The health of Ariel Sharon.

[Fifthfiend]

Really when you get right down to it there's only one way anyone's ever going to solve this thing.

Give the Palestinians Utah.

BAM! Problem solved.

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by LockeownzJ00

I was talking about the original aggressors. Yes, right now, both sides are guilty--but the very establishment of a Jewish state in an existing country's land is preposterous. It's not even that they just 'settled' there. It wasn't enough to escape persecution--when the infamous Israeli army insists on just destroying Palestinian settlements because of some ancient infallible script, that crosses the line in my book.

I understand that, and I agree with you on the fact that it was an injust thing to do. It's just that I don't see a reconciliation being reached through that sentiment. I don't think anyone is going to be able to kick the Israelis out, nor do I believe that would be the best course of action.

They're there now, there is a conflict, it needs to end and I don't think anybody is leaving. It just seems counterproductive to keep harping on the first mistake in this progression, when it can not be undone.

So again, I agree with what you're saying, I just don't see any possible good in contemplating it. Placing blame doesn't solve problems.

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Really when you get right down to it there's only one way anyone's ever going to solve this thing.

Give the Palestinians Utah.

BAM! Problem solved.

ah man, you know Salt Lake City isn't all that bad... I once had a cup of coffee there!

[Darth SS]

I'd just like to toss out that at one point Ariel Sharon offered to give Palestine something like 90% of the lands they're so crazed on getting, and Palestine basically said "Fuck you. We want the 100."

Also, you can't really say "The establishment of a Jewish state was horrible and proposterous!"

It was established right after WWII. I'm not sure if you remember, but fascism was what those crazy countries were into. They made their country out of fear and a desire for survival. I don't think the formation of Israel was a mistake.

If anything, I view Palestine as that maniac who won't stay down and accept defeat, and Israel is that mean boxer that waits until his opponent goes down and just starts kicking them in the ribs.

Neither side are the "good guys" but you can't go and damn Israel anymore than you can go and damn Palestine. They're both doing wrong, because doing right would result in a mild case of mass-population-DEATH.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

If anything, I view Palestine as that maniac who won't stay down and accept defeat, and Israel is that mean boxer that waits until his opponent goes down and just starts kicking them in the ribs.

Neither side are the "good guys" but you can't go and damn Israel anymore than you can go and damn Palestine.

To the extent that good guy / bad guy archetypes can be applied to geopolitical conflict, just about every movie, book, and Saturday morning cartoon to which I've ever been exposed would have it that the little maniac who won't stay down is basically always the good guy.

I'm just saying, is all.

I mean okay maybe Palestine is the villain that gets knocked down by the hero, and the hero is all harrumph I have proven I can beat you so I don't need to kill you, and then the villain pulls out like blindness powder and slaps the hero around until the hero remembers the teachings of his Ancient Master to find the needed Spiritual Enlightenment he needs to kick the other guy's face out the back of his head.

Except for that kind of villain to work the villain usually has to be bigger and stronger than the hero to begin with, which doesn't quite work in the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

ah man, you know Salt Lake City isn't all that bad... I once had a cup of coffee there!

No, I mean, Utah's a really nice place. That's why I think the Palestinians would get along so well there.

[Xal]

Locke, one minor shift.

Palestine did not exist as a country when Israel was established.

A bunch of people in the region known as palestine got screwed. (the region not= country line can be nicely boiled down to "the Midwest doesn't count as a country.") A particularly charismatic (if violent as hell) guy by the name of Arafat said "You know what, screw you guys," organized his little army, and as his defense said he was acting on behalf of the country of Palestine. (which, I'm a little bit sketchy as to the specific time, hadn't existed since the Ottoman Empire came into being, that being back in the damn middle ages.)

Does that mean that the palestinians didn't get screwed? Hell no. Arafat might have earned the title of The Man Who Invented Modern Terrorism, but he had a point.

So, to repeat: The order of operations is Israel Created->Palestine Created, or if you prefer, original Israel created, original Israel taken over, original Palestine created, original Palestine taken over, a thousand years (give or take a hundred) pass, Israel recreated, Palestine recreated.

[Solid Snake]

I think it's safe to say I'm not Ariel Sharon's biggest fan. Just for the sake of comparison, man who murders can subsequently become a living saint, a Mother Teresa figure even, but that doesn't change the fact that he (once) took an innocent life.

That being said, in all honesty, Sharon's political desicions have been the best thing to happen in Israel since, err...since a long while. Probably since that whole Clintonian peace process movement was initiated (too bad it utterly failed.)

Honestly, I tend to lean towards a pro-Israel stance more often than not: that being said, I certainly don't think either side is blameless. It's just that Israel has been making concession after concession lately, and Palestinian behaviors occasionally remind me of a small child who keeps getting a little of what he wants, and keeps kicking and screaming for more. Honestly, a few years ago, I never would have imagined Israel withdrawing from so many settlements and so much territory. Granted, the settlements should never have been created in the first place, but that's a mighty big gift for Palestine. And instead of recieving concessions in kind -- I don't know, maybe the Palestinian Authority could actually really try to crack down on Hamas?

It seems to me that Palestine is unwavering in its commitment to recieving 100% of what it wants...without giving Israel jack crap in return. Not exactly a nice bargaining position. Hell, I'd be in favor in giving Palestinians the lion's share, but Israel isn't any more secure than they were, despite everything they've done. Something about the Palestinian Authority also treating Hamas as a totally legit political group also genuinely worries me. Any group that sponsors and claims responsibility for suicide bombers should under no circumstances be allowed that much a voice.

Sharon may have been a bad guy, and I certainly can't say we'd ever be best friends, but damn, he was doing a lot of good these past few years. The breakup from Likud? Bravo, man. I certainly support the creation of a moderate party between the two extremes in Israel. Retreating from settlements for the first time in, like, ever? Just plain bold. (Heh, I love putting the word 'bold' in bold font.)

By the way, when viewing the creation of the Israeli state from a historical perspective, I tend to compare it to the invasion of Rome by the Visigoths and other tribes. Yes, it'd be easy for someone with a modern moral conscience in 400 AD to say "Damn, you evil Visigoths, stop invading territory that isn't yours. Those Romans live in that land, ethnically originate from that city in the middle of Italy, and you should live back in your own huts and not impose yourself on their people."

And you'd be right...oh, except the Visigoths weren't exactly invading Italy because they wanted a free vacation home. They were being chased from their homelands. By the Huns, who forced the Visigoths and many other ethnic tribes to flee their homelands and move the only direction they could...west. Oh, and another counterpoint: it's not like the Romans could authentically claim all of Italy for themselves, too. It once belonged to the Etruscans. If you're going to blame the Visigoths for invading Rome, why not blame the Romans for invading half the freakin' world during their time in the sun?

Anyway, historical situations are useful to compare to because we don't bring any emotional baggage to the Visigoths and the Romans like we do bring to the table when it comes to Israel and Palestine. But if you think about it, Israel's like the Visigoths. The Palestinians are like the Romans in 400 AD. The Huns are pretty much like the Nazis.

During World War Two, Jews were...to say the very least...ripped to shreds like few ethnic minority groups ever have been. If millions of your people were slain in Europe, you'd be running like hell too. Where to? Well, like the Visigoths, you have to go somewhere, and whether you end up in Palestine or in the fringes of the Alaskan wilderness, you're going to be stepping on someone's toes. Hatred for Jews was so widespread and so historically grounded at that time in Europe that in the immediate aftermath of WW2 the only option for Jewish survivial seemed to be: "We gotta get the freakin' hell out." Given that the Jews didn't exactly have their own state, Israel was probably the best choice because at least a source like the Bible says they originated from that region: the Jews had even less moral or political authority to settle in anywhere else.

Besides, prior to the Jews moving in, there was a time when Palestine was controlled by Britain. At the very least, the Jews certainly had more reason to be hangin' in Israel than the freakin' United Kingdom. Talk about the Jews' current occupation of Palestinian grounds and everyone hates on Israel: talk about, oh, the fact that England currently controls a decent part of freakin' Ireland (where's the historical basis for *THAT* occupation) and everyone accepts it as a beneficial state of reality. When it comes to this issue I see an awful lot of indignation because it's a "hot topic" on everyone's minds; so everyone hates on Israel -- a relatively stable democracy that offers plenty of rights to even the most disadvantaged of Palestinian civilians -- for being the eeevil aggressors. Meanwhile warlords in Africa are running amok committing far worse atrocities, and the world barely blinks.

Just making a counterpoint to the whole "Jews were the initial aggressors" thing. And sorry to bring the Nazis into the discussion, however briefly. I know I'll be accused of the classic "throwing the Nazis into any argument just for the sake of providing an extreme example" cliche, but in this particular case, when you're talking about the history of the Jewish state in Israel, bringing up the atrocities of the Nazis is actually necessary and relevant.

Wow. I didn't mean for this post to be this lengthy.

[Lockeownzj00]

Palestine did not exist as a country when Israel was established.

I think that's a technicality, saying "Palestine technically came after. Yeah--I know it's a region, but obviously when you fabricate borders you almost necessarily quantify the region directly next to you.

I think the reason they're not taking the 90% is much more sensible--it 'seems' childish, like Israel is being benevolent. But the analogy is that about 40 guys just break down your door and plop themselves down in your house and start living in it--and no matter what you do, you can't get them out (somehow it's legally impossible to prosecute them). Then, to be diplomatic about it, they offer you 60% of your house back.

Fuck. That. Perhaps to think that way you need a healthy dosage of pride, but you don't want to be told that we can work something out with your own living space. Now--in light of the situation, there does need to be some compromise. I'm merely saying the line of thought isn't ridiculous.

I can understand the apparent "need" for a Jewish state. But it's not an innocent 'refuge.' By now, it is there and you're right in the sense that the mindset that wants it completely out is just deprecated. But, if it were as simple as Jews 'running' to the Israel/Palestine region, just like they escaped into Portugal and other European countries. "Zionism" used the tactics of colonial Africa: I was here second, therefore it's mine.

the fact that England currently controls a decent part of freakin' Ireland (where's the historical basis for *THAT* occupation) and everyone accepts it as a beneficial state of reality.

Can't say I agree. I know too many politically active Irish relatives.

Meanwhile warlords in Africa are running amok committing far worse atrocities, and the world barely blinks.

Again--this [b]is[/i] an issue, but this thread was specifically concentrating on the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and I think there's a difference between 'focus of the news' and 'uh, we're just discussing a different region.'

[dposse]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

That being said, in all honesty, Sharon's political desicions have been the best thing to happen in Israel since, err...since a long while. Probably since that whole Clintonian peace process movement was initiated (too bad it utterly failed.)



Sharon may have been a bad guy, and I certainly can't say we'd ever be best friends, but damn, he was doing a lot of good these past few years. The breakup from Likud? Bravo, man. I certainly support the creation of a moderate party between the two extremes in Israel. Retreating from settlements for the first time in, like, ever? Just plain bold. (Heh, I love putting the word 'bold' in bold font.)

exactly. Sharon was probably a bad guy, but he has done alot of good lately.These elections will either give peace to the area or war. Sharon was helping alot. He broke away from his own party to start a new moderate party. He gave people a new choice! Isn't that a good thing?

[Dasanudas]

Entirely a joke!!!!

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

Really when you get right down to it there's only one way anyone's ever going to solve this thing.

Give the Palestinians Utah.

BAM! Problem solved.

You, sir, have obviously never seen a pissed-off Mormon - I shudder at the thought. I mean, the Book of Mormon has more wars than the Bible and Koran combined. And think of this - they already have it basically a requisite to send the youth to a preaching training camp - very effective training camps. How difficult do you think it'd be to make those camps train military instead of missionary activity? Wrong idea, friend, wrong idea.

...

We should split Texas in half and give them that.

...

The southern half, so we can let them deal with the illegal aliens crossing the border.

[end joke]

On topic, is this about the effects of Sharon's illness and whether he will recover, or are we morphing into more of a discuss the Israel-Palestine situation. Either one is fine, but it's nice to focus.

As for the first topic, I can only hope that the people living there can see the good he was doing, and try to find someone who will carry on his work. I do not see Sharon recovering to again take his political position.

As for the second topic, I wouldn't agree with the guys invading your home idea for afew reasons. First, I'm of a mindset that instead of home, see this as a tree you live under, and some guys come and live under the tree too - it's more appropriate because the analogy of a hom implies it was bought/created by the owner, when land is neither - you just start living there and saying it's yours. In this case, I would look rather strangely at a person who starts living under a tree, then gets all pissy because someone else wants to live there as well.

If we do go with the idea of it being a home, then we can also look at more of the picture of human interaction. The aspect I refer to being mercy. Imagine someone coming to your door and saying, "Someone just burned down our homw and killed half our family, mind if we stay here with you?" Are people really so callous as to go, "Screw you! This is my home!"?

Of course, this doesn't apply too well since the Israelies didn't ask Palestine, they were placed there by Europe. Kind of like this:

Ted: Hey, I've got no home, where can I stay?
Bill: I've got a solution! You can live at Hank's house!
Hank: What?!?
Bill: Sure! Hank's house would be perfect for you! Let me get your bags.
Ted: Gee, that's great, thanks a lot.
Hank: WTF?! That's my house, you can't do this!
Ted: Shut up, Hank, you've always hated me just cause I'm prettier than you.
Bill: Yeah, Hank, why don't you go play with your GIJoe toys or something?
Hank: Damn you all! I hate you! I'll kill all of you and that'll show everyone I'm a special person who is loved by more than Mommy and just cause I wanted a tutu when i was eight doesn't mean I'm weird why Mommy why couldn't I have a tutu you deserved to get stabbed by someone who wasn't me until the cops can prove it...

uhm...

In any case I think my point is clear - eight-year-olds are at a confusing time and sometimes are curious about sexualI mean that while it's understandable the conflict arising from being forced to allow people to occupy what once was considered your land, a higher degree of understanding for each other's plight would definately help ease tensions there. But again, as stated in a previous post, I doubt this will happen any time soon.

[Lockeownzj00]

First, I'm of a mindset that instead of home, see this as a tree you live under, and some guys come and live under the tree too - it's more appropriate because the analogy of a hom implies it was bought/created by the owner, when land is neither - you just start living there and saying it's yours. In this case, I would look rather strangely at a person who starts living under a tree, then gets all pissy because someone else wants to live there as well.

But that was exactly my point--that it wasn't as innocent as just 'sharing the tree,' clearly evident by Israel's aggressive actions. If it were just 'give me some room' rather than 'give me some room or I'll kill you,' than I wouldn't have a qualm with it.