a realistic solution for the Middle East

[Hafezudine]

Loyalty to a country is a vice, not a virtue. And of course people shouldn't riot. There may be occasions when it is understandable that they do, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do!

do you think Americans would have gained their independance from the Brits if they havnt rioted, or started the Boston Tea Party??

or the French with the Nazis or the Indians with the British? freedom can come in many forms, a peacefull one like Gandhi's or a bloody massacre like the ones of Bosnia...

 

[Lord Baal]

ok, let me get this straight, you think that palestinians should have not rioted, hoping to get some sympathy from the Mandate?? what kind of Human beings that have some loyalty to their country would do such thing...

There were better methods available to them than rioting. They simply chose not to employ them. 'All-or-nothing.' Also, this:

Loyalty to a country is a vice, not a virtue. And of course people shouldn't riot. There may be occasions when it is understandable that they do, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do!

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3209977/Israel-Army-Mistakenly-Kills-Three.html

http://www.crosswalk.com/1297366/

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/836/eg5.htm

http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/239/Israeli_Troops_Kill_Egyptian_Police

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2004-11-19-israeli-troops-kill-egyptian-police

if you dont know about it, doesnt mean it didnt happen, your news brings you NOTHING of the Truth, your Media, that you might think is unbiased, is probably just less biased then some very biased media... you guys dont have any Biased news to the Arabs, and dont have any unbiased News, its either very Biased, or little biased...

Or it could simply be that this isn't big news? As I said, the killing of enemy soldiers along militarised borders is pretty common. The US seldom even reports it when a Cuban shoots an American, why would they report an Israeli shooting an Egyptian?

And all news is biased. It's merely a question of how biased it is, and in what direction.

do you think Americans would have gained their independance from the Brits if they havnt rioted, or started the Boston Tea Party??

or the French with the Nazis or the Indians with the British? freedom can come in many forms, a peacefull one like Gandhi's or a bloody massacre like the ones of Bosnia...

You don't really understand the history of any of those situations, do you?

The Boston tea Party was a protest, not a riot, when British troops opened fire. Also, most Americans at the time didn't want independence. They protested being taxed without representation, and your average man on the street probably didn't care much about that either. It was a group of wealthy elites that pushed for independence, not the rank and file, who wanted to remain part of the monarchy, or just didn't care.

The French gained their independence from the Nazis due to outside influences. With the exception of French Central Africa, which rose up against Vichy - and even then only when Charles De Gaulle arrived with enough troops to secure them against any attempted pacification by Petain - the rest of the French Empire happily went along with the treasonous Vichy government. While there were resistance movements in France, it's debateable how much of an impact tey actually had on the war. In essence, their main accomplishment was assisting crashed pilots in escaping, as well as providing a distraction to the Germans. They most certainly didn't "riot." That would merely have allowed the Germans to shoot them. Look up the Warsaw Uprising.

As for India, Britain abandoned the country because it was too expensive to maintain its hegemony. While "non-violent resistance" had plenty to do with that, they also pulled out of Pakistan, which had remained loyal. Maybe if Gandhi hadn't provoked so many passive acts of resistance, the British, who had little choice but to pull out anyway - they even pulled out of Burma, where people wanted them to stay - wouldn't have partitioned the damn country.

As for Bosnia, you have a funny idea of freedom. Bosnia was never a viable nation in its own right, and oly achieved independence as a compromise solution, to keep either Serbia or Croatia from gaining more territory in a partition of it into their respective quarters. Even so, it was still divided into Serbian and Croatian-Muslim districts by the Dayton Accords. The Serbs would have received less if the constituent republic had just been partitioned as planned. Even today, most all but Muslim Bosnians - about a third of the populace - want to be annexed to their respective nationality's homeland.

 

[Quackers]

What are Israel's prospects in the long term? (to Richard Nixon during his presidency)

Roman style thumb down - hes right the Arabs will win 1 time in the next century and the Jews have only the sea to go too. Ah well back to Europe!

 

[Lord Baal]

What are Israel's prospects in the long term? (to Richard Nixon during his presidency)

Roman style thumb down - hes right the Arabs will win 1 time in the next century and the Jews have only the sea to go too. Ah well back to Europe!

A Roman-style thumb down doesn't mean what you - or most people - think it means. We're not absolutely certain, but we think it meant to let the gladiators live.

In other words, Richard Nixon wants Israel and the Arabs to live to fight another day!

And, short of presenting a united front against Israel - about as likely as the NSW government performing competently - the Arabs aren't going to defeat Israel anytime soon. Certainly not in a war of destruction. If Israel attacked the Arabs, they could defend themselves, but they could never launch a successful invasion of Israel itself. And Israel and the US are unlikely to allow them to grow in power to the point where they could.

 

[Winner]

Well, we should be pretty certain that in case Israel goes under, it will take the whole Near/Middle East down too.

 

[Lord Baal]

Well, we should be pretty certain that in case Israel goes under, it will take the whole Near/Middle East down too.

The glory of nukes.

 

[Hafezudine]

What are Israel's prospects in the long term? (to Richard Nixon during his presidency)

Roman style thumb down - hes right the Arabs will win 1 time in the next century and the Jews have only the sea to go too. Ah well back to Europe!

Arabs don't wish for jews to head back to the sea anymore, at least not most of them anyways... all they want is a free independent Palestine, in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, which will be shared among all three religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, unlike a sole Jewish State, where the only religion that is respected is Judaism...

 

[Hafezudine]

Well, we should be pretty certain that in case Israel goes under, it will take the whole Near/Middle East down too.

it depends in the form of its ceasing... if its with a war, then yeah i guess.. Nuks will be used, yet i think Israel will simply be absorbed economically, Politically (this is IF peace occures), Culturally, and demographically in the Much more larger Arab world...

 

[ParkCungHee]

which will be shared among all three religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity

How come we only get a piece of Jerusalem?

 

[Dachs]

How come we only get a piece of Jerusalem?

And who gets to manage it? I foresee a Crimean War redux if the French and Russian clerics start haggling over the keys...

 

[Lord Baal]

Why don't we make it a Free City again? It worked well the last time....

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, right. Neo-Nazis the world over will unite to overthrow this one too, and they'll get to have it out with Jewish settler diehards, Hamas, and the Westboro Baptist Church. Nuh-uh.

 

[Lord Baal]

Yeah, right. Neo-Nazis the world over will unite to overthrow this one too, and they'll get to have it out with Jewish settler diehards, Hamas, and the Westboro Baptist Church. Nuh-uh.

You know, if we just give it to Germany when they ask for it, we can avoid all that trouble again.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I still say we should just make it the Kingdom of Jerusalem again.

 

[Lord Baal]

I still say we should just make it the Kingdom of Jerusalem again.

Who inherits it now? I know the Spanish ended up with Constantinople, but who ended up with the title to Jerusalem?

 

[Tee Kay]

Who inherits it now? I know the Spanish ended up with Constantinople, but who ended up with the title to Jerusalem?

Apparently Spain has it as well.

King of Spain, of Castile, of León, of Aragon, of the Two Sicilies (Naples and Sicily), of Jerusalem, of Navarre, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Cordoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Menorca, of Jaen, of the Algarves, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, of the Spanish East and West Indies and of the Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, and of Neopatra (New Patras); Count of Habsburg, of Flanders, of Tyrol, of Rousillon and of Barcelona; Lord of Biscay and of Molina

I don't see Constantinople there though.

 

[Lord Baal]

Apparently Spain has it as well.



I don't see Constantinople there though.

I thought Spain had it, but figured I was confusing it with Constantinople. Apparently they bought the title to the Latin Empire of Constantinople, but never used it. Dachs said so recently, and he's the Dustin Hoffman of history.

 

[Dachs]

The Castilians bought the title from Andreas Palaiologos, but when Izzy took the throne she never used it.

 

[Squonk]

*Arabs and Israel over Jerusalem and Palestine, Golan, South Lebanon

I summarised my views by establishing this facebook group, I invite you to join...

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=151360622997&ref=ts

So, lets say:
- 1967 borders, with autonomy for the Arabs of northern Galilea.
- evacuation, forcible if necessary, of jewish settlers
- not sure about the refugees. Perhaps if you gave them the right to return, but to Israel, they wouldn't be really willing to do that... So lets say they can return to Israel, but have to learn hebrew, promess to be loyal towards Israel etc, that would reduce the stream of returns to minimum. They should all get compensations for lost property, anyway
- constant israeli economical support for the next 30 years or so
- Golan returned to Syria, including the NE shore of the Tiberias lake, a peace treaty
- Shebaa returned to Lebanon, a peace treaty

*Arabs and the Persians over Ahwaz

Not a big problem. Autonomy, including the right to a bigger share of oil revenues.

*Arabs and Turkey over Hatay

While it'd be nice to see it as a part of Syria, even syrian president acknowledged the current border some time ago, so it'd make no sense to bring it up again. Perhaps some autonomy.

*Azerbaijan and Armenia over Karabakh

Karabach itself should go to Armenia; the territories occupied by Armenians outside Karabach and Lachin pass should be returned to Azerbaijan, but demiliarised (at least the strategic Kalbajar area). Lachin district should either be in Armenia as an autonomous part, or in Azerbaijan, but completely demilitarised and under international supervision. It could be tied with the case of Shahumian district (armenian district in Azerbaijan proper, north to Karabach: Armenians can get Shahumian, but lose Lachin, or keep Lachin, but not get Shahumian (which should be autonomous, then).
Right of return.

*Azerbaijan and Persians over East Azerbaijan

This is a no-matter. Azerbaijan is too weak to demand anything from Iran. I'd give southern Azerbaijan an autonomy. I suppose there are huge differences between northern Azerbaijan and the southern one.

*Armenia and Turkey over the Genocide

Turkey should acknowledge it, that's it. It could give Armenia the ruins of Ani, and, perhaps, some uninhabited slopes of Ararat around Igdir. Just like in the case of Israel, sadly, there's too late to change more than that.

*Persians and Arabs over Bahrain and UAE islands (Tunb and Abu Musa)

I'm siding with Arabs here.

*Persians and Turkey over Kurdistan

Right now - autonomy for the three major parts of Kurdistan. Independance would be nice, but is improbable and would start many problems... but would be fair. I'd give them independance but on the cost of losing all the mixed territories.
I would like to remind you that you should not forget about the case of Assyria as well.

*Turkey and Cypriots over northern Turkish and southern Greek Cyprus.

Unification. Right of return. Paying the turkish settlers from inland Turkey to get out.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Castilians bought the title from Andreas Palaiologos, but when Izzy took the throne she never used it.

Well there you go. Juan Carlos seems like a nice fellow, I'm sure he'll make a splendid king.