneuver against Israel, who then attacked them outright.

I'd argue that what Egypt did was right. Recall how the Israelis justify stopping shipments of weapons to Gaza or Hezbollah. They board ships and confiscate the weapons to prevent them from getting into the hands of their enemies. Same with the Egyptians, who were not in the wrong by denying Israel such weapons. Granted, Egypt may have blocked essential, non-military goods, but those could have been shipped through different routes, or a compromise could've been made to guarantee such products passage. However, the Israelis would never want to be in a position to placate Egypt's demands, so they dealt with the situation in a highly aggressive manner by starting the war.

Well, first off, I was completely wrong on the whole canal thing, it was not the Suez Canal but the Straights of Tiran, that were closed to the Israelis. I must have read that part wrong. Here is a link to the wikipedia article for anyone interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

So, to address you, I guess it's really a lot more complicated than either of us are saying. There were many things leading to this war, and the shipping business was mainly just the last straw. I suggest reading the wikipedia article to get more of the background information. (yes, i know its wikipedia, and can be edited by anyone, but it is still much more credible than people give it credit for. There are numerous citations on this page. However, one caveat, it does say that the neutrality of the article is disputed at the top.) So, I can't really say who was to blame, ultimately. I do understand why the Egyptians did what they did, but still I say that you cannot do stuff like that to other countries without expecting a response. And with Israel, they should have known that it would be a swift, military response.

Edit: I don't know what I did to the quotes, but somehow I screwed that up.

Oh yeah, buddy, it's complicated. According to Egypt's enemies (mainly Israel and partly the US), Egypt didn't have the "legitimacy" to block that Strait, and therefore from their view Israel is justified in invading Egypt and starting the war. Egypt would say otherwise (and probably planned to even attack Israel after they blockaded them, but who knows).

Either way, it's relative, and Egypt could've done X, Y, and Z, and Israel could've done so and so, but I'm going to place 60% of the blame on Israel for this one.

To say that Israel is justified in doing so is still a bit of stretch. They declared war way too early and didn't even attempt to negotiate, or go at least go through the acts of the diplomatic process. But, if I was Israel, I would've done the same because I had US-backing, the timing was perfect, and all those countries were hostile anyway. And those hostile countries would've deprived my state of much needed weaponry, which would encourage them at some later time to attack.

So, is it right? Is it wrong? It doesn't matter to them because they don't really need to justify their actions too much because the international court and the UN are a joke for those who are protected. For me, it matters, which is why I'm not very happy with how Israel runs their show. But how else would one run that show given their situation? I'd most likely have done the same as Israel, and the same as Egypt.

Questions? Comments? Criticisms?

(you left out a quotation mark [quote="BigBallinStalin])[/quote]

Not really any questions or criticisms. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. And I agree that the UN/International courts are a joke, not just for those protected, but for everybody. I personally don't like anything that leads to a one world government.

A few comments, though. Like I said before, I sympathize with Israel, so I am a bit biased in this. I guess it would be fair of you to say that 60% of the blame lies with them though. The thing is though, there were troops massing on Israel's borders from two different sides. Egypt had their troops on the Sinai/Israel border, and Syria plus some Iraqi troops and a contigent of Egyptian troops on the border of Syria/Israel. It was after this that Israel stated any closing of the straights would be construed as an act of war, and then Egypt closed them. So, with the all of that occuring, I can hardly blame Israel for starting the war. But, you already stated that you would have done the same thing if you were in either of their shoes. And I would have to agree with that. Being able to see both sides of the story is an admirable trait.

I still think it is rather funny/sad that the Arab forces were defeated in six days though. I guess the main reason that happened though is the surprise air strike by Israel, which basically crippled the entire air forces of the Arab powers. I guess the most intense fighting occured in the Golan Heights, against the Syrians.

This is all interesting stuff. On a side note, have you, or anybody else on here, ever played the Steel Panthers series? And specifically Steel Panthers 3? They have a cool campaign on there where you play as the Israeli forces going against the Arabs in the Six Day war...it's quite fun.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:On a side note, what would you think of this? Say that Israel, in an attempt to bring the Palestinian's birth rate's more in line with their own, actually started treating them as normal people,citizens, and made a concerted effort to educate them and bring them up to par. Do you think such a solution could work? It is far fetched, but who knows?

Which Palestinians are you referring to? Those lucky enough to get the Israeli Palestinian citizen status are more or less taken care of (but my word is mainly based from Israelis who are in general alarmingly even more brainwashed than Americans regarding their own countries). And from the news I gather, they seem to be treated not so great but much better than non-citizens.

As for Palestinians in the "Territories," then that responsibility falls upon whatever local authority is in place and not upon Israel. However, Israel is mainly responsible for some degree of the lack of development in the Palestinian lands as can be seen from Israel's settlement expansion, redistribution of Israeli-Palestianian lands on loose legal grounds (like taking someone's house and given it to an Israeli), messing with Palestine's infrastructure thus undermining that semi-State's authority, and all other sorts of fuckry. Of course, the Palestinian governments also bear the blame as well, but they're not nearly in the position to change things for the slightly better as much as Israel is.

Now, Israel does have some legitimate reasons for some of these actions, but at large not really. The question is which policies should it discontinue and to what degree should others be limited? For example, how much of a ban should they lift on Gaza, if at all? Should Israel be allowed to continue its goal of settlement expansion and road/zone meddling in order to undermine Palestinian efforts to become a stronger nation? Wouldn't a stronger Palestine lead to a bigger fight against Israel?
(Just like life: there are questions to which there are no clear answers).

I think that due to Israel's overly aggressive nature since it's birth, it's left a trail of deep hatred towards them. For them to say, "We tried! We tried!" is mostly rubbish due to their history of handling nearly every situation in an extremely violent manner. From then on, they've dug themselves in a pit to which they can't escape within the next 100 years at this current rate. Even if peace was somehow secured, nearly all Palestinians would never forget, or be allowed to forget, the atrocities committed against them by the Israelis--sort of like a mirror reflection of the Jewish reaction to the Holocaust (not quite, but similar). Ironic, isn't it?

Sorry for the length, but it couldn't be avoided. This pretty much covers my view in a nutshell on The Situation there. Questions, comments, and criticisms are welcome.

Well, I was pretty much referring to all of them. Like if the Israeli government granted all Palestinians in Israel the legal status of citizen, granted them areas that were solely for Palestinian development, assisted them in developing said regions, helped to build schools, roads, hospitals, all that stuff. If they worked hard to get them educated and up to the level of most of the Jews in Israel.

At least then, it would show that they are working to help the Palestinians, and possibly serve to bring them together more. And the birthrate thing was mainly ina response to somebody who said something about the Jews don't want a Palestinian majority in the government. Well, If they work towards bringing the Palestinians up to their level, their birthrates should drop as well. I believe it has been shown that once people are brought up to First World standards, they stop having so many kids. At least, eventually. It's sort of similar to the issue in Texas and America as a whole of the Mexican population breeding so quickly, not to mention that immigration is still occurring on a large scale(both legal and illegal), that soon they will outnumber the white Americans, and be the majority population of the country. Something like that, anyway. Like I said, I doubt it would be viable, but it's mainly a hypothetical question.

tkr4lf wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

tkr4lf wrote:On a side note, what would you think of this? Say that Israel, in an attempt to bring the Palestinian's birth rate's more in line with their own, actually started treating them as normal people,citizens, and made a concerted effort to educate them and bring them up to par. Do you think such a solution could work? It is far fetched, but who knows?

Which Palestinians are you referring to? Those lucky enough to get the Israeli Palestinian citizen status are more or less taken care of (but my word is mainly based from Israelis who are in general alarmingly even more brainwashed than Americans regarding their own countries). And from the news I gather, they seem to be treated not so great but much better than non-citizens.

As for Palestinians in the "Territories," then that responsibility falls upon whatever local authority is in place and not upon Israel. However, Israel is mainly responsible for some degree of the lack of development in the Palestinian lands as can be seen from Israel's settlement expansion, redistribution of Israeli-Palestianian lands on loose legal grounds (like taking someone's house and given it to an Israeli), messing with Palestine's infrastructure thus undermining that semi-State's authority, and all other sorts of fuckry. Of course, the Palestinian governments also bear the blame as well, but they're not nearly in the position to change things for the slightly better as much as Israel is.

Now, Israel does have some legitimate reasons for some of these actions, but at large not really. The question is which policies should it discontinue and to what degree should others be limited? For example, how much of a ban should they lift on Gaza, if at all? Should Israel be allowed to continue its goal of settlement expansion and road/zone meddling in order to undermine Palestinian efforts to become a stronger nation? Wouldn't a stronger Palestine lead to a bigger fight against Israel?
(Just like life: there are questions to which there are no clear answers).

I think that due to Israel's overly aggressive nature since it's birth, it's left a trail of deep hatred towards them. For them to say, "We tried! We tried!" is mostly rubbish due to their history of handling nearly every situation in an extremely violent manner. From then on, they've dug themselves in a pit to which they can't escape within the next 100 years at this current rate. Even if peace was somehow secured, nearly all Palestinians would never forget, or be allowed to forget, the atrocities committed against them by the Israelis--sort of like a mirror reflection of the Jewish reaction to the Holocaust (not quite, but similar). Ironic, isn't it?

Sorry for the length, but it couldn't be avoided. This pretty much covers my view in a nutshell on The Situation there. Questions, comments, and criticisms are welcome.

Well, I was pretty much referring to all of them. Like if the Israeli government granted all Palestinians in Israel the legal status of citizen, granted them areas that were solely for Palestinian development, assisted them in developing said regions, helped to build schools, roads, hospitals, all that stuff. If they worked hard to get them educated and up to the level of most of the Jews in Israel.

At least then, it would show that they are working to help the Palestinians, and possibly serve to bring them together more. And the birthrate thing was mainly ina response to somebody who said something about the Jews don't want a Palestinian majority in the government. Well, If they work towards bringing the Palestinians up to their level, their birthrates should drop as well. I believe it has been shown that once people are brought up to First World standards, they stop having so many kids. At least, eventually. It's sort of similar to the issue in Texas and America as a whole of the Mexican population breeding so quickly, not to mention that immigration is still occurring on a large scale(both legal and illegal), that soon they will outnumber the white Americans, and be the majority population of the country. Something like that, anyway. Like I said, I doubt it would be viable, but it's mainly a hypothetical question.

In the long long run, sure, it would be beneficial. But what would happen in the short-run? Israeli Jews become a minority, and would most likely lose much representation by their now Palestinian-dominated government. Result: Good bye, Jews. So, full citizenship of every Palestinian can't be allowed.

Even if Israel-sponsored services could somehow come into fruition and survive in war-torn, anti-Israeli regions, they still wouldn't bring love, nor would it bring acceptance of the Israelis from the Palestinians, because it's not enough reimbursement for what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians. That, and this reimbursement would take decades to see results (which would demand too much patience for those who seek retribution and justice immediately). Israel can't just say, "Sorry, guys, here's a super stimpack. We're cool now, right?" and expect them to accept it.

Also, what happens when Israel stops undermining Palestinian sovereignty? Hamas will build up and antagonize Israel again. And the other Palestinians, with their newly found economic development, will be in a higher position to make further demands from Israel, which is also unacceptable to Israel.

In my humble opinion, a better proposal would be for Israel to redraw its map to the Green Line, allow the Palestinians to nationalize/take all Israeli settlements outside of those borders, have Israeli compensate those settlers, have Israel pay for compensation to the monetary and traumatic damages done to all Palestinians for the past 50 or so years, and let the Palestinians run themselves with their different governments. Which is just unacceptable for Israel because that would result in no gain from all those decades of their splitting Palestine through settlement expansion, and they could justify that compensation should be given to them for what they had to endure. Then that case would go to an international court which would be ignored by either party if it was not favorable enough--which it wouldn't be.

So, in actuality, there really is no acceptable solution, except to engage in something similar to what the Colonists did to the Native Americans, which is of course unacceptable by today's standards in this given circumstance.

BigBallinStalin wrote:In my humble opinion, a better proposal would be for Israel to redraw its map to the Green Line, allow the Palestinians to nationalize/take all Israeli settlements outside of those borders, have Israeli compensate those settlers, have Israel pay for compensation to the monetary and traumatic damages done to all Palestinians for the past 50 or so years, and let the Palestinians run themselves with their different governments. Which is just unacceptable for Israel because that would result in no gain from all those decades of their splitting Palestine through settlement expansion, and they could justify that compensation should be given to them for what they had to endure. Then that case would go to an international court which would be ignored by either party if it was not favorable enough--which it wouldn't be.

So, in actuality, there really is no acceptable solution, except to engage in something similar to what the Colonists did to the Native Americans, which is of course unacceptable by today's standards in this given circumstance.

Yeah, I guess there really is no answer to the problem then. Cuz, yeah, I don't see Israel going for your solution here. Just like they wouldn't go for mine a few posts back. Who knows, maybe the posts at the beginning of the thread had the right idea. Just move all the people out by force and nuke the whole area, then there's nothing to argue about. lol, nothing else is going to solve this. Thanks for your input here, though BigBallinStalin. It's been an enjoyable conversation. Cool name, by the way.

Hey, thanks for reading, and I'm glad you enjoyed yourself.

BigBallinStalin wrote:In my humble opinion, a better proposal would be for Israel to redraw its map to the Green Line, allow the Palestinians to nationalize/take all Israeli settlements outside of those borders, have Israeli compensate those settlers, have Israel pay for compensation to the monetary and traumatic damages done to all Palestinians for the past 50 or so years, and let the Palestinians run themselves with their different governments. Which is just unacceptable for Israel because that would result in no gain from all those decades of their splitting Palestine through settlement expansion, and they could justify that compensation should be given to them for what they had to endure. Then that case would go to an international court which would be ignored by either party if it was not favorable enough--which it wouldn't be.

Agreed.

BigBallinStalin wrote:So, in actuality, there really is no acceptable solution, except to engage in something similar to what the Colonists did to the Native Americans, which is of course unacceptable by today's standards in this given circumstance.

This IS what will happen, what Israel is effectively ensuring will happen by allowing anyone who wants to be a Jew to settle on these lands AND take other lands/harass Palestniens with only the most minor reprimand, if that.

The West will wring its hands in regret, but nothing is being done to stop Israel from simply taking over all of Palestine and ensuring there just is no place for Palestiniens to go. And, of course, any Palestinien who objects to this process is simply an "ignorant terrorist" who "wants to do away with Israel and all Jews".. and therefore all these actions were, while regretable, really justified.