A One State Solution - Israel

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
So you're arguing that in Islam, there is a separation between political and religious roles??? That's simply not true. Look to the Islamists - now controlling Iran, Turkey and Egypt - if you think that is not true. If Haj Amin Al-Husseini were a 'mere' religious leader, he would have no business being in Berlin during the war years.

Eh? Aside from Iran, which other country in the world today has the religious leader be a political leader? And when did I call him a religious leader at all. Sure, Al-Husseini might have had delusions of grandeur, but they weren't much more than delusions.

Originally posted by dontreally
He worked in the Balkans.

I'm not quite sure you understand the difference between "forging an alliance" and "generally unsuccessful recruitment". Odd that such an important leader was only able to drum up such a pathetic force with all his recruiting. And look! No Arabs at all cared in the least about what he had to say to them on Radio Berlin. How important he must've been, all his weeping supporters begging for his return.
His "business" in Berlin was that he had been kicked out for over-extending the reach of his position as Grand Mufti and was banned from returning.

Originally posted by dontreally
If the British hadn't stopped the Germans, I'm sure he would have built that death camp at Sheckem (certainly in reference to the biblical narrative where the sons of Jacob massacred the sons of hamor) and history would bear testament to his grisly intentions.

Oh, and if I wasn't worried about being stopped, I'd have built that inlagd sill and chips shop I wanted to in Harlem, and crown myself king of the fishmongers! So many wild and fanciful dreams!

Originally posted by dontreally
There's no such thing as a pure democracy, first of all. Second of all, saying Israel should be Jewish is no different from Syria, Egypt etc being an "Arab". At no point would they ever allow a minority to grow and change the essential national identity of their country (and unlike Israel, they make no real effort to protect the individual rights of their minorities), so why should Israel be treated differently?

There's no such thing as "pure peace" either, lets use that as an excuse to go about murdering each other!
The difference between Syria, Egypt, etc. and Israel is that Israel is a manufactured identity (at least in that geographical location) that needs constant enforcement effort to work, while the others occurred by themselves. Sure, some of them haven't always been nice to their minorities, but certainly, neither has Israel. I suppose you were a great supporter of white South African national identity as well?

See, that is my point. When national identity has to be enforced, then no, I am absolutely against it, and I find it a revolting and deceitful disguise for what is plain old racism and bigotry.

Buy them out, like a land purchase deal.Thats what America did.

Thats the only solution.Buy them out for 10,000 each, give them the option to buy back a piece of land.

Then give them another 10,000 in two 5,000 installments.
So they can be good citizens and pull their own weight.

reply to post by babloyi

The difference between Syria, Egypt, etc. and Israel is that Israel is a manufactured and enforced identity,

Huh? Are you honestly saying Israel - the collective name for the Jewish people - is a "manufactured identity"?? While the "Palestinians" - who didn't even exist before 1948, being at most ethnically identical to members of the Ottoman province of Syria - are legitimate???

Do you have any clue how dishonest that is???

So ancient Judea, didn't exist? The two Jewish temples, herodian architecture, aramaic coins found in and around the mount which bear testament to ancient Jewish religion - all made up?

No people deserve reparation like the Jews do. Until the Arabs understand and accept this, this conflict will continue indefinitely. Undoubtedly, though, justice is on the side of the Jews. There have been Jewish communities present in Israel throughout their 2000 diaspora; in Jerusalem, Safed, Hebron, Tiberias, Ashkelon and Gaza. Now that their brothers have joined them - brothers at a historical, lingual, and cultural level - to a land that they have a rightful claim to, it has been challenged and even alleged that the Jews don't even have a history in the land! A completely untenable claim, contradicted by history i.e ancient historians as well as by archeology.

Sure, some of them haven't always been nice to their minorities, but certainly, neither has Israel.

Name a country. Please, give me an example of this.

Of course Israel has some improvement to make in civil rights issues, but undoubtedly, their record is manifold times better than any Muslim country and their treatment of minorities.

See, that is my point. When national identity has to be enforced, then no, I am absolutely against it, and I find it a revolting and deceitful disguise for what is plain old racism and bigotry.

What's your point? Israel Arabs are amply represented in the Knesset by Arab mks. How is this remotely similar to apartheid, where blacks didn't even have voting rights, let alone representation in parliament.

Like I explained earlier, you can have full individual rights, but not communal rights in a democracy. The national identity - which in Israel is Jewish - can be reconciled with civil liberty for minorities.

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
Huh? Are you honestly saying Israel - the collective name for the Jewish people - is a "manufactured identity"?? While the "Palestinians" - who didn't even exist before 1948, being at most ethnically identical to members of the Ottoman province of Syria - are legitimate???

I think you missed the part where I said "at least in that geographical location". The enforced reintroduction of a language that had been dead for over a thousand years? Enforced and artificial, yes. All those yiddish traditions that are absolutely completely removed from anything the locals had seen? Artificially inserted there, yes. All that mass immigration of people who lay claim to a land that neither they nor their ancestors had been to in over a thousand years? Yes, artificial. I am not saying that the jewish identity is manufactured. I'm saying that this Israeli national identity of being jewish is manufactured and artificially enforced.
That someone's ancient ancestor once lived in a place thousands of years ago isn't relevant. I have irish (who have been wronged), I have jewish (who have been wronged), heck I probably have mongolian (who have been wronged by China) and central asian (who have been wronged by Mongols) ancestry. Do I get or "deserve reparation"?

Originally posted by dontreally
No people deserve reparation like the Jews do.

No people? Not the tibetans? Not the kashmiris? Not the kurds? I'm sorry, but simply being part of some ethnic/ethnoreligious/ethnolinguistic group, and having ones ancestors having been wronged, doesn't automatically give you claim to a piece of land in reparation. Otherwise every single ethnic group in the world would be its own country, and we don't have enough land on earth for that.

It is unfortunate that not only was the impetus for the creation of Israel based off antisemitism against the jews, but the very act of the creation of Israel was based off antisemitism against the jews. The Europeans wanted to get rid of and solve the jewish "problem", and what easier way than dumping them off in some far away land?

You know what wouldn't have been antisemitic and racist? Non-jewish Europeans learning to live with their fellow European jews without having to send them off to another country- which is why, as I said, I wouldn't be against a one state solution that was an actual proper democracy with no caveats and prepositions like "jewish" which make the term democracy lose all meaning. I have an idea! Lets make the USA a Democrat Democracy, so that Obama and his pals can stay in power forever. The Republicans can be accepted as a minority, they can even elect senators and stuff, but we'll never allow them to become a majority. SEE? It is a democracy!

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by RimDaas

 

The Taba Summit was cancelled because they ran out of time! The Israeli elections were coming up and they hadn't completed drafting the agreement! No one rejected. Please do not twist these events to suit your own benefit.

What!!? Where the hell do you get such nonsense?? What do you mean 'run out of time"???

What kind of illogical nonsense is that??! If everything on the Palestinian wishlist was met - except the insidious so-called 'right of return' - how can you claim 'we ran out of time'?? An election does not prevent a quick "OK!" If the party being offered the peace is actually interested in it.

The claim that time ran out because of Israeli elections is untenable because Barak had offered the Palestinians everything they demanded (aside from teh right of return) and it was only the issue of the right of return which created the impasse; claiming the Israeli elections as the reasons is hogwash. The PA still wants 4 million so-called "refugees" to return to a land they have never stepped foot in. They are the only "refugees" who do not lose that status, whose status becomes inherited and grows the longer the refugee "crisis" continues.

The UN gives TWO different definitions for refugee, one for everyone not palestinian, and then the palestinians have their own (which amazingly accords refugee status to anyone who lived in Israel for a mere 2 year and left for WHATEVER reasons) and no one seems to find that suspicious.

They were ending the talks of course! They were close to drafting the agreement, however, sadly the elections came up. Saying how illogical or ridiculous my argument won't help you.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
It's completely rational. Show me one single event of the current Israeli leadership attempting to do good by palestinians?

You won't find anything that doesn't serve Israeli interests first.

Get outta here! A nation wants to take care of its own citizens first?!

Strange days, indeed!

/TOA

reply to post by dontreally

Israel...the collective name for the Jewish people

?
there's you problem
2 plus 2 does not equal three
jewish is the collective name for the jewish people

zion:
was hitler's best friend
and is/was/ an always will be; a fraud ment to rape the jewish people
just ask george soros...and his masters the Rothschilds etc et al

reply to post by dontreally


I'll put it to you this way. Look what the PA/Hamas does now. Do you think a 2 state solution would honestly make anything better? The answer is no, because it wouldn't. There's an old saying: "Don't feed the bears". As for peace? Not going to happen, it's not built into humanity to achieve peace in one area of the world much less all of it and religion will only fuel the fire for war, not quench it.

The way I see it is Israel is going to miss the boat on economic development and funding by the IMF if the two parties cannot reach a settlement regarding the West Bank. Jerusalem, well as I said elsewhere if they refuse to deal, are you going to let a few people dug in there ruin your hopes of economic development as a country?

So then you have to give them visas and let them stay where they live in Jerusalem.
If they refuse citizenship.
Treat them like citizens anyways.

In the West Bank, give the people, 10,000 each man woman and child. That is for a direct land sale with buy back option. Then give them another 10,000 so they can build a house or a farm or a business and contribute to the country as citizens. And have a vote if they want the money.
They will take it. In America, for 20,000 they will eat flies on TV AND give you their citizenship back.

So the first 10,000 per person if they agree in a public vote, the land then becomes part of Israel.
Now you sell them back a piece if they want using that 10,000.
So they can buy their house back. Or, if it is going to be bulldozed because it is a slum, then they choose another piece from the land use plan of Israel in the region. They can only use the 10,000 or they can pool their money, but they cannot bring in outside money to buy land.
Reason being the land value is not appraised value, it is swap value for those people only.
The Settlements will also have the option of buying their land at the same price. Whatever parcel size you decide on, that is equivalent to 10,000. Now lets say that you figure that a family of four should have a house sized plot of land, then 40,000 is the value of a house sized plot of land.
You have to treat them equally or they will just end up fighting forever.

If you decide that 40,000 should buy an acre, then the same value is extended to the Settlements.
Nasty isn't it, when you come up against someone who knows what fair is.

So then you give them 5,000 in two lump sums and hold back the disbursements until all the land transactions are completed. So they will not take forever to do that. And if they revolt and etc then you don't disburse the funds until things settle down.
Now suppose someone needs the 5,000 and can't wait, someone will buy it and they will get less.
Now so both parties do not accuse the other of doing things a independent 3rd party will decide when to disburse those funds. An arbitrator if necessary.

So the IMF will help with low interest loans for that portion.

The US will arrange a loan to Israel for the first portion.

The first portion that is given to pay the people, I did all the calculations before and Israel will recoup the cost of paying them, by selling land to Israelis after all the land sales with the Palestinians are completed.
So it costs them only time and some work to arrange the sale.

You know originally years ago we went into this thinking Palestine could be a state or a province, never a country within a country and that was never a sane option.
Well long ago the time ran out for the state or province option because it just didn't work even when we gave them some autonomy and they had elections etc.
I ended up having to suggest that they build a wall. To stop them fighting and terrorizing each other.
Especially at the holy sites.

So now the best option is the land purchase. And it is a lot of money. But Israel can afford it.
With a little help from their friends.

And that region is ripe for economic development, the Silk Road, managed by the SCO which are more in tune with the people of the region and their ways, you will see some changes there in the Middle East. Economic changes. Syria for instance has a GDP per capita of 3,000 Israel has a GDP per capita of 30,000
Iran 13,000.
So Syria will be at the same level of Iran and Lebanon, both at around 13,000 within 4 or 5 years if rapid development takes place on the trade route. If Syria gets its dry dock and expands its port.

Gaza can be part of Egypt, in some sort of arrangement. And then some people will invest in Gaza.
At this point its difficult to say because until the West Bank issue is settled then nothing is going to happen in Israel or the West Bank or Gaza, the investment funds will go elsewhere.

As it is, Israel could be a connector to connect the US to the Silk Road. Well thats good for business and commerce but don't expect anyone to do anything there like invest 5 billion dollars without this issue being settled.
And Israel may get 10 billion two sites each of 5 billion to support the trade route if it goes global which we are working very hard on right now.
If we are successful at selling our plan, then we will build 90 such sites world wide.
And tie them all together as a global trade organization. Lots of jobs lots of good jobs.And lots of spin off economic activity. Such as data farms on site, and business banking.

reply to post by dontreally


I'm sorry, Dontreally, but that's just not true. Israel has not always sought peace for 40 years. And the Palestinians do want peace. This is one of the main problems with this conflict and the way Westerners look at it: They treat it like Israel can do no wrong and anything that happens over there Palestine is the problem. Israel has walked out of peace talks numerous times. But I'm sure you will find a way to blame that on Palestine also.

I always explain it like this. Imagine if you lived in a house and one day an organization came along and said, "This house is not your house. Even though your family has lived in this house for the past 100 years, we're going to give this house to descendants of the family that lived in it 150 years ago. We won't make you leave entirely. You can have the bathroom and the dining room closet to live in. And if you want to pass from one room to another you have to pass numerous checkpoints."

This is what it's like for the Palestinians. The only solution is a fair and equal two-state solution. I have to question the motives of anyone promoting anything less than that.

Peace be upon you.

Originally posted by CoolerAbdullah786
reply to post by dontreally

 

I'm sorry, Dontreally, but that's just not true. Israel has not always sought peace for 40 years. And the Palestinians do want peace. This is one of the main problems with this conflict and the way Westerners look at it:

To be frank with both CoolerAdbulla (cool name btw) and Dontreally, neither side's leaders really seem interested in peace with the other. I honestly don't know given the current leadership on both sides, how a meaningful compromise can be reached that works for both parties. It's rather sad. Moderates are an almost extinct species on both the Israeli and Palestinian political scene.

The generation that will be taking over on both sides has never know anything other than the current situation (Occupation, Intifada, bloodshed of innocents on both sides), I don't think they can even visualize what a real peace would be between both parties. Both sides have totally stereotyped the other to the point where an average Israeli and Palestinian can't really talk to each other without those stereotypes getting in the way. That is the main part, neither side has the "vision thing" anymore.

Originally posted by Rocketman7
Buy them out, like a land purchase deal.Thats what America did.

Thats the only solution.Buy them out for 10,000 each, give them the option to buy back a piece of land.

Then give them another 10,000 in two 5,000 installments.
So they can be good citizens and pull their own weight.

What if I really just want my land and to be left alone on it to do as I see fit? You gonna force me to "sell" my land? You make it sound is if I have to "buy back" land that is already mine?