[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

How about because its international law? If that doesn't work then we can safely assume that getting land through military conquest will be perfectly acceptable.

Why not Pre-48 borders then? Israel conquered a great deal of territory after the war, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip, and Jordan the West Bank. Why not tell Turkey to pull out of Cyprus, considering they invaded in 1974? Why not Iran's occupation of Abu Masa?

Interestingly enough, the pressure is only put on Israel when there are a number of other occupied regions by other powers in the Middle East.

$1:

To answer your question yes we should ignore the result of the wars and we should establish a free and sovereign Palestine.

Except there WAS no "free and sovereign" Palestine before 1967, let alone 1948. A free Palestine was destroyed by Egypt and Jordan as much as it was Israel, considering the United Nations proposal that created two separate states.

$1:

No other result will even begin to establish peace and no effort to evict Palestinians from their homeland will result in anything but the (rightfully) eventual destruction of Israel under the very same logic.

I assume, with the disastrous effects of Israel's pullout of Gaza (which, brought forth a government elected by Hamas, and another war, even though Israel relinquished military control of the region) shows your flawed assumption. The Palestinians in Gaza showed their true colors, and I feel sorry and sympathy for those Palestinians who truly do want peace and prosperity for both themselves and their families, their neighbors, and the region.

[bootlegga]

DerbyX DerbyX:

How about because its international law? If that doesn't work then we can safely assume that getting land through military conquest will be perfectly acceptable.

To answer your question yes we should ignore the result of the wars and we should establish a free and sovereign Palestine. No other result will even begin to establish peace and no effort to evict Palestinians from their homeland will result in anything but the (rightfully) eventual destruction of Israel under the very same logic.

I would be in favour of creating a free Palestine had the Palestinians (and pretty much everyone else in the Middle East), not attacked Israel in 1948, during which conflict they lost it. Aa far as I'm concerned, they had a homeland, tried to take the Jew's (historical) homeland too and failed. They were planning another attack on Israel in 1967 when the Israelis preempted them, and then the Arabs launched a massive assault in 1973, which was almost successful.

Since then, the other Middle Eastern nations have kept the Palestinians around simply to say, look at what big old bad Israel is doing to them. If any of them really cared, they could have carved out a portion of their own country (or countries had several gotten involved). If the Palestinians really want a country, tell them to go ask Egypt for the Sinai or Lebanon/Syria for part of their country.

They had a country, gambled on getting two, and lost. Tough luck IMHO.

[andyt]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Well I don't want to go way off-topic but when you get a chance look at a "proposed" map of a sovereign Quebec that doesn't include the very large northern areas. If land like that can remain part of Canada with native support it could serve as a separate country. In fact we could easily set aside large areas of many provinces and give them the option to all migrate to these areas where we could help them build their own country. In fact Nunavut could theoretically just become sovereign if they really wanted to.

I'm not saying it would be easy but in the end if their is strong enough support from the Natives then we could manage it. That doesn't mean they simply all get whatever land they want to claim unless they want very very small countries no longer supported in the least by the Canadian tax-payer, something that has been expressed on this forum before.

What's wrong with going off topic?

I don't think your system would work at all. The native's claim is based on ancestral territory, not that they're all a cohesive group across the country who want to live in a racially pure land. They want the same mod cons we all do, but they want them given to them by right of birth. (Well not all - Clarence Louie seems to be an exception). And do you really think a Squamish living it up in West Vancouver is at all interested in re-settling to Nunavut? I don't think there would be any support from the natives at all, including the natives already living in Nunavut. And what would they all do there to survive?

What you are proposing, if you're serious, is actually very racist. It's the Bantustan policy of the white South African govt.

I've (jokingly) proposed a similar idea. Set aside a large area where those natives who talk about returning to the traditional way can go to practice them. No white man mod cons at all. In fact let the noble savage white romanticists join them there. My guess is that the applications to live there would be few and far between, and most would come crawling back with their tails between their legs.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Why not Pre-48 borders then? Israel conquered a great deal of territory after the war, and Egypt took the Gaza Strip, and Jordan the West Bank. Why not tell Turkey to pull out of Cyprus, considering they invaded in 1974? Why not Iran's occupation of Abu Masa?

Interestingly enough, the pressure is only put on Israel when there are a number of other occupied regions by other powers in the Middle East.

Why not the borders that existed prior to British interference? How about we call the Israel thing a misguided activity and simply send everybody who immigrated to the area back to where they came from. That sounds far since it was the massive influx of immigrants (from a different religion) causing the problem, ironically something people in Canada are worried about.

As for Cyprus, turkey invaded after an attempted coup by Greek nationalists and these matter are disputed. In fact though the island is split alongside political lines with autonomy pretty much given to both. Pretty good idea for the whole Palestine/Isreal thing.

commanderkai commanderkai:

Except there WAS no "free and sovereign" Palestine before 1967, let alone 1948. A free Palestine was destroyed by Egypt and Jordan as much as it was Israel, considering the United Nations proposal that created two separate states.

There was no free and sovereign Israel until it was carved out by force. YOu keep saying look forward well here it is. We build a free and Palestine state with them and give them autonomy and something worth keeping and worth not wanting to loose.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I assume, with the disastrous effects of Israel's pullout of Gaza (which, brought forth a government elected by Hamas, and another war, even though Israel relinquished military control of the region) shows your flawed assumption. The Palestinians in Gaza showed their true colors, and I feel sorry and sympathy for those Palestinians who truly do want peace and prosperity for both themselves and their families, their neighbors, and the region.

<sigh> leaving Gaza simply isn't enough when they consider far more land beyond that as occupied territory. In addition you hold no contempt for Israels who continually poke the bear with illegal settlements and by sending civlilians into a combat zone/occupation zone are the true people responsible for civilian deaths when they get rockets chucked at them.

Israel mu stop all settlements in occupied territory and withdraw the people they already have there. Then we send in impartial peace keeps to protect the Palestinians from the Israelis and help them police themselves to root out the people who want only war. All of this gets done with local support under the program of them getting their land back free and clear.

Once they start have something they don't want to see destroyed then they'll become believers in the peace process but all this must be done with them getting their land as an absolute goal and not a "maybe if you are good".

[DerbyX]

bootlegga bootlegga:

DerbyX DerbyX:

How about because its international law? If that doesn't work then we can safely assume that getting land through military conquest will be perfectly acceptable.

To answer your question yes we should ignore the result of the wars and we should establish a free and sovereign Palestine. No other result will even begin to establish peace and no effort to evict Palestinians from their homeland will result in anything but the (rightfully) eventual destruction of Israel under the very same logic.

I would be in favour of creating a free Palestine had the Palestinians (and pretty much everyone else in the Middle East), not attacked Israel in 1948, during which conflict they lost it. Aa far as I'm concerned, they had a homeland, tried to take the Jew's (historical) homeland too and failed. They were planning another attack on Israel in 1967 when the Israelis preempted them, and then the Arabs launched a massive assault in 1973, which was almost successful.

Since then, the other Middle Eastern nations have kept the Palestinians around simply to say, look at what big old bad Israel is doing to them. If any of them really cared, they could have carved out a portion of their own country (or countries had several gotten involved). If the Palestinians really want a country, tell them to go ask Egypt for the Sinai or Lebanon/Syria for part of their country.

They had a country, gambled on getting two, and lost. Tough luck IMHO.

I disagree. The conflict began long before and the Brits saw it coming. A massive influx of people intending to establish a different religion as a new countries defining characteristics.

We freak out here just cause some women wants to wear a niquib.

Ironically all the people who support Israel are the very same people who would be calling for a fight to the death if what happened to the land of the Palestinians suddenly happened to them.

[DerbyX]

andyt andyt:

What's wrong with going off topic?

I don't think your system would work at all. The native's claim is based on ancestral territory, not that they're all a cohesive group across the country who want to live in a racially pure land. They want the same mod cons we all do, but they want them given to them by right of birth. (Well not all - Clarence Louie seems to be an exception). And do you really think a Squamish living it up in West Vancouver is at all interested in re-settling to Nunavut? I don't think there would be any support from the natives at all, including the natives already living in Nunavut. And what would they all do there to survive?

Well I favour each province with sufficient unoccupied land to be given to the local natives for establishment of a country. If they don't want to go that route because it will be hard then that's too bad. They need to build their country just as wee did and you know what? The hardship and struggle is what made us the country we are today and it would do it for them to.

andyt andyt:

What you are proposing, if you're serious, is actually very racist. It's the Bantustan policy of the white South African govt.

Not quite. I'm simply proposing we give them the choice and give them fair means to achieve it. We carved Canada out of the wilderness with far less so they can certainly do it especially if we provide them with assistence.

andyt andyt:

I've (jokingly) proposed a similar idea. Set aside a large area where those natives who talk about returning to the traditional way can go to practice them. No white man mod cons at all. In fact let the noble savage white romanticists join them there. My guess is that the applications to live there would be few and far between, and most would come crawling back with their tails between their legs.

My idea basically expands on that with the idea that they'll be able to guild a modern society.

[andyt]

You're still being racist - you're giving them the choice of being shoved off their traditional land and stuck on a reserve somewhere that you call a country. By your logic, we should be the ones moving to "unoccupied" areas of the country, leave the natives where they are.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

How about because its international law? If that doesn't work then we can safely assume that getting land through military conquest will be perfectly acceptable.

To answer your question yes we should ignore the result of the wars and we should establish a free and sovereign Palestine. No other result will even begin to establish peace and no effort to evict Palestinians from their homeland will result in anything but the (rightfully) eventual destruction of Israel under the very same logic.

When you guys give Canada back to the First Nations the Israelis will pay a little more attention to this idea of yours.

and the US giving the Midwest and Pacific back to the Indians.

and China giving Tibet back.

and Transylvania going back to Hungary.


shall we keep going ?

Exactly. My point is that we should not denounce Israel for doing something our own nations have done in spades.

[BartSimpson]

Oh, and any solution for the Israel/Palestine situtation that does not include the eradication of the Jews will not result in a lasting peace in the region. The Islamic faith commands the Muslims to hate the Jews and rearranging borders will do diddly sh*t to fix that greater problem.

Wherever the Jews exist the Muslims will hate them and try to kill them. That's just a simple fact.

[bootlegga]

DerbyX DerbyX:

bootlegga bootlegga:

DerbyX DerbyX:

How about because its international law? If that doesn't work then we can safely assume that getting land through military conquest will be perfectly acceptable.

To answer your question yes we should ignore the result of the wars and we should establish a free and sovereign Palestine. No other result will even begin to establish peace and no effort to evict Palestinians from their homeland will result in anything but the (rightfully) eventual destruction of Israel under the very same logic.

I would be in favour of creating a free Palestine had the Palestinians (and pretty much everyone else in the Middle East), not attacked Israel in 1948, during which conflict they lost it. Aa far as I'm concerned, they had a homeland, tried to take the Jew's (historical) homeland too and failed. They were planning another attack on Israel in 1967 when the Israelis preempted them, and then the Arabs launched a massive assault in 1973, which was almost successful.

Since then, the other Middle Eastern nations have kept the Palestinians around simply to say, look at what big old bad Israel is doing to them. If any of them really cared, they could have carved out a portion of their own country (or countries had several gotten involved). If the Palestinians really want a country, tell them to go ask Egypt for the Sinai or Lebanon/Syria for part of their country.

They had a country, gambled on getting two, and lost. Tough luck IMHO.

I disagree. The conflict began long before and the Brits saw it coming. A massive influx of people intending to establish a different religion as a new countries defining characteristics.

We freak out here just cause some women wants to wear a niquib.

Ironically all the people who support Israel are the very same people who would be calling for a fight to the death if what happened to the land of the Palestinians suddenly happened to them.

Again, this goes back to your argument about everyone giving everything back to their previous owners. Israel, prior to 1948, existed and was conquered by empire after empire (Assyrians, Romans, Ottomans, to name just a few), so using your own argument, why didn't the Palestinians have to give it back to them in 1948?

Like I said, the Brits (and French and the UN) tried to be equitable (as well as generous given the fate that most European Jews had suffered during WW2) and tried to come up with a solution that was fairly equal all things considered. Then the Palestinians (and their Arab allies) tried to take everything back and wound up with nothing.

Sorry, but I don't have any pity for them.

[andyt]

How about this. Everybody on earth starts off at the Olduvai Gorge, and we resettle the planet according to who gets where first, and that's the way it stays in perpetuity? Only self propelled transport allowed.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

How about this. Everybody on earth starts off at the Olduvai Gorge, and we resettle the planet according to who gets where first, and that's the way it stays in perpetuity? Only self propelled transport allowed.

So that Jamaican dude from the 2006 Olympics will rule the world?

Yah, that'd be cool.

[andyt]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Again, this goes back to your argument about everyone giving everything back to their previous owners. Israel, prior to 1948, existed and was conquered by empire after empire (Assyrians, Romans, Ottomans, to name just a few), so using your own argument, why didn't the Palestinians have to give it back to them in 1948?

Like I said, the Brits (and French and the UN) tried to be equitable (as well as generous given the fate that most European Jews had suffered during WW2) and tried to come up with a solution that was fairly equal all things considered. Then the Palestinians (and their Arab allies) tried to take everything back and wound up with nothing.

Sorry, but I don't any pity for them.

Well sure, but the Israelites holocausted the Canaanites to get it. So they don't have claim to it either, unless you buy that God gave it to us bs.

I've always thought European Jews should have gotten part of Germany. East Prussia, say.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

How about this. Everybody on earth starts off at the Olduvai Gorge, and we resettle the planet according to who gets where first, and that's the way it stays in perpetuity? Only self propelled transport allowed.

So that Jamaican dude from the 2006 Olympics will rule the world?

Yah, that'd be cool.

A 100m sprinter? He's not going to get far. I'll out pace him on my mountain bike any day. (Or so I like to dream). Plus he wouldn't rule the world, just whatever little patch he wound up in. 57308738/7,000,000,000 = .0081 square miles per person. Trading, selling and owning communally will be allowed once everybody's got their piece.

[PluggyRug]

andyt andyt:

57308738/7,000,000,000 = .0081 square miles per person. Trading, selling and owning communally will be allowed once everybody's got their piece.

Thats ok cos whoever gets the patch next to mine will get beaten over the head with a wet tar brush. I want his bit as well. So all those without wet tar brushes better look out I is a coming.