p.s. The OP brought up Mormons in the 1st post and you mentioned Utah.
Okay, now let’s look at the situation in Israel and Palestine. There are two groups who both claim historical right to the land. One side seems to be willing to co-exist with the other group in a land-sharing compact. That would be why one side pulled out of some the land, wouldn’t it now? One side began firing rockets, well, continued firing rockets. That’s the situation now.
Sorry I didn’t lay out two freaking thousand years of history for you in one little post. Maybe I’ll do that next time.
Instead, what say we persuade/compel Israel to give people in the occupied territories the right to vote for the government in Tel Aviv? Reunify, and battle out your problems in the Kessnet. Call the new country the republic of Israel and Palestine (or pick your favorite moniker), hold regular elections and have universal suffrage. Never understood why this simple solution has not occurred to anyone.
It’s worth noting that under the UN Partition Plan in the late 40s, Jerusalem and Bethlehem would have been internationally administered. The Jews accepted the Partition Plan and the Arabs rejected it and went to war instead.
I really have a lot of contempt for people who see this conflict and assume that it’s just a matter of “two groups that cannot get along.” It’s like an adult who sees two children fighting and assumes that the problem is that the two children cannot get along. Sometimes that’s the problem, but sometimes one party is the aggressor and the other party is simply trying to defend himself as best he can.
The fact is that the Arabs cannot get along with anyone, including their own people. Lots more Arabs have died and continue to die in the various civil wars and disputes in places like Lebanon and Syria than have died in the Arab/Israeli conflicts.
If there weren’t a single Jew in the entire area, there would be at least as much fighting and killing and probably a lot more.
If the links are any indication, then not very clearly, unfortunately. Both articles conflate religious identity with national identity. I was thinking more along the lines of a secular republic, where the church / synagog / mosque is separate from the state, and the same civil, criminal, administrative and military legal codes are made applicable throughout the land. To put it tongue-in-cheek, one set of heroes and martyrs to defend the integrated nation’s borders, and one government to curse when things go wrong ;).
Initially, it may be necessary to maintain different personal (family) laws for Muslims and Jews. E.g. in order to give legal status to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th wives of polygamous Muslims. But as the economy improves, and women become economically independent, I suspect that separate personal laws can also be phased out. Instead of the right of return, they can have a single constitutional commitment to temporarily sheltering Jewish or Islamic refugees of political turmoils throughout the world (your 2nd link mentions something like that). Right of residence is determined by the economic clout of the inhabitants, and not by government constructed and protected settlements. In other words, a single, non-corrupt, functioning capitalist democracy. How come they’ve never even got around to bringing that discussion to the table?
I smoked a lot of pot as a kid so I maybe I suggested that Mormons relocate out of Utah and just forgot. Can you please point me to the post where I suggested this?
In what way is my comment about Utah offensive in any way? Is it supposed to be some secret that Utah has a majority Mormon population? I was merely pointing out in what is a bit of a joke thread that having a Jewish state (as in one of the United States) would be fine… after all we have a Mormon state.
I think you are getting hot and bothered about things that were never said… or even implied.
Here is your criticism of Gaza:
Where is your balanced criticism of Israel in this case or do you think this particular burst of asshattery is onesided?
It seemed like you were implying that the lack of good faith was one sided but if you can point me to the words where you say otherwise in this thread, I would appreciate it.
OK, I’m still not getting why that is so offensives.
This historical claim bullshit is not in the least bit convincing. The Italians have a historical claim to the land too. It doesn’t give them the right to go there and take it from the current occupants.
I’m not saying this mean that Israel has to be relocated but it can’t enter negotiations expecting everyone to ignore that fact. They don’t have to give it back but they can’t pretend that they did nothing wrong when they took the land any more than Americans can pretend we did nothing wrong when we drove the Indians onto reservations. We are never going to give them back their land but at least we have the decency to feel bad about it.
Meanwhile, we’re doing nothing with ND, SD, MT, WY, and AK. Give each group their pick. I’d love to see a 95% Jewish Alaska. The lox industry would explode. And Palestinians would make great cowboys and ranch hands.
That would get in the way of Israel being an officially Jewish state. Which I understand is sort of the point of there being an Israel in the first place.
I do not agree. Jews have live in middle east since the times of Abraham, so they deserve the lands they have now, same for palestinians. the main problem is religion.
