Jimmy Carter = Hanoi Jane Fonda

[Texsox]

eh, not really a good analogy IMO. i would say the circumstances are vastly different. and i'm not arguing this, as I do not feel it is relevant to the thread.

So you agree the reason is the Arabs don't care about the Palistinians and do not like them?

[mr_genius]

So you agree the reason is the Arabs don't care about the Palistinians and do not like them?

 

no. and i already told you i'm not getting into this with you. it's completely pointless.

[Texsox]

no. and i already told you i'm not getting into this with you. it's completely pointless.

So you don't want to get into agreeing with me?

[EvilMonkey]

So you don't want to get into agreeing with me?

Actually, he would be agreeing with me. You have yet to list your reasons.

[Texsox]

Well, let's hear your reasons.

 

• Economic
• Fear they will lose land with any eventual statehood like they lost when Israel was created.

[Texsox]

Actually, he would be agreeing with me. You have yet to list your reasons.

He just said it is *not* about not caring and liking them. Both of which you said.

[EvilMonkey]

He just said it is *not* about not caring and liking them. Both of which you said.

Ug. getting kinda like a 'who's on first' now. Getting confused! Must find lost brain cells!

[Texsox]

Ug. getting kinda like a 'who's on first' now. Getting confused! Must find lost brain cells!

 

LOL

 

Anyway, I really don't think "liking" them or "caring" are very big factors, as I posted, economics plays a huge role in all immigration issues and I also believe there is a concern that, much like happened with Israel, someone is going to lose land to a Palestinian homeland, and the areas with the most Palestinians would seem a natural choice. I think it is dangerous to use the immigration policies as a factor in the legitimacy or validity of a Palestinian state. No country wants to give up land, and that is what it will take. We would not do it for our best allies, so I do not expect anyone else to.

 

So based on the economic angle, I suggested we compare the proposed Mexico wall. Economics is playing the biggest role.

[Balta1701]

You know the interesting thing about this thread? I think that the discussion that has come up actually illustrates pretty well why someone like History's Greatest Monster needs to do exactly this and be the person who goes in to Gaza and elsewhere and tries to set up talks, because right now, the only ones who might have any interest in getting this mess settled are the ones who haven't any real power.

 

You've got the other countries of the Arab league, who send along money, but as others have pointed out, really don't want a settlement if it requires them to take in any of the expelled peoples, and also, let's be honest, benefit quite a bit from being able to whip up their people against Israel every now and then.

 

You've got Israel, who's people would benefit a lot from genuine security, but who doesn't want to be stuck paying to rebuild those territories, who will never give up Jerusalem, and who's leadership is, thanks to their parliamentary system, overly beholden to a fairly small minority who thinks that expansion, settlements, and taking land is the way to secure that country.

 

You've got the U.S., who could really, really, really benefit from finding a way to bring peace to that area so that everyone and their grandmother in the middle east doesn't blame the U.S. for building the craft that bomb Palestinian targets, but who's leadership is, for various reasons, going along totally with whatever Israel wants to do and refuses to put any pressure on them to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.

 

You've got the Fatah leadership, who has demonstrated again and again that they're just not up to the task of rebuilding those territories and have better things to do with the money spent there.

 

And you've got Hamas, who sadly, comes closest to actually representing the interests of some of the people there by being the only group actually really working to try to provide aid to the people, who also just happens to be a terrorist group that we refuse to negotiate with.

 

So pretty much, every single group in power out there has no reason right now to negotiate for anything, especially not a genuine, long-term peace settlement that not everyone is happy with but which finally works. The only ones who have any interest in having that happen would be the people of every single one of the countries involved, including us.

[HuskyCaucasian]

ummmm.....

Hamas offers truce in return for 1967 borders

The leader of Hamas said Monday that his Palestinian militant group would offer Israel a 10-year "hudna," or truce, as implicit proof of recognition of Israel if it withdrew from all lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East War.

 

Khaled Mashaal told The Associated Press that he made the offer to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in talks on Saturday. "We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as a proof of recognition," Mashaal said.

[Balta1701]

ummmm.....

Hamas offers truce in return for 1967 borders

This has been the offer that's been put on the table for years now, every few months it seems, by one of the Arabic-side parties. What you must realize is...this offer will NEVER be accepted by Israel, for one simple reason. The pre 1967 war borders of Israel did not include key parts of Jerusalem. They did not include the wall, the temple mount, etc., the holiest of holy sites.

 

Israel simply will NEVER give those sites back to a Muslim authority. The 2000 Clinton/Arafat/Barak proposal for all practical purposes was the best offer Israel will ever make. Aside from a few various slivers of land, it was all the pre 1967 land except for the key spots in Jerusalem. Unless you can propose an independent governing body for Jerusalem that would satisfy both sides, you will not get a better offer of land for peace than the deal Arafat turned down.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This has been the offer that's been put on the table for years now, every few months it seems, by one of the Arabic-side parties. What you must realize is...this offer will NEVER be accepted by Israel, for one simple reason. The pre 1967 war borders of Israel did not include key parts of Jerusalem. They did not include the wall, the temple mount, etc., the holiest of holy sites.

 

Israel simply will NEVER give those sites back to a Muslim authority. The 2000 Clinton/Arafat/Barak proposal for all practical purposes was the best offer Israel will ever make. Aside from a few various slivers of land, it was all the pre 1967 land except for the key spots in Jerusalem. Unless you can propose an independent governing body for Jerusalem that would satisfy both sides, you will not get a better offer of land for peace than the deal Arafat turned down.

thanks for the history lesson. I havent been up-to-date on middle east peace since... well... ever. lol

[EvilMonkey]

This has been the offer that's been put on the table for years now, every few months it seems, by one of the Arabic-side parties. What you must realize is...this offer will NEVER be accepted by Israel, for one simple reason. The pre 1967 war borders of Israel did not include key parts of Jerusalem. They did not include the wall, the temple mount, etc., the holiest of holy sites.

 

Israel simply will NEVER give those sites back to a Muslim authority. The 2000 Clinton/Arafat/Barak proposal for all practical purposes was the best offer Israel will ever make. Aside from a few various slivers of land, it was all the pre 1967 land except for the key spots in Jerusalem. Unless you can propose an independent governing body for Jerusalem that would satisfy both sides, you will not get a better offer of land for peace than the deal Arafat turned down.

There was a Tom Clancy book that had the Arab-Israeli situation being resolved like you describe, with the Swiss being in control of Jerusalem. I just don't remember the name.

[Balta1701]

There was a Tom Clancy book that had the Arab-Israeli situation being resolved like you describe, with the Swiss being in control of Jerusalem. I just don't remember the name.

Honestly, that's why I included that as a caveat. It might actually be the format of a workable solution, to treat Jerusalem like the Vatican and set it up as an independent state that none of the religions control. I really don't know if any of the parties would accept that solution without pressure, but I would bet that if a President honestly went to Israel and said that they had to pick between that option and a complete cutoff of all U.S. aid, most Israeli leaders would choose that option.

[southsider2k5]

Honestly, that's why I included that as a caveat. It might actually be the format of a workable solution, to treat Jerusalem like the Vatican and set it up as an independent state that none of the religions control. I really don't know if any of the parties would accept that solution without pressure, but I would bet that if a President honestly went to Israel and said that they had to pick between that option and a complete cutoff of all U.S. aid, most Israeli leaders would choose that option.

 

? Why is it that the Israeli's have to be forced to choose an option?

[Balta1701]

? Why is it that the Israeli's have to be forced to choose an option?

Can you make an argument other than "They already have it" for why Jerusalem should belong to the Israelis when there are 3 separate religions that view it as one of their holiest sites?

 

The only reason I can come up to answer your question is that I really see no other way to treat that city that would be fair to all of the interested parties. There are enough groups in Israel who wish to rebuild a temple at the site of the former one, and hence, on the grounds of the Al Aqsa Mosque, that I find it difficult to believe that the Muslims will ever trust the Jews with control over that territory. Especially after Ariel Sharon's visit there sparked the last spasm of violence. Conversely, I can't imagine the Jews ever, ever giving control of the Western Wall back to a Muslim led government. And if the Israelis have control of it now, they're not going to want to give it up, even for a peace deal, unless they have no other choice.

[southsider2k5]

There is no solution that will make the Palestinians happy, that doesn't involve Israel becoming a part of history. They have negotiated this for centuries, and it always comes back to violence, no matter what. Every time that the involved parties have come close to an agreement, violence flares from one of the Palestinian groups that believes Israel should be destroyed, Israel retailiates 10 fold, and both sides call off the peace agreement/ceasefire. I really don't think forcing out Israel out of East Jeruslem will make one damned bit of difference, based on the history in the region.

[NorthSideSox72]

There was a Tom Clancy book that had the Arab-Israeli situation being resolved like you describe, with the Swiss being in control of Jerusalem. I just don't remember the name.

The Sum of All Fears. Excellent book - his peak, I think (he started going downhill after that). And I think that is the best idea for Jerusalem as well, but, you'd need the world's major powers to all go in and pretty much force that solution on the parties involved. And there is no political will to do that right now.

 

[Texsox]

Sometimes there are no human solutions to a problem.

[NorthSideSox72]

Sometimes there are no human solutions to a problem.

If its a human problem, which this is, then there are always human solutions available, IMO.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Sometimes there are no human solutions to a problem.

I've argued this for a long time. not only there, but in Iraq. you cant just sit down people who have been waring for hundreds of years and solve it.

Ironically, the longest peace Iraq had for a long period of time was under a dictator!

[Texsox]

While Americans always believe the only form of government involves freely chosen leadership, throughout history, people have lived very nicely with other forms of government. Problem is absolute power corrupts absolutely over time. Seems like these guys always go a little goofy.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah and Nazis used to say "don't trust the jews" and look where that went.

GoSox05-

 

You need to read, agree to, and post acknowledgement in the MUST READ thread before posting in this forum again.

 

-NSS

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'm thinking this will probably sideline him for a while:

 

Carter to be tried for peace crimes.

[kapkomet]

Peace Crimes.

 

That's too good.