RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid

RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Anaxagoras -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/20/2011 8:47:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: No the divers have found that there was nothing other than the rifle cartridges, some of which have been found. Experts now understand the second blast was a result of the steam engines and none of the witnesses said there were guns on the ship. The ship was running at 18 knots which was a lot faster than any ship that had been hit by a torp at that time. I was not aware that the divers had finished their exploration of the wreckage. Do you have a cite concerning this? "Experts" at the time of the sinking claimed the secondary explosion was from an accumulation of coal dust in the foreward fuel bunker. The allegation of 6" guns being on board has been bantied about pretty much since day one of the sinking...only circumstancial evidence points to their existence thus my scepticism until the divers have compleated their survey of the wreckage. They haven't finished exploring the wreckage but quite a large number of dives have been done over the years until very recently and its not deep off Kinsale Head so the ship is easy to access. Quite a few theories have been put forward about the reasons for an explosion. Coal dust was deemed unlikely. The usual view today is that the steam generators were the cause that forensic material and some witness testimony supports. There were no guns seen on the ship and none found afterward so none were fitted. It's just an invention by the Germans. quote: At the time of the sinking of the lusitania,if memory serves me correctly, their had only been two other non millitary ships sunk by u boats. Eighteen knots is dramatically slower than her normal speed of 26 kts. due to 6 of her 25 turbines being shut down...ostensibly to save on fuel. If I recall correctly her max speed was 26 knots but would be a bit less during normal journeys. It went down to a max of 21 knots to save money by closing down a boiler but again would be a bit less for journeys. It was still very fast though. quote: British shipbuilders still had not learned the concept of "watertight integrity" at the time of the building of the lusitania. I believe that this is a major factor in the rapidty of her sinking. Whether the secondary explosion was coal dust,boiler explosion or munitions explosion does not change the fact that she was carrying 4,000,000 rounds of rifle ammo made by remington for the british army which is contraband. It is pretty much certain that the ship was not carrying heavy munitions. There wasn't evidence of explosions in the cargo area. Four million cartridges would be considered significant but it was a minor amount for a ship of that size and would be small beer if the ship was really used to transfer munitions for the military. It was not classified as materials for war use but rather personal use as the US port authority stated. Thats why it was packed individually into small cases. quote: That this incident was contributory to the "whipping up the enthusiam" of the populace for u.s. involvement in ww1 is pretty well documented as are the zimmerman letter and other incidents but we must also consider that if britain lost the war with germany u.s. business interest stood to loose money by the ton. I disagree. It was used as a propaganda tool by the British along with another sinking. Also by 1917 when the US became involved it seemed clear the Germans wouldn't have been able to achieve a decisive victory over the Allies. quote: The only reason anyone goes to war is so we can fuck their women and steal their dope...there has never been a war fought for any other reason. It is incorrect to say there have never been other reasons to go to war but I suspect we woon't agree on that point.

tweakabelle -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/20/2011 5:13:59 PM)
quote: So now answer the question was the Mavi Marmara in the hands of her crew or had the ship's passengers taken control of the ship? DK, I'll be happy to answer your question after you've given a serious answer to mine, posted prior to yours. After all if you're going to ignore my questions, you're not in a position to demand that I answer yours are you? My initial questions to you, in post # 110 were: "Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence". Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it? " I'm looking forward to hearing your answers (serious answers please), and then responding to your question.

thompsonx -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/20/2011 6:15:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: No the divers have found that there was nothing other than the rifle cartridges, some of which have been found. Experts now understand the second blast was a result of the steam engines and none of the witnesses said there were guns on the ship. The ship was running at 18 knots which was a lot faster than any ship that had been hit by a torp at that time. I was not aware that the divers had finished their exploration of the wreckage. Do you have a cite concerning this? "Experts" at the time of the sinking claimed the secondary explosion was from an accumulation of coal dust in the foreward fuel bunker. The allegation of 6" guns being on board has been bantied about pretty much since day one of the sinking...only circumstancial evidence points to their existence thus my scepticism until the divers have compleated their survey of the wreckage. They haven't finished exploring the wreckage but quite a large number of dives have been done over the years until very recently and its not deep off Kinsale Head so the ship is easy to access. I believe the lusitania in on the bottom at about 300'. That is not shallow and one needs mixed gas(the oxygen in compressed air becomes toxic at ten atmospherees)to dive at those depth and there are many technical problems to deal with and long decompression times. Quite a few theories have been put forward about the reasons for an explosion. Coal dust was deemed unlikely. The usual view today is that the steam generators were the cause that forensic material and some witness testimony supports. There were no guns seen on the ship and none found afterward so none were fitted. It's just an invention by the Germans. The allegation is that they were below decks and could be deployed in about 20 minutes by mounting them on their fireing rings and opening doors in the hull to allow them to fire. It seems possible but not plausable to me. Once they have finished with the exploration of the wreckage I am sure it can be put to rest one way or the other. quote: At the time of the sinking of the lusitania,if memory serves me correctly, their had only been two other non millitary ships sunk by u boats. Eighteen knots is dramatically slower than her normal speed of 26 kts. due to 6 of her 25 turbines being shut down...ostensibly to save on fuel. If I recall correctly her max speed was 26 knots but would be a bit less during normal journeys. It went down to a max of 21 knots to save money by closing down a boiler but again would be a bit less for journeys. It was still very fast though. They shut down six of the 25 engines not just one. That was the big deal at the time...speed...she and her sister ship passed the speed record back and forth. The faster she went the more money they made. The record shows that she was moving at 18 kts when hit by the torpedo. quote: British shipbuilders still had not learned the concept of "watertight integrity" at the time of the building of the lusitania. I believe that this is a major factor in the rapidty of her sinking. Whether the secondary explosion was coal dust,boiler explosion or munitions explosion does not change the fact that she was carrying 4,000,000 rounds of rifle ammo made by remington for the british army which is contraband. It is pretty much certain that the ship was not carrying heavy munitions. There wasn't evidence of explosions in the cargo area. Four million cartridges would be considered significant but it was a minor amount for a ship of that size and would be small beer if the ship was really used to transfer munitions for the military. It was not classified as materials for war use but rather personal use as the US port authority stated. Thats why it was packed individually into small cases. We should wait and see what the divers find before we decide for sure. quote: That this incident was contributory to the "whipping up the enthusiam" of the populace for u.s. involvement in ww1 is pretty well documented as are the zimmerman letter and other incidents but we must also consider that if britain lost the war with germany u.s. business interest stood to loose money by the ton. I disagree. It was used as a propaganda tool by the British along with another sinking. Also by 1917 when the US became involved it seemed clear the Germans wouldn't have been able to achieve a decisive victory over the Allies. I think we are both on the same track. The purpose of the britt propaganda was to get the u.s. into the war on her side...why...My contention is that financial interest in both countries felt it was in their best interests if the u.s. were to join with the brits. quote: The only reason anyone goes to war is so we can fuck their women and steal their dope...there has never been a war fought for any other reason. It is incorrect to say there have never been other reasons to go to war but I suspect we woon't agree on that point. I am not closed minded. If you know of some war that was fought for some other reason than to take their dope and fuck their women I would be glad to hear your position.

tweakabelle -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/20/2011 6:30:21 PM)
quote: You want to know how long some of us will stand with Israel? Until you quit trying to kill them, until you quit lying, until you quit fabricating absolute bullshit, until you pull your head out of your ass long enough to understand, there is more than one dog in this fight and the other side carries not only its share of blame but also its share of unwillingness to negotiate. You know what's just as funny? You list the Palmer report as something you like to read to support your stance. That same report has been declared null and void by the very people you use it to defend. http://witnessgaza.com/ You fuck-twits can't even keep your own stories, sources, or arguments straight. The nasty aggressive tone of your post betrays your defensiveness on this issue. Usually I ignore such trash - the guilt behind your defensiveness is an issue for you to deal with not me. This arrogant ultra-defensiveness is a common response by pro-Zionists here. So let's see what happens when yours is examined: You've accused me of "trying to kill them [Israelis]" - "kill" !!! Are you serious?? Hilarious seeing that I live in Australia far removed from the scene and have never tried to kill anyone. And then, in the very same sentence accuse me of "fabricating absolute bullshit"!!!! The person "fabricating absolute bullshit" is very clear in this instance. We don't have to go any further than the very same sentence to find the person "fabricating absolute bullshit" - it's you. Your allegation of my denying Palestinian culpability in the failure to resolve the ME conflict suggests that you're unaware of the many times I've condemned, for example, Hamas' war crimes in firing rockets into Israel on other threads. In fairness to you, you may not have read them. Let me clarify it for you: I regard both sides in the conflict as equally vicious and bloodthirsty. Both have committed war crimes, murders, terrorism, atrocities. Both are up to their eyeballs in the blood of innocents. Both sides are morally bankrupt. If I emphasise Israeli culpability here, it is because there is no shortage of Zionists accusing the Palestinians of the kinds of outrages yet remaining utterly silent on their own sides crimes. We all know about Palestinian terrorism. Yet few people posting here see Israeli crimes in the same light or attach the same level of moral and legal culpability to Israeli crimes. Israeli state-sponsored terrorism needs to be highlighted and condemned just as much and as loudly as Palestinian terrorism. Politically, the organisations that are closest to my perspective in the ME are almost all Israeli ones. The Palestinian people have been betrayed for decades by corrupt incompetent leaders in Fatah. I regard theocratic movements such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad or their equally repulsive equivalents on the Israeli side with unqualified horror. The politcal organisations that I agree with are found on the Israeli Left. Combatants for Peace is one group that I have often supported on these boards. I have repeatedly supported the existence of Israel, inside its internationally recognised borders. I boycott Israeli products as part of the international BDS movement and will continue to do so until the Occupation of Palestine ends. I urge everyone to do this too. When the Occupation ends, I will happily purchase any Israeli products I might happen to want. I have repeatedly advocated a two state solution as the best option. I have repeatedly condemned Israeli intransigence that has led to 18 years of negotiations that have delivered nothing. As thing stand, the reason for this deadlock is very clear - Israeli colonisation of the West Bank. Israel had a choice between expanding the colonies or negotiating with Abbas. Israel declined to take the option that leads to peace. I draw the only conclusion that the facts allow. I hope that you now understand my position clearly and that no more of the hysterical BS that characterises your post will re-occur. Demanding an end to the Occupation of Palestine and recognition of Palestinian self-determination doesn't equate to "annihilation of Israel" (as poor Willbur so quaintly put it), nor is it evidence of racism - it supporting peace with justice. I hope peace with justice for both Palestinians and Israelis is a goal you subscribe to.

tweakabelle -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/20/2011 6:34:21 PM)
quote: You want to know how long some of us will stand with Israel? Until you quit trying to kill them, until you quit lying, until you quit fabricating absolute bullshit, until you pull your head out of your ass long enough to understand, there is more than one dog in this fight and the other side carries not only its share of blame but also its share of unwillingness to negotiate. You know what's just as funny? You list the Palmer report as something you like to read to support your stance. That same report has been declared null and void by the very people you use it to defend. http://witnessgaza.com/ You fuck-twits can't even keep your own stories, sources, or arguments straight. The nasty aggressive tone of your post betrays your defensiveness on this issue. Usually I ignore such trash - the guilt behind your defensiveness is an issue for you to deal with not me. This arrogant ultra-defensiveness is a common response by pro-Zionists here. So let's see what happens when yours is examined: You've accused me of "trying to kill them [Israelis]" - "kill" !!! Are you serious?? Hysterical (in both senses of the word) seeing that I live in Australia far removed from the scene and have never tried to kill anyone. And then, in the very same sentence accuse me of "fabricating absolute bullshit"!!!! The person "fabricating absolute bullshit" is very clear in this instance. We don't have to go any further than the very same sentence to find the person "fabricating absolute bullshit" - it's you. Your allegation of my denying Palestinian culpability in the failure to resolve the ME conflict suggests that you're unaware of the many times I've condemned, for example, Hamas' war crimes in firing rockets into Israel on other threads. In fairness to you, you may not have read them. Let me clarify it for you: I regard both sides in the conflict as equally vicious and bloodthirsty. Both have committed war crimes, murders, terrorism, atrocities. Both are up to their eyeballs in the blood of innocents. Both sides are morally bankrupt. If I emphasise Israeli culpability here, it is because there is no shortage of Zionists accusing the Palestinians of all kinds of outrages yet remaining utterly silent on their own side's crimes, or even worse, trying to justify them. We all know about Palestinian terrorism. Yet few people posting here see Israeli crimes in the same light or attach the same level of moral and legal culpability to Israeli crimes. Israeli state-sponsored terrorism needs to be highlighted and condemned just as much and as loudly as Palestinian terrorism. Politically, the organisations that are closest to my perspective in the ME are almost all Israeli ones. The Palestinian people have been betrayed for decades by corrupt incompetent leaders in Fatah. I regard theocratic movements such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad or their equally repulsive equivalents on the Israeli side with unqualified horror. The politcal organisations that I agree with are found on the Israeli Left. Combatants for Peace is one group that I have often supported on these boards. I have repeatedly supported the existence of Israel, inside its internationally recognised borders. Like millions of people world wide, I boycott Israeli products as part of the international BDS movement and will continue to do so until the Occupation of Palestine ends. I urge everyone to do this too. When the Occupation ends, I will happily purchase any Israeli products I might happen to want. I have repeatedly advocated a two state solution as the best option. I have repeatedly condemned Israeli intransigence that has led to 18 years of negotiations that have delivered nothing. As thing stand, the reason for this deadlock is very clear - Israeli colonisation of the West Bank. Israel had a choice between expanding the colonies or negotiating with Abbas. Israel declined to take the option that leads to peace. I draw the only conclusion that the facts allow. I hope that you now understand my position clearly and that no more of the hysterical BS that characterises your post will re-occur. Demanding an end to the Occupation of Palestine and recognition of Palestinian self-determination doesn't equate to "annihilation of Israel" (as poor Willbur so quaintly put it), nor is it evidence of racism - it supporting peace with justice. I hope peace with justice for both Palestinians and Israelis is a goal you subscribe to.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/20/2011 7:44:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan You know what's just as funny? You list the Palmer report as something you like to read to support your stance. That same report has been declared null and void by the very people you use it to defend. http://witnessgaza.com/ You fuck-twits can't even keep your own stories, sources, or arguments straight. Hell, when you can selectively quote the parts you like and ignore repeated references to the ones you dont like (like the Israeli boarding complied with International Law), why not use it.

StrangerThan -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 4:01:15 AM)
You are certifiable tweak. Several times in this thread alone you have demonstrated either your ignorance of actual events, or willfully lied about them. As I said when I started this, both sides share blame. It's taken you 7 pages of rambling hatred to get to the point where you address that fact. If the Palestinians and Hamas want peace, they can easily have it. The first step to achieving it is to stop killing jews. End of story.

samboct -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 5:11:42 AM)
ST Well, if you and Tweak can take a step back, I suspect you'd find that you're on the same page. Both sides have bloody hands and the only way that peace has a chance is through a truce where both sides quit killing each other. I suspect that the conflict in Northern Ireland may prove instructive here. On a different thread, I've pointed out that the peace process here seems to be multigenerational and deeply flawed- for whatever reasons. If something hasn't worked in a couple of decades, I think it's time to try something else. Whether it works or not...at least a different solution was tried. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can use their history to justify their actions at this point- this isn't a case where understanding the other persons historical position is going to get anywhere. It's time to be pragmatic and cut a deal. This was the idea behind the UN- and who knows, maybe it'll even work? Sam

StrangerThan -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 6:17:50 AM)
I agree Sam, it's time to cut a deal. The deal the Arab League offers however is one that essentially says, we'll recognize you as a state if you retreat to what is at best an indefensible position, at worst effectively committing suicide as a nation. The issues as I see them are the Jordan Valley, a policing policy from the Arab League that actually has some teeth to it, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return. The blockade of Gaza exists for a reason. Israel has intercepted several arms shipments to Hamas. When I say policing policy, I mean when countries like Syria escalate the tension and strife, there needs to be real and enforceable actions, whether they be economic or military in nature. As far as tweak goes, we aren't on the same page. I understand her points, but I'm one of those people who if you're going to fuck me over, tell me up front and don't try to whitewash it with a truckload of bs. It's like invading Iraq. I'd have had a lot less problem with doing it if Bush had simply stepped up and said, Hussein needs to go and we're taking him out. Instead I got a lot of fear mongering and distortions. Every time she starts this Israel is evil and needs to be punished and is unlawful crap, and wants to know how long we will continue to support this "terrorist" state, I'll be here to tell her. If she wants to talk on ground that might actually accomplish something, I'm fine with that too. But listening to her wallowing, and effusive regurgitation of crap is not only irritating, but offensive.

samboct -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 9:14:34 AM)
Hi ST Reading Tweaks last post, I saw a viewpoint very similar to my own- i.e. both sides have bloody hands, neither side can claim moral superiority any longer (if it was ever possible) and it's now irrelevant- the timeline has dragged on too far. Perhaps the Palestinians going for statehood has provided a different take for a bunch of people. Time to reexamine how we all got here- and I say we because in the US, we do bear a certain culpability for Israel's actions given the enormous military support they receive- just the same way that the Arab states have supported the Palestinians. Sam

DomKen -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 10:25:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: So now answer the question was the Mavi Marmara in the hands of her crew or had the ship's passengers taken control of the ship? DK, I'll be happy to answer your question after you've given a serious answer to mine, posted prior to yours. After all if you're going to ignore my questions, you're not in a position to demand that I answer yours are you? My initial questions to you, in post # 110 were: "Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence". Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it? " I'm looking forward to hearing your answers (serious answers please), and then responding to your question. Whether the killing was legal or not is entirely dependent on the question you are refusing to answer. So was the crew telling the truth or not?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 10:28:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: So now answer the question was the Mavi Marmara in the hands of her crew or had the ship's passengers taken control of the ship? DK, I'll be happy to answer your question after you've given a serious answer to mine, posted prior to yours. After all if you're going to ignore my questions, you're not in a position to demand that I answer yours are you? My initial questions to you, in post # 110 were: "Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence". Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it? " I'm looking forward to hearing your answers (serious answers please), and then responding to your question. Whether the killing was legal or not is entirely dependent on the question you are refusing to answer. So was the crew telling the truth or not? You need to be more explicit with her. Whether the killing meets the legal definition of self defense is entirely dependent...... (If that is what you meant).

DomKen -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 10:37:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: So now answer the question was the Mavi Marmara in the hands of her crew or had the ship's passengers taken control of the ship? DK, I'll be happy to answer your question after you've given a serious answer to mine, posted prior to yours. After all if you're going to ignore my questions, you're not in a position to demand that I answer yours are you? My initial questions to you, in post # 110 were: "Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence". Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it? " I'm looking forward to hearing your answers (serious answers please), and then responding to your question. Whether the killing was legal or not is entirely dependent on the question you are refusing to answer. So was the crew telling the truth or not? You need to be more explicit with her. Whether the killing meets the legal definition of self defense is entirely dependent...... (If that is what you meant). Actually it is simpler than that. If the passengers had taken control of the ship they were either mutineers or pirates (depending on how you want to define each). In both cases summary execution is perfectly legal, see the pirates who took the Maersk Alabama.

tweakabelle -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 4:30:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: So now answer the question was the Mavi Marmara in the hands of her crew or had the ship's passengers taken control of the ship? DK, I'll be happy to answer your question after you've given a serious answer to mine, posted prior to yours. After all if you're going to ignore my questions, you're not in a position to demand that I answer yours are you? My initial questions to you, in post # 110 were: "Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence". Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it? " I'm looking forward to hearing your answers (serious answers please), and then responding to your question. Whether the killing was legal or not is entirely dependent on the question you are refusing to answer. So was the crew telling the truth or not? Excuse me DK I asked for a serious answer. A person has been shot in the back 5 times. The people who shot him claim they were acting in self defence. That excuse might be tenable if dead person shot in the back once (though even that would be a bit tenuous IMHO). But 5 times .... ? Credulity is further strained by the fact that the dead person was a civilian and the people who shot him were highly trained and experienced soldiers. We know the dead person had no firearms, though it is possible he may have had a knife or iron bar or something along those lines. Personally I don't find it easy to imagine an un(fire)armed person being a threat to anyone else if they have been shot once. Nor do I see how whether the surrounding circumstances are relevant. Everyone has a legal right to self defence at all times. The question is: was this self defence? So the questions remain unanswered: "Perhaps DomKen you can explain to us how shooting an American-Turkish citizen in the back 5 times, is an act of "self-defence". Even if you don't have an issue with Turkish-American citizens being shot in the back 5 times, I hope no one decides to exercise such 'rights' of self defence on you. That would clearly be murder wouldn't it? " How would you feel if someone exercised their right to self defence on you, or someone close to you in this manner?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 4:41:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle How would you feel if someone exercised their right to self defence on you, or someone close to you in this manner? If he would put himself in a position where it would be legal to sink the ship or take any other action, as the flotilla did, then he's accepted that he may have to suffer the consequences. If he didnt think it through, his bad.

tweakabelle -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 5:48:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Hi ST Reading Tweaks last post, I saw a viewpoint very similar to my own- i.e. both sides have bloody hands, neither side can claim moral superiority any longer (if it was ever possible) and it's now irrelevant- the timeline has dragged on too far. Perhaps the Palestinians going for statehood has provided a different take for a bunch of people. Time to reexamine how we all got here- and I say we because in the US, we do bear a certain culpability for Israel's actions given the enormous military support they receive- just the same way that the Arab states have supported the Palestinians. Sam Sam, talking about solutions is preferable to talking about problems any time in my book. Most people see 3 options available to the parties to the ME conflict: (1) a one State solution, with all the residents of area living together in a democracy with equal rights for all. Currently, this is not any one's preferred option. (2) a two State solution, where Israel and Palestine co-existing in separate States. This is everyone's preferred option. Unfortunately 18 years of negotiations haven't been able to deliver a deal and there are increasing doubts about the viability of this option. (3) Indefinite continuation of the status quo. No body wants this, and it is unlikely to prove tenable in the long run. These are not the only possibilities but the remaining options are even less palatable than the current situation - they involve large scale war, ethnic cleansing and such horrors. Hopefully no one wants to go there. I like your suggestion that the Northern Ireland peace process has a lot to offer here. There are many lessons from the NI situation that could apply the ME, not the least of which is that two communities which have had knives at each other's throats for decades can find ways of living together peacefully. For any deal to work, both sides have to have, and give the other side, a viable future. Most historians trace the origins of World War II back to the one-sided peace treaty that ended World War I. The post-World War II strategy adopted by the Europeans - political co-operation and economic integration and inter-dependence - may also be instructive. The European model offers best guarantee of long term peace and security between neighbours .

StrangerThan -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 6:22:31 PM)
I can't imagine Jews and Palestinians living in a one state solution. Just thinking about it raises the specter of all the other Middle Eastern states that house large blocks of religious or ethnic minorities who have a long history of hating each other - like Sunnis and Shites. It's easier to find countries where one side suppresses the other than it is to find countries where they don't. And between the two, no matter who is in power, the charges will fly. So let's settle down to the real issues - the West Bank, the right of return, and Jerusalem. None of them are easy. I've wondered for a while though why Jerusalem could not exist like.. Vatican City, really belonging to no one, but open to all with security forces from everyone involved ensuring the peace, maybe even administered by the UN. Both sides have valid claims to the site. Both sides see it as a holy of holy. The issue always is, who owns it. From my perspective, there are enough people in the world who claim to be one or the other that it should have it's own heritage status. In fact a block that also includes Bethlehem, the laws of which allow no established state religion, and allow no standing military except for security forces. Those forces should be comprised in equal amounts of Jewish, Muslim, and an international component. The right of return, otherwise known as Palestinians repatriating Israel as citizens of Israel, otherwise known as essentially a single state solution inside Israel while allowing an autonomous Palestinian state right next to me. If I said, there would be no right of return, but was willing to drop trade barriers, assist in infrastructure and housing rebuilding, would there be enough common ground there to find a resolution? Don't ask me about the West Bank. I have no idea how you're supposed to basically cut a country in half and still ensure security. Forgive me for not believing that half the Arab world is suddenly ready to lie down with the lambs next to me if I do that.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 7:08:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan None of them are easy. I've wondered for a while though why Jerusalem could not exist like.. Vatican City, really belonging to no one, but open to all with security forces from everyone involved ensuring the peace, maybe even administered by the UN. Suppose that Rome was a holy site for Islam, and the Vactican City being split between the two. Not a pretty picture.

StrangerThan -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 7:19:45 PM)
The only pretty picture I can get out of the whole mess is a place that serves as both a buffer zone, and a place where religion cannot rule even though its very existence is crafted on top of the two biggest religions on earth. But yeah, making it work would be about as easy as getting pregnant and being male.

slvemike4u -> RE: Abbas formally announces U.N. membership bid (9/21/2011 7:23:11 PM)
Clancy wrote a book a while back wherein the solution to the issue of Jerusalem was something akin to an open city with security provided by the Swiss ala Vatican city....all backed by an American mobile division.In the book iirc the idea was Isreal's security was insured by the presence of the American cavalry division,a trip wire if you want....and the impartiality of the Swiss guard was respected by all parties. Remove Jerusalem from the equation...and the issue become the right of return,which is possible to resolve thru compensation, and the West Bank.... Israel's security is guaranteed by the presence of American troops,Jerusalem is an open city( given the claim three of the worlds major religions can make to sites there ,this is as it should be ) this leaves borders to be negotiated....a not insurmountable task.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625