[HyperionTheEvil]

gadial wrote:

It's interesting that the quotes talk about "Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence" and "Fighting broke out immediately" and fail to mention WHO started fighting (hint: not the evil land-taking Zionists).

In short - the Zionists did not intend to throw the Arab population out. The Arab population tried to push the Jewish population out - into the sea. The Jewish population fought them, and won. Quite amazingly, not all the Arab population were expelled; can you imagine a Jewish population living in, say, Gaza without the IDF's protection?

Nope. The "evil Zionists are coming to drive me out" scenario is false. Try "the evil Zionists are trying to build a country which upholds different values then the ones I believe in, so I should kill them" - it's closer to reality.

This is where both Israelis and Palestinians lose me.

In essence im saying your both bad, you both should smarten the hell up. Try acting like adults for a change

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

gadial wrote:

It's interesting that the quotes talk about "Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence" and "Fighting broke out immediately" and fail to mention WHO started fighting (hint: not the evil land-taking Zionists).

In short - the Zionists did not intend to throw the Arab population out. The Arab population tried to push the Jewish population out - into the sea. The Jewish population fought them, and won. Quite amazingly, not all the Arab population were expelled; can you imagine a Jewish population living in, say, Gaza without the IDF's protection?

Nope. The "evil Zionists are coming to drive me out" scenario is false. Try "the evil Zionists are trying to build a country which upholds different values then the ones I believe in, so I should kill them" - it's closer to reality.

This is where both Israelis and Palestinians lose me.

In essence im saying your both bad, you both should smarten the hell up. Try acting like adults for a change

Thats why they need helping out. Let both sides know you want to help out and accommodate both sides to a degree and try and meet their goals. Get as many moderates as you can to buy into the plan so it truly isn't being forced on anybody but the fanatics.

If ever somebody needed some sort of intervention or outside help in a concentrated way then this is it.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX wrote:

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

gadial wrote:

It's interesting that the quotes talk about "Eventually, fighting broke out, with escalating waves of violence" and "Fighting broke out immediately" and fail to mention WHO started fighting (hint: not the evil land-taking Zionists).

In short - the Zionists did not intend to throw the Arab population out. The Arab population tried to push the Jewish population out - into the sea. The Jewish population fought them, and won. Quite amazingly, not all the Arab population were expelled; can you imagine a Jewish population living in, say, Gaza without the IDF's protection?

Nope. The "evil Zionists are coming to drive me out" scenario is false. Try "the evil Zionists are trying to build a country which upholds different values then the ones I believe in, so I should kill them" - it's closer to reality.

This is where both Israelis and Palestinians lose me.

In essence im saying your both bad, you both should smarten the hell up. Try acting like adults for a change

Thats why they need helping out. Let both sides know you want to help out and accommodate both sides to a degree and try and meet their goals. Get as many moderates as you can to buy into the plan so it truly isn't being forced on anybody but the fanatics.

If ever somebody needed some sort of intervention or outside help in a concentrated way then this is it.

I would almost agree, problem is that inevitably soone from one or both sides with an agenda hijacks the process and we end up were we are.

[Zipperfish]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Frankly i have no use for either Israel or the Palestinians, you're both a pain in the ass.

You both claim to be the good guys and for decades now happliy going on slaughtering each other and then point the blame finger somwhere else. Israel and the Palestinians say they want a 'solution' but only on their own defitnion of the term .Every few years the two of you will head off to Oslo or Camp David and then the whole cycle begins again.

I don't see why the west should be interested in dealing with either of you. You inflame the region and bring blowback to the west. It's a middle east problem, let the middle east countries, syria Egypt, jordan, Israel etc etc sort it out.

It's interesting, I'm seeing a lot more sort of moral "donor fatigue" by many on the left and the right this time around---a sort of "pox on both your houses" response. It's like when my kids are fighting, and, when I call them on it, each spend all his/her time trying to convince me that he/she is the aggrieved party, and eventually I just send them both to their rooms.

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

I would almost agree, problem is that inevitably soone from one or both sides with an agenda hijacks the process and we end up were we are.

We don't let them. We continually take the high road as much as possible and continue to build infrastructure, keep the peace, and draw more and more moderates into the plan. Give them a society they will fight to preserve even against their own extremists.

Despite all the rhetoric there is a reason why Hamas got elected and it had more to do with them building infrastructure then revenge.

We need to elicit the support of those people who put more emphasis on domestic concerns and back it up with more then words.

We also need them to understand that we will honestly work towards their getting their own state with land equal to the 1949 partition plans.

Sure their will be people on both sides rejecting that plan but if we do it properly then the support we get from both sides will counter them.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX wrote:

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

I would almost agree, problem is that inevitably soone from one or both sides with an agenda hijacks the process and we end up were we are.

We don't let them. We continually take the high road as much as possible and continue to build infrastructure, keep the peace, and draw more and more moderates into the plan. Give them a society they will fight to preserve even against their own extremists.

Despite all the rhetoric there is a reason why Hamas got elected and it had more to do with them building infrastructure then revenge.

We need to elicit the support of those people who put more emphasis on domestic concerns and back it up with more then words.

We also need them to understand that we will honestly work towards their getting their own state with land equal to the 1949 partition plans.

Sure their will be people on both sides rejecting that plan but if we do it properly then the support we get from both sides will counter them.

I have faith in the human ability, especially the middle east, to fuck up a good plan, by either design or accident. If we decide to 'not let them' that means using force and it's damn hard to stay nuetral unless you really mean it. Which means we would have to totally willing to eiither act militarliy agaisnt either or both the Palestinians or Israelis.

Not to mention that being 'over there' would cost a lot of money, and lives. Because lets face it, under this idea niether one of them is going to be looking at the UN (presumambly) as the good guys. We in fact would probably be hated by both sides and we would be caught in the middle of this ongoing slaughter called the "Dispute".

[HyperionTheEvil]

Zipperfish wrote:

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

Frankly i have no use for either Israel or the Palestinians, you're both a pain in the ass.

You both claim to be the good guys and for decades now happliy going on slaughtering each other and then point the blame finger somwhere else. Israel and the Palestinians say they want a 'solution' but only on their own defitnion of the term .Every few years the two of you will head off to Oslo or Camp David and then the whole cycle begins again.

I don't see why the west should be interested in dealing with either of you. You inflame the region and bring blowback to the west. It's a middle east problem, let the middle east countries, syria Egypt, jordan, Israel etc etc sort it out.

It's interesting, I'm seeing a lot more sort of moral "donor fatigue" by many on the left and the right this time around---a sort of "pox on both your houses" response. It's like when my kids are fighting, and, when I call them on it, each spend all his/her time trying to convince me that he/she is the aggrieved party, and eventually I just send them both to their rooms.

Pretty much, expect we can't send them to thier rooms sadly, they're both stuck in the same room.

[Psudo]

DerbyX wrote:

Purchased like NY was purchased? Buying land doesn't imply they knew, understood, or supported the establishment of a Jewish state on their land.

Your metaphor suggests that the Jews have as much right to govern the land in Israel as the New York State government has right to govern the land in New York. Are you disputing the validity of New York's state government? Because otherwise I don't see your point.

If you sell something, you lose your right to determine what the buyer does with it. That's inherent in the nature of ownership. If they don't understand what buying and selling are, they shouldn't agree to it. To return to your New York metaphor, the natives thought they were ripping the colonists off; how does that make those natives worthy of sympathy and support?

Actions always have consequences whether you understand them or not. Sympathy does not make those consequences disappear. At some point, personal responsibility requires one to accept unintended consequences and go on living in the reality that was unintentionally created. The alternative deserves derision for it's denial of physical reality.

DerbyX wrote:

I have little sympathy for an Israel that is often the aggressor

What is your yardstick here? How specifically do you measure who is the aggressor?

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil wrote:

I have faith in the human ability, especially the middle east, to fuck up a good plan, by either design or accident. If we decide to 'not let them' that means using force and it's damn hard to stay nuetral unless you really mean it. Which means we would have to totally willing to eiither act militarliy agaisnt either or both the Palestinians or Israelis.

Not to mention that being 'over there' would cost a lot of money, and lives. Because lets face it, under this idea niether one of them is going to be looking at the UN (presumambly) as the good guys. We in fact would probably be hated by both sides and we would be caught in the middle of this ongoing slaughter called the "Dispute".

1)Humans are their own worst enemy yes.

2) By "not let them" may include force but the entire idea is to establish a plan that both sides can live with before hand and get the support of both sides before going in.

3) Cost in money and lives? That wasn't a concern in Afghanistan nor Iraq and if we are doing it properly will cost far less. How many would we need to help rebuild and secure Gaza in terms of troop numbers and dollars? I think Canada's entire Afghan effort alone would accomplish both.

4) Neither side may look at the UN but who says it has to be a UN deal? I doubt Canada is hated by either side. I doubt either side spends any great time even thinking about us and I believe we might be a good country to try and broker peace. We have citizens from both sides of the conflict we can use to help us and have at least a good rep to rely on even counting Afghanistan.

Anythings better then a continued cycle of violence over and over and over.

[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

Your metaphor suggests that the Jews have as much right to govern the land in Israel as the New York State government has right to govern the land in New York. Are you disputing the validity of New York's state government? Because otherwise I don't see your point.

My metaphor refers to the likely possibility that like the natives who "sold" NY (for 24 dollars as the adage goes) they likely didn't understand the true nature of the transaction or its implications.

Psudo wrote:

you sell something, you lose your right to determine what the buyer does with it. That's inherent in the nature of ownership. If they don't understand what buying and selling are, they shouldn't agree to it. To return to your New York metaphor, the natives thought they were ripping the colonists off; how does that make those natives worthy of sympathy and support?

No it doesn't anymore then America or Americans can purchase land in Canada along the border and simply have it become US soil and part of the USA. Your statement of "buyer beware" isn't helpful.

Psudo wrote:

always have consequences whether you understand them or not. Sympathy does not make those consequences disappear. At some point, personal responsibility requires one to accept unintended consequences and go on living in the reality that was unintentionally created. The alternative deserves derision for it's denial of physical reality.

At some point the western world and Israel itself have to understand that their actions past and present also have consequences and its high time both accepted them and their responsibility.

Psudo wrote:

What is your yardstick here? How specifically do you measure who is the aggressor?

Given the whole situation past and present I'd say Israel for all the reasons posted in my links and excerpts.

In a similar vein, I highly doubt the US would just simply accept the large numbers of Mexican illegals and legals if they just simply declared parts of the US as Mexican territory through some sort of vote or just by buying up large tracts of land.

The US and its citizens would not simply accept people buying US land and being allowed to declare it a nation. It certainly doesn't recognize any of those multiple "survivalist groups" who do just that with land they legally own either.

[HyperionTheEvil]

I have faith in the human ability, especially the middle east, to fuck up a good plan, by either design or accident. If we decide to 'not let them' that means using force and it's damn hard to stay nuetral unless you really mean it. Which means we would have to totally willing to eiither act militarliy agaisnt either or both the Palestinians or Israelis.

Not to mention that being 'over there' would cost a lot of money, and lives. Because lets face it, under this idea niether one of them is going to be looking at the UN (presumambly) as the good guys. We in fact would probably be hated by both sides and we would be caught in the middle of this ongoing slaughter called the "Dispute".[/quote]

DerbyX wrote:

1)Humans are their own worst enemy yes.

Agreed

DerbyX wrote:

2) By "not let them" may include force but the entire idea is to establish a plan that both sides can live with before hand and get the support of both sides before going in.

Which seems to be an ongoing problem, im not trying to give you a hard time. But the history of Palestinians/Israeli talk doenst give me a lot of confidence. Even when neutral third parites are involved it tends to go downhill fast

DerbyX wrote:

3) Cost in money and lives? That wasn't a concern in Afghanistan nor Iraq and if we are doing it properly will cost far less. How many would we need to help rebuild and secure Gaza in terms of troop numbers and dollars? I think Canada's entire Afghan effort alone would accomplish both.

The issue is scale , if were talking about Canada then relatively speaking our commiment in Afghiantans is just about as much as we can handle with groudn forces. Whether somone thinks it was a good idea or bad, The reality is that wre stretched in terms of land forces in terms of Canadas commitment. All together the forces in Afghanistan are still not enough to do the job of settling the country. Which is why the US floated the idea of sendng another 30,000 troops.

On Iraq , i had no problem with the invasion itself. In my opnion they (the US government) should have said that they were going to topple Saddamd because he was an asshole, not the mythical "WMD" reason- but i do understand why, i just dont agree with it. Secondly ideology got mixed up with effective operations in Iraq. Bush and rumsfeld seem to think that Iraqis shold for lack of a better term "Fix themselves".

DerbyX wrote:

4) Neither side may look at the UN but who says it has to be a UN deal? I doubt Canada is hated by either side. I doubt either side spends any great time even thinking about us and I believe we might be a good country to try and broker peace. We have citizens from both sides of the conflict we can use to help us and have at least a good rep to rely on even counting Afghanistan.

It would almost have to be a UN deal, the perception right now is th the US will pretty much back up whatever Israel does. Th eproblem being with the Sec Council the way it is we have a problem is that the US would probably veto any real UN action.

Canada does not have the forces to go it alone, we would need help and lots of it. I just dont know that unless drastic actions was taken towards both sides if it would be worth it

DerbyX wrote:

Anythings better then a continued cycle of violence over and over and over

In theory i agree with you, problem is getting past the theory part

[Psudo]

DerbyX wrote:

My metaphor refers to the likely possibility that like the natives who "sold" NY (for 24 dollars as the adage goes) they likely didn't understand the true nature of the transaction or its implications.

If that fact doesn't change New York's borders, why should it's symbolic parallel change Israel's?

DerbyX wrote:

No it doesn't anymore then America or Americans can purchase land in Canada along the border and simply have it become US soil and part of the USA.

If a whole bunch of Americans bought land in Alberta, it gives more validity to the exchange of national sovereignty over Alberta in any dispute between the USA and Canada. There's no such exchange of sovereignty going on between our countries, but it would be a valid point of debate if there were. In the case of Israel/Palestine, we are inherently talking about a change of sovereignty. Britain gave it's sovereignty over the area to Israel, and war over sovereignty has continued ever since. Buying up land is a perfectly legal and reasonable way to influence that exchange of sovereignty. It's certainly a better option than continuing violence.

DerbyX wrote:

At some point the western world and Israel itself have to understand that their actions past and present also have consequences and its high time both accepted them and their responsibility.

I agree. All parties should be measured by the same standard of personal responsibility.

DerbyX wrote:

Psudo wrote:

What is your yardstick here? How specifically do you measure who is the aggressor?

Given the whole situation past and present I'd say Israel for all the reasons posted in my links and excerpts.

The reason I'm asking is that your reasoning was unclear to me. Is it the disproportional response? Because the term "response" inherently carries with it an argument that they were not the aggressors. Is it the "Zionist" immigration and purchases themselves? Because I fail to see the crime in immigration or the purchase of real estate. If it is Britain's decision to give them the British province, you're going to have to explain how a legal decision makes criminals of those who benefit. If Israel initiated violence, you're going to have to demonstrate that.

I say "have to", but really you could just leave me to my current opinions. It doesn't lose you anything, it just doesn't gain you either. But if you intend to persuade me, you must clarify or expound upon your view in some way.

DerbyX wrote:

The US and its citizens would not simply accept people buying US land and being allowed to declare it a nation.

The US has a history of taking or ceding land via treaty, though. We respect the exchange of sovereignty via treaty, and the decision to cede land or not has a lot to do with how many US citizens live there and the treatment they receive. Britain's decision to give sovereignty of their province to the Israelis is a similar contract. We, the USA, cannot disregard that treaty's validity without establishing a precedent against much of our own diplomatic history. We won't be so suicidal.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX wrote:

No, you just think that.

Wikipedia? Yummy. Why not look at the causes of them, instead of what probably is the more biased version that you posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_ ... 9_analysis

Doesn't that seem more rational than having the Jews evict a population much higher and more concentrated than their own?

Quote:

Purchased like NY was purchased? Buying land doesn't imply they knew, understood, or supported the establishment of a Jewish state on their land.

I believe Psudo dealt with this, again. Brilliant guy, I must say.

Quote:

You haven't posted any links either though you will know. You have just been posting your opinion concerning various aspects of the conflict.

I wrote my own information, and didn't copy entire articles at length. I didn't give links since I didn't use links for what I typed, simple enough.

Quote:

As I have said before, I favour going in to help out both side with the eventual goal of 2 independent states. I have little sympathy for an Israel that is often the aggressor despite your claims otherwise and an Israel that persists in the illegal settlements, a source of a good deal of criticism against them.

Gaza had no illegal settlements after...when was the pullout? Well it was a while before these events, Israel did not launch strikes into Gaza five days after the truce settled in June 19th. Therefore, Israel is not the aggressor.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

If a whole bunch of Americans bought land in Alberta, it gives more validity to the exchange of national sovereignty over Alberta in any dispute between the USA and Canada.

No, I don't think it does. Let's be clear: if the US wants Alberta, it merely has to come up here and take it. I doubt that Canada would be able to amount much in the way of a resistance. It has nothing to do with how many Americans are currently living in Alberta and everything to do with the relative strengths of the countries and America's desire to possess Alberta. Afterward, you can stick whatever label on you want--after all, justifications are the easiest part of war.

Quote:

There's no such exchange of sovereignty going on between our countries, but it would be a valid point of debate if there were. In the case of Israel/Palestine, we are inherently talking about a change of sovereignty. Britain gave it's sovereignty over the area to Israel, and war over sovereignty has continued ever since. Buying up land is a perfectly legal and reasonable way to influence that exchange of sovereignty. It's certainly a better option than continuing violence.

A better option than continuing violence? It didn't really turn out that way, did it? Since we've had more or less continuing violence ever since.

Edit: Not that I have any better ideas. I suppose in hindsight, the elegant solution might have been to take out a nice chunk of Germany and make that Israel.

[ziggy]

No offence bud but the spell check isnt that hard to use.My spelling is terrible but thats allmost painfull to read.

Quote:

our commiment in Afghiantans is just about as much as we can handle with groudn forces