PDA

View Full Version : The Solution to the Israeli / Palestinian Conflict




Oratio
09-23-2007, 07:02 PM
In any situation, it is necessary to define the problem.

In fact and in deed, if such were not the case, you would not be looking at a computer screen right now.

How do I know that?

Because I have spent my life as a computer systems analyst, software engineer, and computer systems consultant.

In the field of computing, you have to define the problem before a solution can be presented.

The problem with the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is that both desire the land of Palestine.

Therefore, a two state solution would seem the most logical choice. Getting the parties to agree on a two state solution is the next phase of the problem because certain factions on both sides will not agree to a two state solution, both claiming the other has "no right to exist".

But this problem can be overcome by a vote of the people on both sides.

I'm willing to bet that the people themselves, on both sides, would agree to a two state solution, if the question were proposed to them.

If the choice was put to the people and they did agree that a two state solution was the solution to the problem, the next problem would be how to divide the land where both parties would be satisfied with the borders.

And to that end, the solution is elementary. One side gets to propose the borders, drawing them out, but the other side get to choose which state they want. In other words, one side draws out the two states, the other side gets to pick which state they want.

This would be a solution in which both sides would be forced to be fair to the other.

But mind you, in the conflict that is the Middle East, there are those forces which do not want to see an end to the conflict, mainly arms merchants and other "interests", because they profit from the conflict, and it is in their interests that the conflict continue.

I only propose my thoughts on the issue for your consideration.

Peace.

libertythor
09-23-2007, 07:05 PM
We really shouldn't get involved. Trying to convince either side to stop antagonizing is like arguing on the internet....(the following statement is just a joke guys!!!!:D ) "Arguing endlessly is like the Special Olympics; even if you win you are still retarded."

rodent
09-23-2007, 07:13 PM
In any situation, it is necessary to define the problem.

In fact and in deed, if such were not the case, you would not be looking at a computer screen right now.

How do I know that?

Because I have spent my life as a computer systems analyst, software engineer, and computer systems consultant.

In the field of computing, you have to define the problem before a solution can be presented.

The problem with the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is that both desire the land of Palestine.

Therefore, a two state solution would seem the most logical choice. Getting the parties to agree on a two state solution is the next phase of the problem because certain factions on both sides will not agree to a two state solution, both claiming the other has "no right to exist".

But this problem can be overcome by a vote of the people on both sides.

I'm willing to bet that the people themselves, on both sides, would agree to a two state solution, if the question were proposed to them.

If the choice was put to the people and they did agree that a two state solution was the solution to the problem, the next problem would be how to divide the land where both parties would be satisfied with the borders.

And to that end, the solution is elementary. One side gets to propose the borders, drawing them out, but the other side get to choose which state they want. In other words, one side draws out the two states, the other side gets to pick which state they want.

This would be a solution in which both sides would be forced to be fair to the other.

But mind you, in the conflict that is the Middle East, there are those forces which do not want to see an end to the conflict, mainly arms merchants and other "interests", because they profit from the conflict, and it is in their interests that the conflict continue.

I only propose my thoughts on the issue for your consideration.

Peace.

It's always the 10% screwing everything up for the 90%. In our country, it's the 1% screwing everything up for the 99%.

In fact, this has been true for most of history. Ron Paul's view is nothing short of genuinely revolutionary, even if the revolution happened to start around 200 years ago.

ItsTime
09-23-2007, 07:18 PM
their problem not ours

Oratio
09-23-2007, 07:55 PM
We really shouldn't get involved.

The fact of the matter is, and the reality of it is, you are already involved.

Therefore, to end the involvment requires only one of two choices. Present a/the solution to the problem, or withdraw completely from the conflict.

The chances of the latter happening are slim to none, given the security situation in the middle east due to our "national crack" - oil.

If that region of the earth did not contain vast amounts of oil, it would not affect the security of the US.

Another possibility is the creation of an alternative to oil as a fuel source, which would go against the "interests" of some of the world's most powerful corporations - the Oil Barons.

Fortunately, as I proposed some 5 years ago, someone has done exactly what I proposed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk

Brian4Liberty
09-23-2007, 08:02 PM
In any situation, it is necessary to define the problem.

In fact and in deed, if such were not the case, you would not be looking at a computer screen right now.

How do I know that?

Because I have spent my life as a computer systems analyst, software engineer, and computer systems consultant.

In the field of computing, you have to define the problem before a solution can be presented.

The problem with the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is that both desire the land of Palestine.

Therefore, a two state solution would seem the most logical choice. Getting the parties to agree on a two state solution is the next phase of the problem because certain factions on both sides will not agree to a two state solution, both claiming the other has "no right to exist".

But this problem can be overcome by a vote of the people on both sides.

I'm willing to bet that the people themselves, on both sides, would agree to a two state solution, if the question were proposed to them.

If the choice was put to the people and they did agree that a two state solution was the solution to the problem, the next problem would be how to divide the land where both parties would be satisfied with the borders.

And to that end, the solution is elementary. One side gets to propose the borders, drawing them out, but the other side get to choose which state they want. In other words, one side draws out the two states, the other side gets to pick which state they want.

This would be a solution in which both sides would be forced to be fair to the other.

But mind you, in the conflict that is the Middle East, there are those forces which do not want to see an end to the conflict, mainly arms merchants and other "interests", because they profit from the conflict, and it is in their interests that the conflict continue.

I only propose my thoughts on the issue for your consideration.

Peace.

Inaccurate problem statements are often the result of not seeing the whole picture, and misinformation provided by persons who purposely try to twist issues based on hidden agendas and politics. And I am just talking about software...

Paulestinian
09-23-2007, 08:19 PM
A two state solutions is not acceptable to either side. I'm a Palestinian and would accept nothing but to return to the house and farm where my grandparents lived and where my parents were born . In Steven Spielberg's movie "Munich" , there's a scene where an Israeli asks a Palestinian: ""Tell me something, Ali, do you really miss your father's olive trees?" and I assure you that the answer to this question would be a resounding "Yes" by the vast majority of the millions of Palestinian refugees around the world even those who had never set foot in Palestine.

Now, personally, a one state solution (a la South Africa) is something that I would consider but only under certain conditions.

And those who say that this conflict is because Muslims hate Jews or vice versa are wrong. Palestinians have nothing against Jews for being Jews but rather with Jews kicking them out of their homes and taking their lands. We would fight against anyone occupying our lands were they Jews or Eskimos. This conflict is not inherently a religious conflict even though both sides use religion to justify their actions.

All the Palestinians are asking for is to be left alone to sort out their problems with no US intervention. They don't want money, weapons, political support or anything else but ask that the US not interfere in this conflict.

dircha
09-23-2007, 08:34 PM
The simple truth is that time will resolve the issue. Time always does.

In due time we will reach the point where those Palestinian land owners whose property was seized will be dead and buried, and those Israelis who seized their property and wronged them will likewise be gone and forgotten. Or perhaps Israel will collapse.

One thing is certain. Time marches on, and in time this present crisis too will be buried, left to the pages of history.

No doubt some believe we, if only as individuals, have a moral obligation to bring about justice in this matter. But there is injustice all over the world, more than we can ever right. What is a little more? Why should this matter be the one that demands our attention?

JosephTheLibertarian
09-23-2007, 08:38 PM
solution: do nothing =) favor no party over the other, leave the region. Let's just trade and talk

Corydoras
09-23-2007, 09:18 PM
One thing is certain. Time marches on, and in time this present crisis too will be buried, left to the pages of history.

Yes, we're a very young country and we will have to be very patient about this. After all, the Yugoslav war and its continuing aftermath involved territorial claims going back to the 1200s.

madcat033
09-23-2007, 09:52 PM
A two state solutions is not acceptable to either side. I'm a Palestinian and would accept nothing but to return to the house and farm where my grandparents lived and where my parents were born . In Steven Spielberg's movie "Munich" , there's a scene where an Israeli asks a Palestinian: ""Tell me something, Ali, do you really miss your father's olive trees?" and I assure you that the answer to this question would be a resounding "Yes" by the vast majority of the millions of Palestinian refugees around the world even those who had never set foot in Palestine.

Well, I think the major problem is that both sides have legitimate gripes. Yes, your ancestors were removed from their homes. However, is it really worth eternal war? Terrorism? Raising your kids in bloodshed? Is it worth it to continually fuck over your people because of an inability to get over an event in the past? I don't deny you the fact that being removed from your homes sucks. However, I don't think that what they are doing is making it any better, at all.

And the Jews have been fucked over throughout their entire existence. I mean, they were living in that region before the Palestinians. And they were repeatedly invaded and enslaved by multiple groups. And then they were discriminated against and treated poorly by nearly ALL European countries, and were on the receiving end of the worst genocide in history...

And to top it off, they didn't even kick you out. The british GAVE them Israel. It was promised to them. So then they get fucked over even more. They are given a home, and then suddenly they are invaded by every country in the region? And constantly hated / threatened? Sucks...


Now, personally, a one state solution (a la South Africa) is something that I would consider but only under certain conditions.

And those who say that this conflict is because Muslims hate Jews or vice versa are wrong. Palestinians have nothing against Jews for being Jews but rather with Jews kicking them out of their homes and taking their lands. We would fight against anyone occupying our lands were they Jews or Eskimos. This conflict is not inherently a religious conflict even though both sides use religion to justify their actions.

The Jews didn't kick you out. The British did. The British GAVE your land to the Jews. With the consent of the UN.

The bottom line is... yeah, it sucks. But it's not worth eternal warfare. Your people will never advance if they keep this up. Is it worth throwing away your people's future for this? Honestly??

I mean, everyone has been wronged before. We kicked out the Native Americans, you don't see them suicide bombing us. Yeah, I'm sure they aren't happy that their people were forcefully removed and murdered, et cetera. But they got over it.

I know it sucks that your people got kicked out. But right now, YOU are the bad guys. You are the ones constantly attacking Israel. You are the ones suicide bombing. You are the ones who raise kids with AK-47s. That does not earn you sympathy and it does not help your people.


All the Palestinians are asking for is to be left alone to sort out their problems with no US intervention. They don't want money, weapons, political support or anything else but ask that the US not interfere in this conflict.

O RLY?

From wikipedia:


Due to the specific conditions of the disputed territories, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has received unprecedented financial support from the international community. According to the World Bank, USD $929 million were given by the international community to the PNA in 2001, $891 million in 2003 and $1.1 billion in 2005 (representing 53% of the budget in 2005). The main objectives are support to the budget, development aid and public health. In 2003, the US funded $224 million, the EU $187 million, the Arab League $124 million, Norway $53 million, the World Bank $50 million, the United Kingdom $43 million, Italy $40 million, and the last $170 million by others. According to the World Bank, the budget deficit was about of $800 million in 2005, with nearly half of it financed by donors. "The PA's fiscal situation has become increasingly unsustainable mainly as a result of uncontrolled government consumption, in particular a rapidly increasing public sector wage bill, expanding social transfer schemes and rising net lending," said the World Bank report. Government corruption is widely seen as the cause of much of the PA financial difficulties.

Without foreign aid, there would BE NO Palestinians. You can't afford anything on your own. And you know why? Because you are too focused on war. You haven't diverted any resources to actually, you know, improving your economic conditions for the homes you DO have. Instead, you put all your money into fighting Israel and your people still live in third world conditions.

So no, that isn't what the Palestinians want. They NEED foreign aid to survive. And also, saying they are trying to "sort out their problems" is a joke. Suicide bombing does NOT equal sorting out your problems in any way shape or form. Being endlessly stubborn and violent is NOT sorting out problems. They don't talk, they don't negotiate. Don't kid yourself.

Paulestinian
09-23-2007, 10:32 PM
However, is it really worth eternal war?

Easy for you to say. If this were to happen to you, you would have every right to stand up for yourself and defend your land and I would expect nothing less from a patriotic American.


And the Jews have been fucked over throughout their entire existence. I mean, they were living in that region before the Palestinians.

Palestinians don't disagree that Jewish people had been treated poorly by many nations on earth. But, the fundamental point that many people miss is that Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity, a race or a people. Jews have been living in Palestine for hundreds of year, and so have Christians and Muslims. Those people have every right to be there. They are Palestinian Christians, Palestinian Muslims and yes, Palestinian Jews!!! The problem started when Russian/Ethiopian/German/whatever Jews whose homeland is Russia/Ethiopia/Germany/whatever claimed to have a right to the land where Palestinians lived and decided to forcefully remove them from their land (with the assistance of the British, as you mentioned, and later the Americans). And who gives the British or the UN the right to give someone else's land to a third party? I can promise your house to my friend, does that give him the right to throw you out on the street?



I know it sucks that your people got kicked out. But right now, YOU are the bad guys. You are the ones constantly attacking Israel. You are the ones suicide bombing. You are the ones who raise kids with AK-47s. That does not earn you sympathy and it does not help your people.


How can they be the bad guys, if what they're trying to do is to defend themselves and demand their rights?? Palestinians have been experiencing genocide for the past 60 Years and you call them the bad guys simply because they are standing up for their rights? You would do the same thing if you were in their position. The Native Americans didn't fight back and were effectively wiped out, if the Palestinians did the same they would disappear in no time. Your solution is for the Palestinians to give up their fight, accept what has happened to them and just forget it?? That's not even close to elementary justice. And don't forget that the middle east region still remembers the crusades, so a war that's 60 years old is considered brand new.



Without foreign aid, there would BE NO Palestinians. You can't afford anything on your own. And you know why? Because you are too focused on war. You haven't diverted any resources to actually, you know, improving your economic conditions for the homes you DO have. Instead, you put all your money into fighting Israel and your people still live in third world conditions.

You think that money actually made it to the Palestinian people??? They had a corrupt government stealing all the money. Palestinians don't live in poverty because they're waiting for the world to feed them. Palestinians live in poverty because the Israelis choke every resource they have access to and prevent them from living like human beings. If they were allowed to live they'd do well.

Once again, all what the Palestinians want is for the US and anyone else not to interfere in the conflict ie. stop providing F-16s , Apache helicopters, and cluster bombs for the Israelis to use against children in Palestine/Lebanon/[Insert your favorite middle eastern country here]. Palestinians have nothing to fight back with, no weapons, no army, nothing, except for a few primitive rockets. Suicide bombing happens out of desperation and occupation. If you corner someone they will fight back with anything they have. What else can one do when faced by an overwhelming arsenal demolishing their homes and killing their families while they sleep?

Ron Paul is absolutely right, intervention throws everything out of whack. I disagree with Reagan's idea that Middle Eastern politics is irrational though. It's really very simple, A occupies B, B fights back. This conflict will rage on for years, perhaps even centuries, until justice is served. No justice, No peace. It's a sad reality, but it's a reality and we'll have to live with it.

And please don't think that I'm anti-American in any way. I just don't appreciate American foreign policy and I truly believe that the American people are fair people and if they were to fully understand the conflict then they would react differently.

madcat033
09-23-2007, 11:17 PM
The problem started when Russian/Ethiopian/German/whatever Jews whose homeland is Russia/Ethiopia/Germany claimed to have a right to the land where Palestinians live and decided to forcefully remove them from their land (with the assistance of the British, as you mentioned, and later the Americans). And who gives the British or the UN the right to give someone else's land to a third party? I can promise your house to my friend, does that give him the right to throw you out on the street?

Well, the reason the British could give it away is because it was one of their colonies. This was the time of imperialism. Of course nowadays we look down on imperialism, but at the time Palestine was a British colony so they could give it away.

But again, it's not Israel's fault that they were promised and given this land.



How can they be the bad guys, if what they're trying to do is to defend ourselves and claim our land back?? Palestinians have been experiencing genocide for the past 60 Years and you call them the bad guys simply because they are standing up for their rights? You would do the same thing if you were in their position.

Because you aren't just defending yoruselves and claiming your land back. First of all, the Palestinians have NOT been experiencing genocide. I wrote an essay a few months ago about genocides actually, and the definition of genocide, and the Palestinians are NOT victims of any genocide.

And secondly, you are not defending anything anymore. You are attacking Israel. True or False: if Palestine stopped attacking Israel, would the war not be over? Israel has made several concessions. They have been giving land back. They do not want war with Palestinians. You are the ones who keep the war going. You are the ones who suicide bomb. You are the ones who are the aggressors of this war. You are the ones who resort to terrorism. That makes you the bad guys.



You think that money actually made it to the Palestinian people??? They had a corrupt government stealing all the money. Palestinians don't live in poverty because they're waiting for the world to feed them. Palestinians live in poverty because the Israelis choke every resource they have access to and prevent them from living like human beings.

Whether or not the money made it to the Palestinian people is irrelevant. It's not anyone else's fault that your government is corrupt. And please tell me, how do the Israelis choke every resource you have access to? How do the Israelis prevent you from living like human beings?

Without the Israelis, you wouldn't even have electricity. You get a majority of your electricity from Israel, and you don't even pay for it! Your government has massive unpaid debt to Israel. Yet still, the Israelis continue to give you electricity. Can you imagine what it would be like to be in Israel's position? If they wanted to, they could put all of Palestine in the dark. I don't doubt that Palestine would cut off Israel were the situation reversed.

from http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3208477,00.html


Will the Israel Electric Corp cut off supplies to the Palestinian Authority? Israel’s leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has learned that the Palestinian Authority’s arrears to the Electric company recently reached unprecedented heights, with a bill totaling NIS 220 million (USD 47 million).

“With any other costumer we would have switched off the switch,” a senior official in the Electric company said.

Under agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the Electric company supplies electricity to Palestinian cities and the Palestinian government is responsible for collecting payments. But over the last five years of violence most Palestinians are unable to pay their electric bills and the Palestinian Authority is doing little to tackle the problem.

So the Israelis are giving you electricity even though you have not paid your bill, yet you say "Palestinians live in poverty because the Israelis choke every resource they have access to and prevent them from living like human beings." Excuse me, but Israel is the only thing ALLOWING you to live like human beings. Without them, you would be living in the dark. Stop making scapegoats. The only reason you live in poverty is because everyone is focused with terrorizing Israel instead of actually improving your own economic conditions. Violence and war is ruining your economy.

And even the power plants you do have are run from fuel given to you by the European Union. You are on everyone's life support because you won't take care of yourselves.



Once again, all what the Palestinians want is for the US not to interfere in the conflict ie. stop providing F-16s , Apache helicopters, and cluster bombs for the Israelis to use against children in Palestine/Lebanon/[Insert your favorite middle eastern country here]. Palestinians have nothing to fight back with, no weapons, no army, nothing, except for a few primitive rockets. Suicide bombing happens out of desperation. If you corner someone they will fight back with anything they have. What else can one do when faced by an overwhelming arsenal demolishing your home and killing your family while they sleep?

Uhm, there is no "fighting back." The Palestinians are not cornered. They bring all this upon themselves. If they stopped attacking Israel, then they wouldn't HAVE war. Face it. You are not fighting back. You are attacking. If all the Palestinians were to stop attacking Israel, then the war would end immediately. Israel does not want to be at war with you. Israel does not attack or invade you or try to destroy your people. They have given you even more land recently. And if they wanted to, they could invade and take over and completely demolish you, because like you said, you have primitive weaponry. So tell me again how you are "fighting back?" Trust me, if Israel was truly attacking you, you wouldn't be able to fight back. That's for damn sure.

G-khan
09-23-2007, 11:26 PM
Isreal has already drawn out and picked the land it wants. They have no desire or intention to be forced to move - it sound good - won't happen.

fluoridatedbrainsoup
09-23-2007, 11:27 PM
You're proposing what that interviewer was driving for in the talk with the Iranian. I don't know enough about it, but like some others above me said, it's not our business. Right now we're subsidizing the conflict in our support for Israel. When you subsidize something, you get more of it..

noxagol
09-24-2007, 07:32 AM
Solution for us? Pull out, stop giving money, only talk to either when you can have both sat down and both have agreed to come to the talk. Otherwise, mind our own god damned business.

nexalacer
09-24-2007, 07:57 AM
madcat, I suggest you rethink the problem without using utilitarian relativist bullshit. I'm not going to go through your posts step by step, because without rethinking it, you're just going to post more drivel. But you're wrong.

jmarinara
09-24-2007, 08:05 AM
In any situation, it is necessary to define the problem.

In fact and in deed, if such were not the case, you would not be looking at a computer screen right now.

How do I know that?

Because I have spent my life as a computer systems analyst, software engineer, and computer systems consultant.

In the field of computing, you have to define the problem before a solution can be presented.

The problem with the Israeli / Palestinian conflict is that both desire the land of Palestine.

Therefore, a two state solution would seem the most logical choice. Getting the parties to agree on a two state solution is the next phase of the problem because certain factions on both sides will not agree to a two state solution, both claiming the other has "no right to exist".

But this problem can be overcome by a vote of the people on both sides.

I'm willing to bet that the people themselves, on both sides, would agree to a two state solution, if the question were proposed to them.

If the choice was put to the people and they did agree that a two state solution was the solution to the problem, the next problem would be how to divide the land where both parties would be satisfied with the borders.

And to that end, the solution is elementary. One side gets to propose the borders, drawing them out, but the other side get to choose which state they want. In other words, one side draws out the two states, the other side gets to pick which state they want.

This would be a solution in which both sides would be forced to be fair to the other.

But mind you, in the conflict that is the Middle East, there are those forces which do not want to see an end to the conflict, mainly arms merchants and other "interests", because they profit from the conflict, and it is in their interests that the conflict continue.

I only propose my thoughts on the issue for your consideration.

Peace.



Uhhhh, no.

First of all, the odds of getting an actual vote from Palestine is slim to none. Second, there's the matter of Jerusalem. Both sides want it, only one side can have it in your solution. Third, there's the rest of the Islamic world who wants to destroy Israel. Fourth, there's no guarantee that either side is going to like the borders being drawn. Fifth, it doesn't solve the problem of who really belongs there to begin with.

Sometimes I think the only solution for that problem is war between those two nations. A shame really. If they were reasonable, I'd say they should set up a country modeled after the US. One centralized limited government, but independent states that manage most of the rest of the affairs of society.

1000-points-of-fright
09-24-2007, 09:07 AM
The Israelis aren't going anywhere regardless of the ethics of them being there in the first place. I blame Hitler but that's beside the point. The Palestinians aren't going anywhere either. So why not make it one big country with full citizenship for the Palestinians. Some would object to being "Israelis" but wouldn't most just be glad to have a normal life? The trouble makers from both sides can be dealt with by law enforcement.

Starks
09-24-2007, 09:23 AM
A two-state solution is a must if there is to be any serious peace. We as a country shouldn't force the issue. The PLO and Israeli govt need to work this out on their own.

Paulestinian
09-24-2007, 08:40 PM
The Israelis aren't going anywhere regardless of the ethics of them being there in the first place. I blame Hitler but that's beside the point. The Palestinians aren't going anywhere either. So why not make it one big country with full citizenship for the Palestinians. Some would object to being "Israelis" but wouldn't most just be glad to have a normal life? The trouble makers from both sides can be dealt with by law enforcement.

A one state solution is the most reasonable and realistic solution out there where all Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their homes and everyone living there would be given equal rights and a vote. In 2006, Palestinians have proven that hey are able to hold fair elections and elect a representative government even though the US didn't approve of their choice. The elections were supervised by none other than Jimmy Carter himself amongst other international observers and with participation of around 75% of the Palestinian population eligible to vote.

And madcat, all your arguments fall flat on their face because you base them on a wrong assumption which transposes victim and aggressor. Until you understand the ROOT cause of the issues at hand you will never comprehend the problem or find a solution for it ever. The indigenous people of the land have been occupied by numerous nations from the Romans to the Crusaders to the Ottomans and now the Zionists and history shows over and over again that the indigenous people of the land will always outlast their occupiers even if the occupation were to last for centuries. Please read up on the conflict, and not just from the MSM. Ron Paul supporters are bright folks who analyze and dig deep into a subject before issuing a verdict or holding a position. I will not point you to what you should read or where you should look because I don't want to be accused of cherry picking my sources.

Thanks for a healthy discussion.

Sir VotesALot
09-24-2007, 09:01 PM
Here's a solution: Cut off all aid to Israel.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-24-2007, 09:11 PM
Here's a solution: Cut off all aid to Israel.

agreed

Paulestinian
09-24-2007, 09:24 PM
agreed

An even better solution: Leave the people of the middle east alone.

JosephTheLibertarian
09-24-2007, 09:25 PM
An even better solution: Leave the people of the middle east alone.

That is my stance.

Korey Kaczynski
09-24-2007, 10:25 PM
In any situation, it is necessary to define the problem.

In fact and in deed, if such were not the case, you would not be looking at a computer screen right now.

How do I know that?

Because I have spent my life as a computer systems analyst, software engineer, and computer systems consultant.

In the field of computing, you have to define the problem before a solution can be presented.

Oh, okay.

Dustancostine
09-24-2007, 11:02 PM
The Israelis aren't going anywhere regardless of the ethics of them being there in the first place. I blame Hitler but that's beside the point. The Palestinians aren't going anywhere either. So why not make it one big country with full citizenship for the Palestinians. Some would object to being "Israelis" but wouldn't most just be glad to have a normal life? The trouble makers from both sides can be dealt with by law enforcement.

Isn't this what Ahmadinejad suggested today? He called it a Palestinian state with everyone having an equal vote. You are calling for the same thing but called Israel.

Who cares what it is called, just have everyone have freedom and a vote.

Dustancostine
09-24-2007, 11:06 PM
A one state solution is the most reasonable and realistic solution out there where all Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their homes and everyone living there would be given equal rights and a vote.

BTW: Isn't this what started the whole mess in the first place? After leaving Palestine, didn't the Palestinians want one state with everyone being equal, but the Jewish population wanted a Jewish state, so they declared independence. The Palestinians fought back and have been fighting back for a one state solution for the last 60 years.


--Dustan

Dustancostine
09-24-2007, 11:08 PM
Here is a good site that talks about how Israel came to be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

It is ironic to learn that one of the main people who had influence in Britain's decision on what to do with Palestine when the British left was Rothchild. One of these Rothchilds:

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”
—Amschel Mayer Rothschild

--Dustan

1000-points-of-fright
09-24-2007, 11:24 PM
Isn't this what Ahmadinejad suggested today? He called it a Palestinian state with everyone having an equal vote. You are calling for the same thing but called Israel.

Who cares what it is called, just have everyone have freedom and a vote.

Palisraelistine.

There would need to be some kind of constitution that ensures a secular government. It's depressing that it would even be necessary. Fucking religion always ruins everything.