You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 04:30:10 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}  (Read 4034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PhaiaTopic starter

My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« on: May 20, 2011, 02:57:30 AM »
After reading and listening to the presidents vision for peace between Israel and the Arab world >:( :o   I realized it didn't go far enough!!

I think that the Only way to settled this is to have Israel retreat to the boundaries it had in spring of 1948. This should completely appease the Arab world ...after all it would give back all of the disputed lands. Of course the rebel Zionist army would have to be dealt with. I am sure the UN and the Arab worlds, backed by US support could impose a No Fly zone over the former Jewish lands. This to keep the rebel Zionist air force from kicking the ass of the combined Arab air forces.

Also the US could use strikes from missiles and air to drive back rebel Zionist terrorist military forces from overpowering the legitimate Arab forces. Should the rebel forces use any weapons of mass destruction , why of course the US should nuke the area. This would easily appease the Arabs and bring about a lasting and true peace to the middle east.


PLEASE NOTE THIS WAS INTENDED AS SARCASM!!!

Phaia

Offline Sure

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2011, 03:26:14 AM »
I find this distinctly unfunny and this attitude non-conducive to a serious dialogue on the region and Israel.

I put it to you, then, how do we deal with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

Offline PhaiaTopic starter

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2011, 08:21:13 PM »

I find it very unfunny that our president would even suggest an official vision that the 1967 boundaries should be restored. That would be like saying the US should restore the boundaries of Mexico before the mexian-american war, or return Puerto Rico to Spain.

If you want a suggestion then I would offer this as a start to a honest dialog. The Arab nation should recognize Israel's right to exist. Nearly every group from the PLO to Ha-mas to Syria wants the total destruction of Israel and denies they have a right to exist. Start with that and then honest talks can begin!

Phaia

Offline Sure

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2011, 09:05:45 PM »
Like it or not, however, it's a legitimate political view that has traction.

No, it really isn't. Not even a little. We've offered Puerto Rico it's independence multiple times. Puerto Rico is not inhabited by Spaniards. Similarly, both Texas and California, claimed in the Mexican-American Wars, asked the US to annex them after being granted independence. They were also not inhabited by Mexicans. Neither was a full annexation of an independent state either. Neither resulted in mass displacements of local populations. The differences go on.

You have failed to answer my question: How do want to deal with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? What resolution do you think would satisfactory to all parties? If you don't want an independent Palestine, what do you want to do with the Palestinians?

How would the Arabs recognizing Israel's right to exist help the situation? Other than giving Israel something it wants, I don't see how it helps resolve the tensions of the situation.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2011, 09:21:50 PM »
They don't need a peace plan when was the last major war with Israel and its neighbors over four decades ago, they have nukes that alone will keep any enemy from trying to attack them in a major way. As for the Palestinians - fuck them - they can rot.

There issue solved.


Offline Pointless Digression

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2011, 09:45:01 PM »
As for the Palestinians - fuck them - they can rot.

Quote from: RubySlippers' Signature
Do only that which is right.

Good night, everybody!

Offline Wyrd

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2011, 10:03:10 PM »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2011, 12:03:59 AM »
They don't need a peace plan when was the last major war with Israel and its neighbors over four decades ago, they have nukes that alone will keep any enemy from trying to attack them in a major way. As for the Palestinians - fuck them - they can rot.

There issue solved.

No.  Part of the problem was that the Palestinians let outside groups trick them into attacking. And when the Isreali forces didn't meekly roll over and show their bellies those same folks left them high and dry. The Syrians were perfectly happy to fight to the last Palestinian and Egyptian. Still are.

Isreal needs to back off of their settlements as a gesture to get Paletian moderates into place. The Palestians need to tell the rest of the Islamic countries to go to hell. The two governments need to fix their problems and realize the rest of the Arab counties want nothing more than them to fight each other. Forever. They are both the whipping boys of the rest of the region.

As for nukes I think everyone needs to consider how long Tel Aviv will be around once the Iranians program gets online. Then how long the Syrian, Turkey, and Gulf states will have before the are told to jump by the extremists in Tehran.

Anyone want to bet how long it will be before Tehran uses a Nike when they get one? Weeks? Months?

Offline Xenophile

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2011, 08:21:40 AM »
They don't need a peace plan when was the last major war with Israel and its neighbors over four decades ago, they have nukes that alone will keep any enemy from trying to attack them in a major way. As for the Palestinians - fuck them - they can rot.

There issue solved.

Why?

Offline Xenophile

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2011, 08:24:56 AM »
No.  Part of the problem was that the Palestinians let outside groups trick them into attacking. And when the Isreali forces didn't meekly roll over and show their bellies those same folks left them high and dry. The Syrians were perfectly happy to fight to the last Palestinian and Egyptian. Still are.

Isreal needs to back off of their settlements as a gesture to get Paletian moderates into place. The Palestians need to tell the rest of the Islamic countries to go to hell. The two governments need to fix their problems and realize the rest of the Arab counties want nothing more than them to fight each other. Forever. They are both the whipping boys of the rest of the region.

As for nukes I think everyone needs to consider how long Tel Aviv will be around once the Iranians program gets online. Then how long the Syrian, Turkey, and Gulf states will have before the are told to jump by the extremists in Tehran.

Anyone want to bet how long it will be before Tehran uses a Nike when they get one? Weeks? Months?

Honestly, the Iranians are more deathly afraid than prepared to launch a nuclear Jihad. I'm not sure if this is the reason, but I suspect it had it's part to play in the decision to start a nuclear weapons program; who would attack a country with Nukes? With nukes, they have, in their own reasoning, insured their independence. They have sought for means since the 18th century. But with fundamentalists at the helm?

It's anyone's guess.

Offline PhaiaTopic starter

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2011, 04:41:59 PM »

I present the official PLO charter which should be required reading for any diplomat trying to deal with this problem.

http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm

Please note several things, in Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

This is shows those boundaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png
If you note this includes all of Israel, as well as parts of other countries; perhaps those Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia should give up the area shown. This would then give Palestine a larger area then Israel.

Please read Article 9, it states clearly the only way Palestine can be liberated.

Article 14: The destiny of the Arab nation, and indeed Arab existence itself, depend upon the destiny of the Palestine cause. From this interdependence springs the Arab nation's pursuit of, and striving for, the liberation of Palestine. The people of Palestine play the role of the vanguard in the realization of this sacred (qawmi) goal.

I do not really think other nations are using Palestine so much as the PLO belief they are the vanguard and they are ones that lead.

Finally; Article 33: This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session convened for that purpose.

I have not found anything where a peaceful resolution as been voted on and passed to amend this charter.

So to answer Sure, how do I deal with the conflict. My first job would be to force all the various PLO factions to set down and amend their charter allowing a peaceful settlement and allowing a smaller region to be set aside as a Palestine Homeland. Without this I do not see any resolution. Since No matter if the borders were restored to 1967 a Palestine state would not exist by their own articles until they have all of Israel.

Phaia

Offline Sure

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2011, 09:33:03 PM »
I have read the PLO charter. I have also studied the history of this conflict. If I wanted to be really mean, I would ask you how the actions of the PLO are different from that of the Irgun. Or how you justify the Nabkah. Or Israel's various massacres.

Further, Israeli settlements are illegal, as the UN has declared. The only way to claim such settlements are legal is to claim that Israel's expulsion of Arabs and illegal settling of the land is legal (the only nation which says so being Israel, both actions being condemned by the UN). Do you have any defense there?

You have still failed to answer my question. How do want to deal with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? What resolution do you think would satisfactory to all parties? If you don't want an independent Palestine, what do you want to do with the Palestinians? Stating your 'first job' is not what I'm asking. I'm asking what the final scenario looks like and why it would be acceptable to both sides (so far you've mostly detailed out something acceptable to Israeli but not the Palestinians, I might add).

Israel likewise does not recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist. Would you force Israel to acknowledge that right as well? If not, why not?

Offline elone

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2011, 12:56:19 AM »
Bravo Sure!

I have been interested in this debate for a long time. The truth is that there is no solution because the two sides are in direct conflict with each other. Israel, the government that is, has no real interest in peace or negotiations. The status quo is to their benefit. They have spent energy and resources putting settlers into the West Bank in what can only be described as a planned land grab. Netanyahu  and his foreign minister Lieberman have no intention of negotiating with the Palestinians. If they did they would have agreed to extend the settlement freeze and keep talks going. This is a government of apartheid we are talking about.

Talking about the Palestinians agreeing to Israel's right to exist, The Arab league offered to normalize relations with Israel if they would go back to the 1967 borders. Again rejected. The Israeli's don't even call the land Palestine and deny it's existence. To them it is Judea and Samaria. Why don't we just turn the clock back thousands of years and go from there? Israel won't be appeased until they own all the land to the Jordan River.

Which brings us to the biblical connection. How often have we heard "God gave this land to us" What utter nonsense. Nothing but fables with no historical record. If you read Joshua, God told the Israeli's to kill every man, woman, and child etc. when they entered the land from exile. How ironic that one of the first genocides was perpetuated by the Israeli's.

Why the United States supports Israel, I just don't know. They killed our servicemen on the U.S.S Liberty, continually spy on us and steal our secrets, go against our wishes, deceived us on their nuclear program, refused to join non-proliferation, and now Netanyahu totally embarasses our president after their meeting.  What strategic value are they to us? The U.S. should just bow out and abstain and let the United Nations vote for sanctions and an acknowledgement of a Palestinian state. The Europeans are ready to do that.

The only solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will be a peace that is imposed on both of them and backed up by the United States and the world as a whole. The two of them will never be able to agree on a just and lasting peace.

My solution: go back to the 1967 borders, if the settlers want to live in Palestine, let them, after all that is the choice the Arabs got in 1948, at least the one's who weren't driven out or forced to flee for their lives. As for the right of return, never going to happen, but reparations should be paid tho those who lost their land and homes. Jerusalem should be a separate entity, open to all and governed by a committee of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, with United Nations oversight or an international court to decide disputes.

Note: The Israeli's will bomb Iran long before they pose a nuclear threat.

Offline frogman

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2011, 01:52:02 PM »
Bravo Sure!

I have been interested in this debate for a long time. The truth is that there is no solution because the two sides are in direct conflict with each other. Israel, the government that is, has no real interest in peace or negotiations. The status quo is to their benefit. They have spent energy and resources putting settlers into the West Bank in what can only be described as a planned land grab. Netanyahu  and his foreign minister Lieberman have no intention of negotiating with the Palestinians. If they did they would have agreed to extend the settlement freeze and keep talks going. This is a government of apartheid we are talking about.

Talking about the Palestinians agreeing to Israel's right to exist, The Arab league offered to normalize relations with Israel if they would go back to the 1967 borders. Again rejected. The Israeli's don't even call the land Palestine and deny it's existence. To them it is Judea and Samaria. Why don't we just turn the clock back thousands of years and go from there? Israel won't be appeased until they own all the land to the Jordan River.

Which brings us to the biblical connection. How often have we heard "God gave this land to us" What utter nonsense. Nothing but fables with no historical record. If you read Joshua, God told the Israeli's to kill every man, woman, and child etc. when they entered the land from exile. How ironic that one of the first genocides was perpetuated by the Israeli's.

Why the United States supports Israel, I just don't know. They killed our servicemen on the U.S.S Liberty, continually spy on us and steal our secrets, go against our wishes, deceived us on their nuclear program, refused to join non-proliferation, and now Netanyahu totally embarasses our president after their meeting.  What strategic value are they to us? The U.S. should just bow out and abstain and let the United Nations vote for sanctions and an acknowledgement of a Palestinian state. The Europeans are ready to do that.

The only solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict will be a peace that is imposed on both of them and backed up by the United States and the world as a whole. The two of them will never be able to agree on a just and lasting peace.

My solution: go back to the 1967 borders, if the settlers want to live in Palestine, let them, after all that is the choice the Arabs got in 1948, at least the one's who weren't driven out or forced to flee for their lives. As for the right of return, never going to happen, but reparations should be paid tho those who lost their land and homes. Jerusalem should be a separate entity, open to all and governed by a committee of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, with United Nations oversight or an international court to decide disputes.

Note: The Israeli's will bomb Iran long before they pose a nuclear threat.

This garbage lacks any intellectual integrity whatsoever.

First, it really depends on how you define apartheid... the Israelis don't have much choice since the Arabs strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded public areas.  When Israeli-Arabs sympathize with these terrorists and do it themselves, the government has a duty to its citizens to deal with them appropriately.  Arabs have no record of being trustworthy, and it's inconceivable that the Jewish state should allow people who hate Jews to reign freely in Israel.  Plus... in the greater political debate, a "second-class Arab-Israeli" has many more rights than first-class Arab citizens in the Arab nations.  I don't hear you complaining about human rights in the Arab world.  Honor killings, women's rights... where's the uproar over that?

Second, as far as the Arab League's offer, that's ridiculous.  The 1967 borders don't work because... well, Israel's neighbors weren't so content with them back in '67.  Any agreement has to be implementable.  What on earth makes you think the Arabs will accept peace?  If you want to talk about rejected offers, talk about the rejection of PM Barak's offer in 2000 when he offered up East Jerusalem and the West Bank (which was probably unimplementable anyway, but the difference is that the consequences of failure lies with the Israelis, not the Arabs).  It was the best offer ever put on the table from the Arabs' point of view, and they still rejected it because it wasn't enough.

Third, your biblical criticism is logically invalid.  If you deny the biblical connection to the land, then you must also deny the biblical claim of genocide in the land.  You can't have it both ways.  As far as your claim of fables with no historical record... that's just false.  Jewish archeological records in Israel are extremely vast and well-documented, and to claim otherwise is flat-out a lie and probably hidden with anti-Semitic hatred.  It's like denying the Holocaust.  Shame on you.

As far as Israel's strategic importance to the United States, there are two major reasons: intelligence and democracy.  Israeli intelligence is second to none, and the military cooperation between the two nations has benefited both tremendously.  Moreover, however, is Israel's commitment to democratic values.  There's no Arab nation that has even a whiff of democracy in it.  Egyptian democracy is a left-wing fantasy.  Saudi Arabia anybody?

The imposition of peace from outside derives its legitimacy from the idea of might makes right.  You want to interfere with a sovereign state and impose on it - that presupposes that you can do that because you are strong.  How ironic then that you charge that sovereign state with imposing its will on others.  Seems like a contradiction to me.  Of course you want to say that the difference is that you're "good" and they are "bad."  Aside from being objectively wrong, that's hypocritical to charge Israel with using its might.

Your solution has the head-in-the-clouds mentality and could never work.  Jerusalem would never survive as a separate entity.  The 1967 borders failed for a reason. 

I agree with you on one point: the Israelis will do all that they can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.  I don't know that bombing them will work just because Iran's nuclear operations are more spread out than Iraq or Syria, but it's not impossible to foresee such an action.

If you want to understand the Middle East conflict, you have to understand a few points:
1. The term Palestinian was invented by the PLO... before 1964, the term referred to Jews living in Israel.  Check the archives if you don't believe me.
2. There are 21 Arab states that are hundreds of times larger than Israel.  Israel was created to be a Jewish state; the Arabs have more than enough land for these "refugees."
3. Only with the "Palestinians" does the UN include descendents of refugees as refugees.  In Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, etc. only those who were actually displaced got refugee status.  The reason there's so many refugees is that Arab states are putting pressure on Israel by refusing to allow them into their own countries.  The "Palestinians" are an Arab invention used to keep political pressure on Israel.
4. Either way, Israel is legitimate.  If you go by history, then Israel was certainly around well before the Arabs.  If you go by the fact that the UN decided that there would be an Israel, then they're legitimate by the fact they've survived 60+ years.  Arab legitimacy in the region is only by the fact that the UN originally intended that they'd be there.  However, Arab aggression has de faco delegitimized their right to be there.  They have no interest in coexistence with Jews. 

Offline Avis habilis

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2011, 02:50:02 PM »
You're free to call an argument or position inane - even ridiculous - if you like, but ad hominem accusations, whether of anti-Semitism or anything else, are right out. Keep it polite or the thread gets locked.

Offline Noelle

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2011, 05:18:32 PM »
My solution?



You're welcome.

Offline Starlequin

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2011, 05:37:31 PM »
I was in a fight like that once.

Trust me, they'd be safer with machine guns.

Offline frogman

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2011, 11:48:39 PM »
You're free to call an argument or position inane - even ridiculous - if you like, but ad hominem accusations, whether of anti-Semitism or anything else, are right out. Keep it polite or the thread gets locked.

Feel free to tell me, either here or via PM, how it's an ad hominem accusation.  I'd love to hear your explanation.  There's no controversy over the existence of Jews in Israel preceding Muslims.  The Old City of Jerusalem is living, incontrovertible proof of that.  Denying Jewish history in Israel is not an argument; it's revisionism.  What's ad hominem is the delegitimization of Jewish history.  I'm sure you can figure out for yourself historically what the motives for such delegitimization are.  I hope you can, because apparently I'm being censored from being any more explicit.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #18 on: June 14, 2011, 02:31:27 AM »
An ad hominem fallacy is made when you accuse the person making the argument of being something distasteful - such as 'Oniya claims that the sky is blue, but she's a porn-writer' (with the implication that because I'm a porn-writer, nothing I say is of any validity.)  In your third 'point paragraph', you use the phrase 'probably hidden with anti-Semitic hatred.  It's like denying the Holocaust.  Shame on you,' which implies that the person making the argument is making it is 'probably anti-Semetic', especially with the 'you'.  Whether or not the person's statement is true or false, it is an unacceptable tactic in proper debate.

Offline frogman

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2011, 04:06:58 AM »
An ad hominem fallacy is made when you accuse the person making the argument of being something distasteful - such as 'Oniya claims that the sky is blue, but she's a porn-writer' (with the implication that because I'm a porn-writer, nothing I say is of any validity.)  In your third 'point paragraph', you use the phrase 'probably hidden with anti-Semitic hatred.  It's like denying the Holocaust.  Shame on you,' which implies that the person making the argument is making it is 'probably anti-Semetic', especially with the 'you'.  Whether or not the person's statement is true or false, it is an unacceptable tactic in proper debate.

Your implications are not true.  The statement in question here is the following: 'Jewish archeological records in Israel are extremely vast and well-documented, and to claim otherwise is flat-out a lie and probably hidden with anti-Semitic hatred.  It's like denying the Holocaust.  Shame on you.'

Look very closely after the comma... 'and to claim otherwise is flat-out a lie and probably hidden with anti-Semitic hatred.'  So the implication is that the claim is probably hidden with anti-Semitic hatred.  As far as the 'shame on you,' that's for espousing such a claim.  In that light, the only thing unacceptable here is the claim itself.

Offline Shjade

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2011, 11:02:13 AM »
And suggesting someone should be ashamed for espousing a claim is suggesting they've done something wrong by making it, thereby attacking the person for their point of view, thereby making use of ad hominem.

Offline frogman

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #21 on: June 14, 2011, 12:57:13 PM »
And suggesting someone should be ashamed for espousing a claim is suggesting they've done something wrong by making it, thereby attacking the person for their point of view, thereby making use of ad hominem.

I don't follow your logic... suggesting someone should be ashamed for espousing a claim is suggesting they've done something wrong by making it, thereby attacking their point of view, not the person.

If you want to attack my position, then tell me why denying Jewish connection to the land of Israel is any different than denying that more than 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.

Either way, in a vain attempt to get us back on topic, how's this for an emended paragraph:

Third, your biblical criticism is logically invalid.  If you deny the biblical connection to the land, then you must also deny the biblical claim of genocide in the land.  You can't have it both ways.  If there was a genocide (with Divine consent it must be noted), then there is a connection.  If there is no connection, then you have no basis to state that Jews committed genocide.  Yet you want to claim there is no connection but there was a genocide.  False.

I should also point out an apparent misconception in the biblical connection argument - Israelis refer to citizens of the state of Israel.  Obviously there was no nation-state back then (it was founded in 1948).  They were Jews.  Most Israelis are Jews, and many Jews are Israelis, but not all Israelis are Jews, and not all Jews are Israelis.  If you insist that Israelis committed the genocide back then, then I guess they do have connection to Israel.  Imagine that! 

Offline jewess

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #22 on: June 14, 2011, 05:20:36 PM »
I really don't think there will ever be peace there. The Arabs have always just wanted Israel to cease to exist, when they've negotiated it has never been in good faith and they've rejected every offer. They'll never get a better deal than the ones they already rejected. The world always pressures Israel to give up everything, but even asking thePalestinians for the most basic compromises (like stopping incitement, for example the suicide bomber kindergarten classes) is considered unreasonable. There won't ever be peace, having Israel as a scapegoat for all their problems is too valuable to the Arab countries.

It's very sad.

Offline Shjade

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #23 on: June 14, 2011, 08:02:15 PM »
I don't follow your logic... suggesting someone should be ashamed for espousing a claim is suggesting they've done something wrong by making it, thereby attacking their point of view, not the person.
Ah, but you aren't attacking their point of view. You're attacking them for declaring their point of view, condemning their actions and, in so doing, the person so acting. You wouldn't be shaming someone who simply had an opinion with which you disagreed if they didn't voice it since, well, you wouldn't know, would you?

The amended paragraph looks rather more on-point.

Offline Asuras

Re: My middle east Peace plan!! {Sarcasm intended}
« Reply #24 on: June 14, 2011, 09:45:46 PM »
I used to argue this one a lot in college but I came to realize that even though most political arguments are as futile as pounding your head into a brick wall, this one is more like using a jackhammer to pound your head into a ten-foot thick block of titanium.

  • There is an incredible tendency to start scoreboarding atrocities on either side. I don't see the point of that.
  • There is a ton of talk about things that happened 50, a 100, or even a thousand years ago mainly about who owns what and why. I don't see the point of that either.
  • What I do see the point of is that when people are dying, you should be talking about solutions to the problem. But instead we spend most of our time talking about who's responsible for the current situation and why they're so nasty, which has nothing to do with a solution. That's not a question useful in solving today's problems, that's a question for historians.

Talking about an actual solution would be talking about which territories the Palestinians get and which territories the Israelis get and what the security considerations are and the right of return and blah blah blah nah let's just argue about who's nastier and pretend this has anything to do with saving peoples' lives.