False dichotomy. How does “declaring that neither the Reds nor the Blues can inhabit Purplelandia” prevent them from “[continuing] a fight that has no possible resolution”?
Two unruly children are having a fist fight. Separate them physically. Problem solved. If they cry and shout and pout about it, well, so what?
Because we’re the good guys.
Or at least, that’s how we like to think of ourselves. Which is for the best, don’t you think?
Right. Children.
See, white people fight wars because of real reasons, like resources and ideology. When brown people fight, it’s because we’re children.
Yes, children. Santa clause, the Easter bunny and the garden of Eden and the children of Abraham. Do you see a pattern?
Richard the Lionheart’s sister marries Saladin’s brother, and co-rule over the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
(According to some Saracenic historians, this was actually proposed!)
It’s not absolutely impossible that all sides would agree to a gradual internationalizing of Jerusalem. For instance, we already have the huge concession by Israel that the Islamic WAQF governs the Temple Mount. The Israelis could, at the drop of a grenade, have ousted the WAQF and taken up sole administration of the Holy Quarter. This same ideal of concession could, slowly, one building at a time, be extended to an international “open city.”
It’s not likely…but it isn’t totally beyond all human comprehension.
The trouble is, if you could get all sides to agree to this, you could already have gotten them to agree to a two-state solution, which is, intrinsically, an easier deal to make.
You’re saying, “Why not QRxKKt, Checkmate,” when the rest of the world is still arguing about “QP - QP3 or QP - QP4?” You’re addressing the final disposition talks, when the first phase talks haven’t produced anything.
No. If you do, then I recommend medication.
Let’s make the analogy a little more accurate. Two experienced MMA fighters are having an actual street fight (not a match in accordance with rules) that they both want to continue in order to achieve their goals. You tell them to go to their rooms. They tell you to fuck off, mind your own business, and go to your room.
How do you propose to separate them exactly?
What about what the people currently living there do about it? What kind of war are you willing to fight to accomplish this? One of the states that claims Jerusalem is very likely to possess nuclear weapons. Are you willing to be in the first group of soldiers who go in to annihilate its capital city?
You know, normally my biased, Atheistic, condescending remarks would be grounds for criticism but in this situation they are actually relevant.
Hmmmmm…
I guess in reality my plan would never work. Which is kind of sad. Because the solution is so simple.
Aren’t you just demonstrating the truth of HL Mencken’s observation that . . .
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”?
I read your analogy. But it doesn’t address the point I made.
If the Reds control Purplelandia, the Blues will fight.
If the Blues control Purplelandia, the Reds will fight.
If neither side controls Purplelandia, both the Blues and the Reds will fight.
So you’re not doing anything for the cause of peace by kicking both sides out of Purplelandia. Instead you’re causing the fighting to increase because you now have two dissatisfied groups instead of one.
Making the problem worse is not a solution.
Well, actually, I guess I am criticizing religious stubbornness more than anything… although my initial suggestion was not 100% hypothetical… but I can see now if the Jews and the Muslims are going to fight and disagree with each other they will fight and disagree with any logical, objective third party just as harshly 
“Kill them all, God will know His own” is always the simplest solution to any problem. Not necessarily the best, but definitely the simplest.
Let me ask you something - do you really think that your solution will lead to world peace? To peace in the Middle East? Of course not; it won’t even lead to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. So why do it? Because the conflict annoys you? So in other words, you’re willing to kill thousands and displace millions just because our conflict offends your sensibilities. And *we’re *the children.
I suggest you stay out of things you’re incapable of understanding.
Yes, but if they live next door they are going to have one type of fight. If they live 100,000 miles apart it will not be the same fight. Send the Jews to Long Island and the Muslims to… the desert in Argentina. Granted, Long Island is a bit better place to live than Patagonia. If you have a better suggestion to send the Muslims too I’m glad to hear it.
I am not dismissing your comments, BTW, I am saying if they are not next to each other they can complain and pout and shout but they probably won’t be bombing each other anymore.
What?
I’m talking about a hypothetical solution that requires maturity and sacrifice. I’d never advocate killing anyone. I guess in reality the plan would never work. But it’s not my fault your side is incapable of acting like sensible adults.
Show me one million Americans who would be willing to abandon their homes for the sake of some nebulous “peace”, and we could talk about how my side is less reasonable that yours.
But why am I talking to you, anyway? You actually believe the conflict is about religion.
Um, this has nothing to do with religion, Robert. As I pointed out in post 2. Intercommunal territorial disputes are fairly common among people of all religions and none.
And let me ask you again what I asked before: why remove both sides when removing only *one *side solves the problem just as easily, with half the suffering? Or does “fairness” trump all?