Again, there have been many dramatic changes to countries within Europe, even assuming the post-WW2 caveat.
To name three, off the top of my head:
The reunification of East and West Germany;
The break-up of Czechoslovakia into two independent countries;
… in short, no lack of European post-WW2 drama.
The problem Palestine has with their image is that there are no Jews living in Palestinian territory, while many Arabs live in Israel.
I believe this has more to do with Palestine’s corrupt and authoritative government, rather than the character of the Palestinian people. However, I can see how outsiders might draw the conclusion that Palestinians are more racist than Israelis.
I don’t believe a majority of Palestinians are ready to take up arms against Israel either. The main threat to Israel is that Palestinians are willing to elect officials who will take up arms against Israel.
It doesn’t matter why Hamas was elected (and I don’t think it was because Palestinians wanted to kill all the Jews), because that doesn’t change the fact that Palestinians elected a government that threatens the security of Israel.
I’ll be happy to make corrections for you if you want, but you haven’t told me what you think. You just claimed that it was an “inapt” analogy and then threw up some wikipedia links as if they meant something.
Here is the truth, which can even be found your precious wikipedia. Jordan invaded Israel after the Israelis pleaded with them to stay out of the war. King Hussein confirms this in his own memoirs.
This is something that is not disputed by anybody. Had King Hussein not invaded Jerusalem then the Israelis wouldn’t have taken East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Nobody denies this.
Like I said, countries that invade other countries and get beaten back often lose territory. It’s what happens.
Now, on to some of your other rather odd ramblings.
In response to this,
You challenged me with this question,
Dude, I have to admit being shocked by this question, but I’ll give you just a few of the changes that occurred in the 20th Century.
You’ll notice that following the end of WWI, Germany, the Austo-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire were ripped apart or reduced dramatically in size to all for the creation of several nations, such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, and others. The borders on both Rumania and Bulgaria IIRC changed as did Russia’s borders, which became the Soviet Union.
Following WWII, the borders of Europe changed again.
As mentioned, countries who lose wars, particularly wars they launched aggressively lose territory, which happened to several European countries following WWI and WWII and happened to Jordan following it’s loss to Israel in the Six Day War.
Anyway, I can understand your confusion since you were, by your own admission, unaware of any major border changes in Europe during the 20th Century other than the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Sigh. I don’t think you understood the question I posed to Dio that he has since then refused to answer. He demanded to know why Israel and “Palestine” couldn’t be united together and live as one.
I pointed out that asking for this would be like suggesting that India and Pakistan united and live together as one.
For those unaware, at roughly the same time as Israel created, after India was abandoned by the British, Muslims separatists fought to break away from India and set up their own country(now called Pakistan). It was a long bitter war which involved massive amounts of ethnic cleansing on both sides to the point that ALL of the Hindus who had lived in “Pakistan” were kicked out. Since then the countries have been mortal enemies and still butt heads over the Kashmir district.
The point being, they have not intention of living together as one nation and the same is true with Palestinians and the Israelis.
Nobody thinks that a “united Pakistan/India” would solve the conflict because nobody is dumb enough to think that Pakistan could be forced to accept it and no serious person, knowledgeable about the situation in “Palestine” thinks that you could have a “United, secular state” because nobody on either side wants that. The only people who even pay lip service to it are those who see it as a vehicle they could use to dominate the other side.
It depends on who is representing Israel. In my opinion, Bibi represents those who hope to retain the status quo indefinitely. A peace deal will I think have to wait until he’s voted out. He’s not really an “only-Nixon-can-go-to-China” type.
There is a sizable contingent within Israel that did try for a negotiated peace, pretty well along the lines described by Obama. Unfortunately, they failed, and their failure discredited and disillusioned those elements within Israel prepared to deal.
The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was also a failure - and a telling one: the Israelis were left with the impression that an independent Palestine may well come to resemble a Gaza-writ-large. This impression is bolstered by the recent Hamas-PA deal.
Such a comment makes no sense since you were responding to this statement.
You responded by demanding to know of any changes other than the fall and break-up of the Soviet Union.
Well, plus the whole western movement of Germany’s borders, and Poland’s, were after World War II.
There’s never been a serious attempt at making peace by any israeli government because any government for decades has contained extremist coalition members who would have collapsed any government that made any serious offer. That includes the Barak government offer that wasn’t an offer.
It damn sure was, and so was Oslo. Neither succeeded, but they both were real attempts.
Dick is apparently aware of something that Abbas was not, because Abbas has admitted that Arafat’s decision to walk away from the table was huge mistake.
That said, Dick apparently labels himself a left-wing revolutionary socialist yet he does a poor imitation of a Muslim saying “peace be upon” when referring to Hamas and Hezbollah which are, if anything reactionary, right-wing organizations and is completely inconsistent with statements of even those radical leftists who sympathize with those organizations.
Obviously, we can’t accuse him of being a troll, but his behavior is hardly consistent with someone of his stated persuasion and his posts seem calculated to inflamer rather than to add anything of value to the discussion and he hardly comes across as a real life version of Rachel Corrie.
Is that something the world can hope for in the near future?
Unfortunately, Israel’s been getting steadily more right-wing and less and less receptive to the idea of negotiating a settlement ever since the collapse of Oslo which led to Labor’s collapse.
The Israel’s are convinced that Barak and the Labor Party were fools to trust Arafat and, unfortunately, far too many of them have been raised to remember that the two most important words all Jews should remember are “Never again.”
I won’t pretend to predict how an Israeli election would work out, but from the Israeli public’s perspective, many have simply given up on the peace-agreement process as inherently unworkable/impossible, and view a united sovereign Palestine as a potential Gaza-writ-large - which discourages making concessions in order to achieve it.
Mexico would like to go back to pre-1820 borders when it owned Texas, California
and the entire SW territory but it ain’t happening.
You waited three and a half days to take a cheap shot at another poster in a post that is so far out of context that it makes no sense in today’s exchanges?
I do not want to see any more quibbling from you about who has posted the more grievous personal remarks in this thread (or this forum).
Stick to the topic of the discussion and leave comments about other posters out of your posts.
[ /Moderating ]
None of this promotes the discussion (and your tiptoeing around the rule against calling a poster a troll is not appropriate). Keep your personal observations to yourself or the BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
I just read the thread in vain hope someone answered this. Nope. not that I saw. Why? Did I miss that post? What does Israel want with the Palestinians?
Fair enough. I was trying to give the Captain some advice on pursuing a debate that struck me as fruitless without breaking the rules. In retrospect, I should have just sent a PM.
I think Netanyahu’s position is a two state solution where Israel’s borders extend pass the 1967 border lines.
Israel is not going to give up the Golan Heights and why should they?
I think Bibi sees the light. With Egypt, Jordan, and Syria on the outs right now, I’m not sure he has much of a choice. He’ll have to vote against the pullout before he votes for it. 
The Israelis voted in Kadima, but they couldn’t get a coalition together. ::mutters about parliamentary systems::
Putting a six month time limit on anything is kind of sketch, but who knows. I’m sure an attack by Palestinians before September can be spun in either direction.