Politiks

agentkgb · Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:30 pm Israel-Palestine?

Is there a solution, if so what? I'm a pessimist, and I'm not sure it can ever be ended. If it is, Jerusalem would have to be owned by neither IMO, it's too important to both religions.

NightSnake · Tue May 01, 2007 8:54 pm

Palestine would have to have secure borders, an actual military, collect its own taxes, etc. Totally separate from Israeli power basically, otherwise Israel couldn't stay in a stable Middle East.

Matt · Fri May 04, 2007 12:26 am Re: Israel-Palestine?

agentkgb wrote: If it is, Jerusalem would have to be owned by neither IMO, it's too important to both religions.
Probably so, but who would control it, certainly not the UN...

Maximus Vigilus · Fri May 04, 2007 12:28 am Re: Israel-Palestine?

Matt wrote: agentkgb wrote: If it is, Jerusalem would have to be owned by neither IMO, it's too important to both religions.
Probably so, but who would control it, certainly not the UN...

God, help us the UN would end up making it worse.

Citizen187 · Fri May 04, 2007 10:03 pm

Maybe divide the city.

Matt · Sat May 05, 2007 12:05 am

Citizen187 wrote: Maybe divide the city.
Yeah sure, why not, worked so well in Berlin.

Maximus Vigilus · Sat May 05, 2007 12:16 am

Citizen187 wrote: Maybe divide the city.

That would cause far more problems.

Citizen187 · Sat May 05, 2007 1:57 am

You couldn't do it anything like Berlin, but perhaps work it out so that each has easier access to their specific holy sites. Knowing nothing about the actual locations of things in Jerusalem, I don't know if that actually makes sense at all.

Redneck · Sat May 05, 2007 4:18 am

I think there should be a Palastinian state, however I do not think the US or any other nation should be invovled in the creation of one, with the exception being Israel. the Israelis are the ones who will end up dealing with what ever happened if the Palastinians got their own state, and since both sides are arguing over the same land the creation of a state wouldn't be amicable. The Israelis wouldn't give the Palatinians any good land, so the Palastinians would feel that they were cheated and that would lead to even more tention.

Maximus Vigilus · Sat May 05, 2007 9:43 pm

Quote: I think there should be a Palastinian state, however I do not think the US or any other nation should be invovled in the creation of one

Without a major power behind the creation of such a state it would never succeed, would there be potential problems if only the US was involved, yes there would be, which is why all major powers need to be involved. When a major power cuts itself away from world issues and does get involved problems occur everytime.

Quote: The Israelis wouldn't give the Palatinians any good land, so the Palastinians would feel that they were cheated and that would lead to even more tention.

Which is why major powers should get involved.

Redneck · Sat May 05, 2007 9:55 pm

See thats the issue, if the powers got involved they would favor Israel. especially the US and the UK. Israel is one of their biggest allies so they'd make sure Israel was satisfied with the deal. the hardline Muslims also want Israel exterminated, so as long as Israel and Hardliners exist there will be problems.

agentkgb · Sun May 06, 2007 12:58 am

Maximus Vigilus wrote: Quote: I think there should be a Palastinian state, however I do not think the US or any other nation should be invovled in the creation of one

Without a major power behind the creation of such a state it would never succeed, would there be potential problems if only the US was involved, yes there would be, which is why all major powers need to be involved. When a major power cuts itself away from world issues and does get involved problems occur everytime.
Redneck wrote: See thats the issue, if the powers got involved they would favor Israel. especially the US and the UK. Israel is one of their biggest allies so they'd make sure Israel was satisfied with the deal. the hardline Muslims also want Israel exterminated, so as long as Israel and Hardliners exist there will be problems.
IMO, you're both right, without major powers, nothing happens, with major powers, what does happen doesn't work. The only way out of it I see is to have Saudi Arabia or something involved as well as the major western powers, but then it seems unlikely they could come to an agreement in fifty years, so you're still nowhere. :|

Maximus Vigilus · Sun May 06, 2007 3:43 am

Quote: See thats the issue, if the powers got involved they would favor Israel.

Most would but some would support fixing the problem, all I'm saying however is that without major power backing no one will take anything seriously anyway.

Bob Frankenberry · Mon May 07, 2007 4:09 am

I'm of the idea that, as long as Israel exists, there will be problems.

The Palestinians believe the land was stolen from them after World War II.

The Israelites believe the land was promised to them by God.

Neither one of those things particularly matter, obviously.

There is no rational solution to the matter, I feel. Making Jerusalem independent from Israel has a possibility of causing more trouble for the city. It's the holiest site for two of the most prominent religions in the world, and a holy site for another. Each religion (despite them all being interconnected) believe that the city is theirs.

That's why we had The Crusades.

Israel being wiped off the map won't help either, because then you'll just have displaced people, and that's no good at all. However, keeping it will only result in more turbulence.

I mean, really, all the nations on Israel's border declared war on it the very day it was created. What does that tell you?

marketstrat · Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:00 am

yes you are right................