Their current borders are the result of a negotiation between the muslims and the Hindus in the region. The borders in Israel are not.
The point I was trying to make was that Israel’s objection to being overrun by Palestinians is not based on their race, but on their ideology.
There are plenty of Arabs living in Israel that Israel has no problem with. The problem lies with the Arabs who voted Hamas into power.
You’re joking, right? Because that’s exactly what he laid down.
Was anyone else surprised how well the Israeli Prime Minister spoke English? Holy shit. Here, I was expecting a Hebrew-speaking PM with an English translator.
That’s completely irrelevant to the question I posed. Also, the Kashmir district is hardly a settled question.
Well, he grew up in the US and went to high school in the US as well.
Yes, and you said that’s what the Israelis wanted too. So it’s confusing why they’re so upset about Obama’s speach, since all he did was say the obvious.
He was also the Israeli Ambassador to the UN. In fact, that’s what made his career - he served during the First Gulf War in 1991, and his television appearances back then were so impressive that he basically catapulted himself into his party’s leadership a couple of years later (of course, the fact that his father is one of the Likud’s leading intellectuals and that his late brother was one of Israel’s most famous war heroes helped a lot, too).
He is an Israel apologist who claims to be an Israel critic (after all he thought that Balfour was a mistake).
There may be no line that Netenyahu would be willing to draw that Palestinians (or anyone else) would be willing to accept.
Huh? Can you explain why you think its “Palestinians have been here for millenia” is crap?
Force? What force? The force of words? Diplomatic force?
People have always talked about borders BASED ON the pre-1967 borders.
Is it the “told” part or the "1967 part that you have trouble with because we “tell” people stuff all the time and they generally don’t seem to give a shit.
I don’t know for sure what Obama’s position is on the right of return but I’m pretty sure he supports Israel on this one. He might call for some sort of compensation but I don’t think he will call for the right of return.
The Allies had more cards after WWI and they forced the Central Powers to sign the Treaty of Versailles and broke up the Ottoman Empire and that led to WWII. If the Allies had waved their cards in the face of the Axis in 1945, do you think we would be better off or worse?
[quote=“CitizenPained, post:238, topic:582500”]
[li]Demilitarized Palestine[/li][/quote]
This is a non-starter. Even Finn agrees that Palestine must be a sovereign power with its own military.
I’mm telling ya. Give Jerusalem to the Buddhists, or the Scientologists.
And we will never have peace if Israel stands on the spoils of war theory.
I don’t understand your point. After WW2, Germany was treated much, much more harshly than after WW1 - it was divided into zones of occupation for one, and half of it remained, forcibly, a Soviet client state for the next fifty odd years; not to mention that the historic borders of Germany were pushed westwards considerably, where they remain to this day; and millions of Germans were forcibly displaced and ejected in the doing.
Note the shift westwards of Poland:
The expulsion of millions of Germans, as a result of WW2:
What is the appetite for moving Poland back east where it started?
No, no, no. Nuke Jerusalem. Evacuate everybody, give them each a couple hundred shekels for the trouble, and hit it with bombs so dirty nobody can approach the site without protective gear for a thousand years. In the interest of world peace and quiet.
You really think that is an apt analogy? I don’t think that Israel is obligated to get bloodied before it does anything but this is hardly like the soviets pushing back German aggression back into their own borders, is it? But you profess expertise in these matters so I await your corrections.
Other than the break up of the soviet block, what dramatic changes have occurred in Europe?
You’re right, that makes it OK.
I think he did a pretty good job of hanging CP with his own words. Sorry you didn’t like the result. But as a critic of Israel I suppose you are just trying to be even handed in your approach.
You like to call people massive hypocrites a lot by applying inapt analogies, don’t you?
Ouch.
There are too many to name … but I’ll direct your attention to my post, two above yours, for a single significant example: the westward movement of the border of Germany (really, the westwards migration of Poland as a whole).
I agree that the precipitating factor behind what is going on is rooted in security concerns just like the sentiment from the palestinian side is rooted in non-race based concerns, but over the course4 of 60 years, it has become personal and racist. There are certainly Palestinians who have become antisemetic but they didn’t start out that way, not to this extent. The suggestion that Israeli Jews might be racist meets with excuses and objections while the Pal;estinian hatred is portrayed as being little more than racism, as if there was no actual greivance underlying all the hatred.
Voting for Hamas is a bit like voting in Republicans because the Democrats haven’t cleaned up the Republican mess quickly enough (that and Fatah was supposed to be pretty corrupt). I don’t believe that the majority of Palestinians are ready to take up arms against Israel but if the arab spring results in a belligerent Egypt and a Syria that needs to distract its population, then other countries like Jordan and Iraq might just join in and Palestinians decide that 60 years of injustice is enough.
Of course its relevant.
Hrmm. Good points. I have reformed my thinking. I still think that a one sided resolution to this situation is neither desirable nor sustainable and Israel seems intent on a very one sided solution.
I meant after WWII