a realistic solution for the Middle East

[Dachs]

That's an awful lot of concessions for Israel to make, and not a whole lot of incentive for them to do it. You're demanding right of return for the Palestinians and cession of parts of Lebanon and the Golan Heights? And integration into the Arab League? I thought this was about "realistic" solutions...

 

[Lord Baal]

LMAO...

Okay. Why exactly are you quoting my post, in which I say Israel couldn't defeat a united Arab world, in your rant?

i have an american friend who always use to tell me that if the arabs decide to spit in israel they will make a flood their, which will devastate their lands...

you know Israeli population 6 million (including 1 million arabs) while Arab population is now almost 400 million, third largest ethnicity, exceeded only by Han-Chinese and Hindu Indians...

"Hindu Indian" is not an ethnicity. There's dozens of ethnicities in India. Hell, Arabs aren't homogeneous either. There are Circassians, Arabs, Berbers, Copts, etc..

plus Arab weapons united would be too strong for any country (perhaps excluding USA) to beat... with around 46 million men, and around 200 thousand tanks and thousands of plans that were brought from the Americans, and russians and Japanese and germans...

Numbers and weapons aren't the problem. It's logistics that Arab nations have historically performed very poorly in. I honestly don't see that changing much, since Arab nations don't have much experience in total wars far beyond their own borders. Iraq probably had the most, and their army was disbanded. I doubt there are too many veterans of the Iran-Iraq War left to pass on that experience anyway. I might be wrong on that regard though. It was only 25 or so years ago, but things have been pretty hectic in the neighbourhood.

Arabs are divided into several countries, the poor ones are very well trained fighters but have no technology, while the rich are very advanced, yet poor fighters.. put them bot together, and they would rerule from France to China again.

No. That simple. You're more biased than anyone else I've seen in this thread.

Wealth does not have anything to do with a cuontry's fighting skill. Egypt is among the wealthiest, most populous and largest of Arab nations, with a very well-trained and equipped military. It is capable of going toe-to-toe with Israel quite convincingly. It would lose, but it would put up a damn good fight. Saudi Arabia is wealthy, yet has little military to speak of, and what it has isn't respected. Not by Australian troops, anyway. Morocco and Algeria have large, well-equipped militaries, but aren't particularly well-trained, whereas Libya's army is both poorly equipped and poorly trained. The Arab world runs the gamut from highly professional modern armies to backwards jokes that would be better off teaching cats to march in a straight line than their soldiers.

If the Arab world were magically united tomorrow - as in the awful Total War 2006 book by Simon Pearson - they would be a very powerful enemy, and more than capable of stomping Israel in a conventional war. They'd also stand no chance in hell of encroaching upon US, Chinese, Russian, or even French spheres of interest. India, Israel, Turkey, Iran and others would all form protective alliances against this grouping, which would not be permitted to grow too strong. A united Pan-Arabia would be an invitation for Europe to stop waffling and throw support behind Israel. It certainly wouldn't be capable of ruling "from France to China."

(((COUGH COUGH COUGH sixdaywar COUGH COUGH))) *HICCUP*

Things are very different now. Israel's military has become much less powerful in a relative sense, compared to its neighbours. Especially Egypt, which is not far behind Israel at all. It is certainly more powerful than any Arab nation; probably more powerful than any two put together. But a repeat of the Six-Day War simply isn't possible at this time.

the way i see it is the following...

Arab-Israeli conflict:

Arab states have started forming this Economic Unity thing started in 1997 and was suppose to meet the goal of having a freetrade area by 2010 (achieved 2007), a new united currency is underway, starting with gulf states by 2015.

thus will lead to Arab prosperity, thus more democracy, thus better Arab representation of govs.

Free trade doesn't necessarily lead to democracy.

Israel on the other hand, has two scenarios, will either have an Arab majority by 2020, which will make the Israeli government (that cant be ruled by non-jews) more flexible to accept Palestinian issues, thus making peace easier, or the Orthodox Extermist Jews of Israel, who are becoming more of a majority will increase, and will lead Israel to adopt more extreme politics, which will probably lead to a total war with neighboring Arabs, which they believe that Palestinians must be kicked out of their lands, and go to any other country, while some even go as far as calling for kicking all arabs from Sinai to Iraqi borders.

Israel has more options than that. You are presenting a false dichotomy; peaceful co-existence, or all-out war. It's a load. Isreal has many options, though few of them are unreservedly good in every way, and many of them could result in conflict. I've heard it mentioned many time that Israel has three dreams: Greater Israel, Jewish Israel, and Democratic Israel. It can only be two of the three. The problem is it can't make up its mind which two to be.

In 20 years or so, Arabs will supposedly outnumber Jews in Israel. If Israel chooses Greater Israel and Democratic Israel, it will no longer be a Jewish nation, but first a hybrid Arab-Jewish one, then later an Arab nation with a sizable Jewish minority. Pretty much no Israelis favour this. If it chooses Greater Israel and Jewish Israel, it will be an armed camp, a modern-day racist police state. Few Israelis favour this, but those who do are very vocal and loud. If it chooses Jewish Israel and Democratic Israel - my own personal choice - then it will need the two-state solution to become viable. This is the most popular solution, but is also the one with the fewest short-term benefits. Therefore, internal Israeli AND Palestinian politics make this extremely difficult.

Israelis think the settlers are nuts for the most part, but they still don't like to see them forcibly removed from their homes, and aren't immune to calls for colonisation of areas that were theirs thousands of years ago. For their part, while many Palestinians just want to live in peace and welcome negotiations, there are always malcontents who try to disrupt talks. Israel has a serious tendency to overreact to these disruptions - which often take the form of kidnapping soldiers or launching rockets - and exacerbate the problem. The transition to a viable two-state solution is going to be a long and painful one, with numerous setbacks along the way. I do think, however, that eventually Israel and Palestine will get there.

anyways, regardless of the future expectation, the solutions as i see it is:

*Arab Palestinian State in West Bank and Gaza strip (including E. Jerusalem).
*Jewish Israeli State in the rest of the land or Palestine (including W. Jerusalem).
*Arab, Muslim and African states formalize economic and political relations with Israel.
*Palestinian Refugees who have lived or born in pre-Israel state (pre1948) can go back to their homes, while everyone else who was born outside 1948 palestine can't, yet can freely go their but not get a citizenship.
*Israel must retreat from all lands it occupied, including Sheba'a Farms in Southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights.
*Israel's Integration in the Arab League, and its acceptance as a Member in the Arab League, (which will assure peace in the region.)

Don't really agree with the last two. Israel isn't Arab, so it isn't joining the Arab League. If the name were changed, it might become politically acceptable, but no non-Arab Israeli is going to willingly join something called the "Arab League." Appearances matter in diplomacy.

It's also highly unlikely to give up the Golan Heights, and certainly not completely. They're too strategic. No-one gives up such wonderful strategic territory unless they're forced to. And who's going to force Israel's hand? Only the US has that capability, an they don't possess the political will to do so.

 

[Joecoolyo]

They couldn't even beat Hezbollah, as previously mentioned. How the hell are they going to take over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Yemen? And that's by the least inclusive definition of "Arab countries," not taking into account Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan, etc.. If you think Israel could take over all of these nations, then I have a Nazi UFO I'd like to sell you.

Dude, they didn't throw their entire military at Hezbollah, they failed to defeat them because of that. And when they realized their mistakes and used a crapload more of their military the next time they needed it (when the Hamas started to bombard their citizens with rockets) the entire world condemns them for self-defense.

So yes, if Israel put out its entire military might into fighting the Arab world, I would think they wouldn't have the slightest problem conquering it.

 

[Kadazzle]

Dude, they didn't throw their entire military at Hezbollah, they failed to defeat them because of that. And when they realized their mistakes and used a crapload more of their military the next time they needed it (when the Hamas started to bombard their citizens with rockets) the entire world condemns them for self-defense.

So yes, if Israel put out its entire military might into fighting the Arab world, I would think they wouldn't have the slightest problem conquering it.

You, my friend, know absolutely nothing about Modern Warfare. If Israel went head-to-head with the Arab world in full-fledged warfare, it would be over. When you're outnumbered by the millions, there's nothing you can do.

 

[Lord Baal]

Dude, they didn't throw their entire military at Hezbollah, they failed to defeat them because of that. And when they realized their mistakes and used a crapload more of their military the next time they needed it (when the Hamas started to bombard their citizens with rockets) the entire world condemns them for self-defense.

So yes, if Israel put out its entire military might into fighting the Arab world, I would think they wouldn't have the slightest problem conquering it.

Then you think wrong. Unless by "entire military might" you mean its collection of nukes. Hezbollah had a very effective strategy against Israel, as did Egypt in the Yom Kippur war. Anti-tank and anti-aircraft defences are the most effective means of combatting Israel, and you can bet Arab nations have stocked up on SAMs and anti-tank guns since. I know I would.

Also, you are aware of exactly how large the Arab world is, right? Is the IDF magically capable of supplying multiple fronts considerable distance from their own country, while simultaneously dealing with insurgents behind their lines and even in their own country? Israel can't even keep Hamas or Hezbollah rockets from hitting Israeli cities, what chance would they have of keeping Egypt from sending waves of rockets at them? Then there's the matter of fuel and international pressure on Israeli aggression.

You're making the (common) mistake of thinking that Israel is invincible and far more powerful than its neighbours. It's not, and it's been shown up several times.

 

[ParkCungHee]

(((COUGH COUGH COUGH sixdaywar COUGH COUGH))) *HICCUP*

The six day war is no longer a relevant comparison.

Dude, they didn't throw their entire military at Hezbollah, they failed to defeat them because of that.

If a ten to one advantage in their favor is a handicap, you're really not helping the case for them being able to take on Arab states.

 

[innonimatu]

I've heard it mentioned many time that Israel has three dreams: Greater Israel, Jewish Israel, and Democratic Israel. It can only be two of the three. The problem is it can't make up its mind which two to be.

That's a really good way to put it.

In 20 years or so, Arabs will supposedly outnumber Jews in Israel. If Israel chooses Greater Israel and Democratic Israel, it will no longer be a Jewish nation, but first a hybrid Arab-Jewish one, then later an Arab nation with a sizable Jewish minority. Pretty much no Israelis favour this. If it chooses Greater Israel and Jewish Israel, it will be an armed camp, a modern-day racist police state. Few Israelis favour this, but those who do are very vocal and loud. If it chooses Jewish Israel and Democratic Israel - my own personal choice - then it will need the two-state solution to become viable. This is the most popular solution, but is also the one with the fewest short-term benefits. Therefore, internal Israeli AND Palestinian politics make this extremely difficult.

That's unfortunate, because I really do not believe that the who state solution will ever be viable. Those territories are too interconnected, and the population too mixed, to be separated. I can only see it working under one circumstance: if both Israel and an independent Palestine become part of some larger regional confederation. And whatever that confederation might be (the only remotely realistic possibility would be some expanded and downgrade EU) in that case it would already be giving up part of its sovereignty, and therefore abandoning part of the jewish Israel project.

Israelis think the settlers are nuts for the most part, but they still don't like to see them forcibly removed from their homes, and aren't immune to calls for colonisation of areas that were theirs thousands of years ago. For their part, while many Palestinians just want to live in peace and welcome negotiations, there are always malcontents who try to disrupt talks. Israel has a serious tendency to overreact to these disruptions - which often take the form of kidnapping soldiers or launching rockets - and exacerbate the problem. The transition to a viable two-state solution is going to be a long and painful one, with numerous setbacks along the way. I do think, however, that eventually Israel and Palestine will get there.

Well, perhaps it could be done, if there was a strong political will to do it, from the one side holding the keys, Israel. De Gaulle managed to do it with french Algeria, in an easier situation and even then risking a lot. But there's no one with similar influence in Israel.
Undoing a colonial mess, after allowing things to get messy, is never pretty. That's what Israel, probably unwittingly (for most israelis, at least), created after 1967. With overseas colonies in can be done, because when a government decides to cut the losses and pull out the process cannot be reversed. But with a contiguous territory, and disputed borders. Impossible, I believe.

Much of the tolerance towards Israel from the governments of certain other countries (and much of the hostility from others) is due precisely to the fact that those people understand the situation. But it won't last forever. If the one state solution is to be followed, it should be as soon as possible. Currently, with the populations roughly balanced and most neighboring states too ward to meddle, it could be done (again if there was a string political will - alas, it can't) in an orderly way. But time is running against that.

 

[Lord Baal]

That's a really good way to put it.

Thanks. I wish I could take credit for it, but I've heard it in plenty of places before.

That's unfortunate, because I really do not believe that the who state solution will ever be viable. Those territories are too interconnected, and the population too mixed, to be separated. I can only see it working under one circumstance: if both Israel and an independent Palestine become part of some larger regional confederation. And whatever that confederation might be (the only remotely realistic possibility would be some expanded and downgrade EU) in that case it would already be giving up part of its sovereignty, and therefore abandoning part of the jewish Israel project.

Unfortunately, you're not wrong. The most popular version of the two-state solution is the one mentioned by Hafezudine, which is probably unworkable. The borders aren't defensible, there's few natural boundaries, and the lack of contiguity in Palestine between the West Bank and Gaza would be problematic in its own right. But some sort of population exchange - think Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria after WWI - could potentially solve some of the problems. It's not very damn likely though. Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria had to force many of those people to leave. Even with the approval of the Palestinian government, could Israel get away with forcibly removing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from its territory? I doubt it.

Well, perhaps it could be done, if there was a strong political will to do it, from the one side holding the keys, Israel. De Gaulle managed to do it with french Algeria, in an easier situation and even then risking a lot. But there's no one with similar influence in Israel.
Undoing a colonial mess, after allowing things to get messy, is never pretty. That's what Israel, probably unwittingly (for most israelis, at least), created after 1967. With overseas colonies in can be done, because when a government decides to cut the losses and pull out the process cannot be reversed. But with a contiguous territory, and disputed borders. Impossible, I believe.

My roommate has a framed picture of De Gaulle in his bedroom. It's more than a little disturbing, considering he's Anglo-German. Clear man-crush. And political will is the biggest problem in the whole Israel-Palestine situation. Neither side has the political will to do the things that both know are necessary, on either the right or left wing. A sad state of affairs.

Much of the tolerance towards Israel from the governments of certain other countries (and much of the hostility from others) is due precisely to the fact that those people understand the situation. But it won't last forever. If the one state solution is to be followed, it should be as soon as possible. Currently, with the populations roughly balanced and most neighboring states too ward to meddle, it could be done (again if there was a string political will - alas, it can't) in an orderly way. But time is running against that.

A one-state solution - Greater and Democratic Israel - is easily the best and most workable solution. The problem is that most Jewish people - not just in Israel, but the Diaspora as well - don't like the idea of Israel giving up its Jewishness. That's what makes it the least likely of the three choices to actually be pushed through. Even I like the idea of there being a Jewish state to run to if necessary, though the idea of an Australian Nazism is monstrously unlikely. You can never escape the fear of another Holocaust with Jews, which is why a Greater Jewish Israel is the most likely scenario. And that's not a good thing.

 

[Hafezudine]

There are significant Shia populations in those areas and historical Iranian claims. I'm also adding Kuwait, Yemen, Azerbaijan, and Herat to that list.

well, yeah, but they arnt Persians, you might as well include Egypt and N Africa in a Roman Empire... they are arabs...

 

[Hafezudine]

(((COUGH COUGH COUGH sixdaywar COUGH COUGH))) *HICCUP*

ummm it was like 40 years ago or something, WAAAAAYYY before the Arab get some oil cash, and way before the Arab population boom to over 400 million, the population at that time didnt exceed 150 million, and most of the Arab states have just gained independance, and egypt was going throught serious reforms

 

[Hafezudine]

Dude, they didn't throw their entire military at Hezbollah, they failed to defeat them because of that. And when they realized their mistakes and used a crapload more of their military the next time they needed it (when the Hamas started to bombard their citizens with rockets) the entire world condemns them for self-defense.

So yes, if Israel put out its entire military might into fighting the Arab world, I would think they wouldn't have the slightest problem conquering it.

how about 400 million Arab throwing stones with their bare hands, or 400 million arabs blowing themselves and taking a couple of Israeli soldiers, hell israel would be creating another holocaust for its self, only this time it would endanger those who fled from Nazi germany...

 

[Hafezudine]

"Hindu Indian" is not an ethnicity. There's dozens of ethnicities in India. Hell, Arabs aren't homogeneous either. There are Circassians, Arabs, Berbers, Copts, etc..

my bad, i meant Hindi Indians, and not Hindu Indians.... anyways, your mixing between the Ethnicity and Race, yes arabs come in several colors, but excluding the copts, berbers, kurds, it would make the arabs have a total poplation of 353 million..., plus, im pretty sure that in a war between the arab countries and israel, they will fight Israel.. along with arabs.

Numbers and weapons aren't the problem. It's logistics that Arab nations have historically performed very poorly in. I honestly don't see that changing much, since Arab nations don't have much experience in total wars far beyond their own borders. Iraq probably had the most, and their army was disbanded. I doubt there are too many veterans of the Iran-Iraq War left to pass on that experience anyway. I might be wrong on that regard though. It was only 25 or so years ago, but things have been pretty hectic in the neighbourhood.

well, each year most of the arab states that have accounatble military have tons of Training with US and European Armies, and the NATO, including the gulf states, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco..., so logistically they are still pretty good, plus if a war sparks today, we will have the neccessary logistics, since we still have military generals and stuff still working, since the 1973 war.

No. That simple. You're more biased than anyone else I've seen in this thread.

im unbias to your point of view, which might make YOU unbias to mine... its an irrelevant thing... im an Arab Muslim Egyptian, what makes you think i would sound unbias in a topic that represents the core of my region (thou i try to be as unbias as i can, perhaps need to try harder... please point out.. )

Wealth does not have anything to do with a cuontry's fighting skill. Egypt is among the wealthiest, most populous and largest of Arab nations, with a very well-trained and equipped military. It is capable of going toe-to-toe with Israel quite convincingly. It would lose, but it would put up a damn good fight. Saudi Arabia is wealthy, yet has little military to speak of, and what it has isn't respected. Not by Australian troops, anyway. Morocco and Algeria have large, well-equipped militaries, but aren't particularly well-trained, whereas Libya's army is both poorly equipped and poorly trained. The Arab world runs the gamut from highly professional modern armies to backwards jokes that would be better off teaching cats to march in a straight line than their soldiers.

HAHA... Egypt is among the wealthiest of what nations?? egypt is number 3 in Africa, and is considered as a second degree by Arab standars (wealth wise)

you need to read more about the military of the arab world, i mean, you being a non-arab and all, i would understand that such topics might not intreage you to read about, unlike me, anyways, Saudi Arabia has the Second best Army in the Region, (technologically speaking), followed by Kuwait and UAE, all started getting these REALLY cool new stuff that are very rare in the world, by spending around 30 billion$ a year... *each*, yet dont have the equiped fighters that is needed, that can be supplied by Egyptians, Syrians (very well trained believe it or not), Morocco and Algeria, and Iraq...

If the Arab world were magically united tomorrow - as in the awful Total War 2006 book by Simon Pearson - they would be a very powerful enemy, and more than capable of stomping Israel in a conventional war. They'd also stand no chance in hell of encroaching upon US, Chinese, Russian, or even French spheres of interest. India, Israel, Turkey, Iran and others would all form protective alliances against this grouping, which would not be permitted to grow too strong. A united Pan-Arabia would be an invitation for Europe to stop waffling and throw support behind Israel. It certainly wouldn't be capable of ruling "from France to China."

i guess the words lost their way in translation, "from France to China" is a phrase that arabs use to describe the word HUGE, or non-stoppable... it doesnt neccesary mean that they will start invading all countries...

plus a united arab world will mean a strong economical body, that hols the Energy resources that China, India and Japan depend on, it would mean, around 15 million Indians working in rich gulf states, it would mean the control of the Suez Canal, the Bab Mandab and the strait of Gibreltar, it would mean missiles can reach anywhere from Senegal, france, Italy, SPain, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Russia, Central Asia, India and Pakistan, it would mean 2,364,871 million dollars as total GDP PPP, making it sixth in the world, it would mean 339 million Arab clients of European products would stop, it would mean America's loosing influence in the recent Iranian Issue...

Iran wouldnt find that as a threat, it will probably still try to nuke Israel

Things are very different now. Israel's military has become much less powerful in a relative sense, compared to its neighbours. Especially Egypt, which is not far behind Israel at all. It is certainly more powerful than any Arab nation; probably more powerful than any two put together. But a repeat of the Six-Day War simply isn't possible at this time.

what are your information about the six day war, your sending some wierd messages of not knowing what went on...!!!...

Free trade doesn't necessarily lead to democracy.

freetrade = richer people = powerfull individuals = freedom of speech = call for democracy = Leads to Democracy, thats how it works down here in the Ayrab world...

Israel has more options than that. You are presenting a false dichotomy; peaceful co-existence, or all-out war. It's a load. Isreal has many options, though few of them are unreservedly good in every way, and many of them could result in conflict. I've heard it mentioned many time that Israel has three dreams: Greater Israel, Jewish Israel, and Democratic Israel. It can only be two of the three. The problem is it can't make up its mind which two to be.

well, i dont think a Greater Israel is pretty realistic... yet again so is the Arabs uniting...

In 20 years or so, Arabs will supposedly outnumber Jews in Israel. If Israel chooses Greater Israel and Democratic Israel, it will no longer be a Jewish nation, but first a hybrid Arab-Jewish one, then later an Arab nation with a sizable Jewish minority. Pretty much no Israelis favour this. If it chooses Greater Israel and Jewish Israel, it will be an armed camp, a modern-day racist police state. Few Israelis favour this, but those who do are very vocal and loud. If it chooses Jewish Israel and Democratic Israel - my own personal choice - then it will need the two-state solution to become viable. This is the most popular solution, but is also the one with the fewest short-term benefits. Therefore, internal Israeli AND Palestinian politics make this extremely difficult.

i agree with your choice... its the only choice that avoids war for a longer period... Arabs know and the Israelis Know that war is inevitable, its the west that still thinks its not.. they cause this and expect everything to be dandy afterwards...

Israelis think the settlers are nuts for the most part, but they still don't like to see them forcibly removed from their homes, and aren't immune to calls for colonisation of areas that were theirs thousands of years ago. For their part, while many Palestinians just want to live in peace and welcome negotiations, there are always malcontents who try to disrupt talks. Israel has a serious tendency to overreact to these disruptions - which often take the form of kidnapping soldiers or launching rockets - and exacerbate the problem. The transition to a viable two-state solution is going to be a long and painful one, with numerous setbacks along the way. I do think, however, that eventually Israel and Palestine will get there.

well, Israel and Arabs will never get along, but their IS hope for Jews and Arabs, Nasser (whom i hate for grabbing my grandparents lands and giving it to the poor, socialist bastard, made everyone poor instead... ) has planted hatred to jews in general, but now jews arnt regarded as the enemy (at least in the process) which makes an absorbtion of jewish israelis one day possible, if they wish to go home to their arab lands, Libya for one offered a free citizenship to all jewish libyans of Israel.

Don't really agree with the last two. Israel isn't Arab, so it isn't joining the Arab League. If the name were changed, it might become politically acceptable, but no non-Arab Israeli is going to willingly join something called the "Arab League." Appearances matter in diplomacy.

Israel has 20% arab, to join the AL a country needs to have Arabic as an official language, and have a large native arab population, thus Somalia, Djibouti and Comoros, small arab populations, and Arabic as a secondary language.

It's also highly unlikely to give up the Golan Heights, and certainly not completely. They're too strategic. No-one gives up such wonderful strategic territory unless they're forced to. And who's going to force Israel's hand? Only the US has that capability, an they don't possess the political will to do so.

[/QUOTE]

well, Israel will never have long peace unless they give back the 1967 green line...
yet i find arabs as doing the biggest mistake in their lives... in negotiations you usually put high demands so it would down to your demands, but arabs just demanded what they want, and said its not negotiable (hope that sounded unbias)

 

[BurnEmDown]

well, Israel will never have long peace unless they give back the 1967 green line...
yet i find arabs as doing the biggest mistake in their lives... in negotiations you usually put high demands so it would down to your demands, but arabs just demanded what they want, and said its not negotiable (hope that sounded unbias)

You know 5 years ago people said we will never have peace unless we pull out of Gaza, we did just that, and there's no peace, why do you think it will be different with the west bank?

 

[cardgame]

richer people = powerfull individuals = freedom of speech = call for democracy

Wait...what?

Powerful, rich individuals leads to freedom of speech?

 

[Lord Baal]

my bad, i meant Hindi Indians, and not Hindu Indians....

Ah, fair enough.

anyways, your mixing between the Ethnicity and Race, yes arabs come in several colors, but excluding the copts, berbers, kurds, it would make the arabs have a total poplation of 353 million..., plus, im pretty sure that in a war between the arab countries and israel, they will fight Israel.. along with arabs.

Arab culture is a supra-culture; that is, a culture which is above that of its members. That doesn't mean that everyone who has that culture - Berbers, Circassians, etc. - is a member of the Arab ethnicity. In the same way that Americans aren't ethnically American, they're African-American, German, Japanese, etc., Arabs - excepting Peninsular Arabs and a few others - aren't ethnically Arab. Plus, there are plenty of Christian Arabs - especially in the Levant - that would support Israel over some sort of Arab Union anyway.

well, each year most of the arab states that have accounatble military have tons of Training with US and European Armies, and the NATO, including the gulf states, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco..., so logistically they are still pretty good, plus if a war sparks today, we will have the neccessary logistics, since we still have military generals and stuff still working, since the 1973 war.

Egypt is good logistically, and Jordan has historically had the best-trained and equipped Arab military, though thy've fallen behind a bit now. They're also right next to Israel, limiting some logistical difficulties. But there's no way in hell Morocco, Algeria, etc., can magically transport, billet, arm and feed their armies in and around Israel. Israel, on the other hand, fighting in and around its home territory, and with America and Europe controlling the Mediterranean to funnel it supplies, would not be faced with these logistical problems. It would be hopelessly outnumbered, but it is far logistically superior.

And define "most of the Arab states." I know that Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain conduct joint manouevres with American, British, and other militaries. Could probably count Iraq in there now as well. But some of those nations have tiny militaries, and none of that training deals in invading a foreign state. Also, you don't seem to understand that generals don't make logistics, not in this day and age. That requires a military bureaucracy, and I don't think any major Arab nations have a particularly efficient, non-corrupt one of those.

im unbias to your point of view, which might make YOU unbias to mine... its an irrelevant thing... im an Arab Muslim Egyptian, what makes you think i would sound unbias in a topic that represents the core of my region (thou i try to be as unbias as i can, perhaps need to try harder... please point out.. )

Well, you do need to try harder then. As Dachs said, your proposal was basically a string of Israeli concessions. I don't necessarily disagree with all of them, but you sound like me playing Civ at the bargaining table - give us everything we want, and we won't invade you. Israel is not going to make those sorts of concessions without concrete assurances from its neighbours, and they'll have to make concessions of their own.

HAHA... Egypt is among the wealthiest of what nations?? egypt is number 3 in Africa, and is considered as a second degree by Arab standars (wealth wise)

Money != wealth. Egypt has a diversified economy, control of the Suez Canal, and a large amount of assets. Most Arab nations are petrostates, meaning their income is almost solely based around petroleum. UAE is doing plenty to turn the income derived from that into wealth, but other nations are doing far less.

you need to read more about the military of the arab world, i mean, you being a non-arab and all, i would understand that such topics might not intreage you to read about, unlike me, anyways, Saudi Arabia has the Second best Army in the Region, (technologically speaking), followed by Kuwait and UAE, all started getting these REALLY cool new stuff that are very rare in the world, by spending around 30 billion$ a year... *each*, yet dont have the equiped fighters that is needed, that can be supplied by Egyptians, Syrians (very well trained believe it or not), Morocco and Algeria, and Iraq...

I'm Jewish, so Arab militaries interest me greatly. And you seemed to miss my point that "wealth does not have anything to do with a country's fighting skill." Buying planes doesn't mean you know how and when to use them, or have enough of them to use them effectively in a total war, etc..

Saudi Arabia's military, while technologically impressive, is not respected. Syria and Egypt are the military powers in the region, but you can't simply give a Syrian pilot a brand new American fighter and tell him to fly. Those things require training to handle. Not only that, but they require training in how to use them effectively in certain situations. The Syrians probably don't have an airforce trained for close cooperation with a an invading army. Why would they? They're not going to magically get these skills just because they're given more advance weaponry, either.

i guess the words lost their way in translation, "from France to China" is a phrase that arabs use to describe the word HUGE, or non-stoppable... it doesnt neccesary mean that they will start invading all countries...

Ah, yes, that was lost in the translation.

plus a united arab world will mean a strong economical body, that hols the Energy resources that China, India and Japan depend on, it would mean, around 15 million Indians working in rich gulf states, it would mean the control of the Suez Canal, the Bab Mandab and the strait of Gibreltar, it would mean missiles can reach anywhere from Senegal, france, Italy, SPain, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Ethiopia, Russia, Central Asia, India and Pakistan, it would mean 2,364,871 million dollars as total GDP PPP, making it sixth in the world, it would mean 339 million Arab clients of European products would stop, it would mean America's loosing influence in the recent Iranian Issue...

An Arab coalition wouldn't control the Strait of Gibraltar. It hasn't the navy for that. But you're right, it would be very powerful. But not as powerful as a territory that size would seem. It would still lag far behind America and China, and such a union would be a spur for the EU to consolidate, as well as for nations worldwide to search for alternatives to petroleum at a much faster rate. It would also lead to a Russian rapprochement with the West, since this Arab Union would be a large threat to its interests. Unfortunately, it would be playing right into the hands of that ridiculous, self-perpetuating "Clash of Civilisations" nonsense.

Iran wouldnt find that as a threat, it will probably still try to nuke Israel

Iran was quite happy to cooperate with the West in Afghanistan. It would be more than willing to cooperate with Israel when confronted with a far greater threat. Khomeini is not Hitler, and even he was willing to cooperate with the "Jewish-Bolshevik Untermenschen."

what are your information about the six day war, your sending some wierd messages of not knowing what went on...!!!...

What? I agreed with you, you twit. Israel is no position for a repeat of the Six-Day War.

freetrade = richer people = powerfull individuals = freedom of speech = call for democracy = Leads to Democracy, thats how it works down here in the Ayrab world...

Arabs are very different to everywhere else in the world then. In the US, free trade led to the "robber barons," a group of powerful business who monopolised important industries, such as banking, oil, steel, and railroads, until the government stepped in to put a stop to it. After the fall of Communism, the Russian economy was taken over by a group of "oligarchs," who Putin spent years crushing. Most of them are still exceedingly wealthy, even imprisoned or exiled.

Democracy is the cry of the middle-class. Not the wealthy.

well, i dont think a Greater Israel is pretty realistic... yet again so is the Arabs uniting...

Greater Israel simply means Israel and the Occupied Territories. Sometimes it's taken to mean the Sinai, parts of Lebanon, and other territories, but not very often.

i agree with your choice... its the only choice that avoids war for a longer period... Arabs know and the Israelis Know that war is inevitable, its the west that still thinks its not.. they cause this and expect everything to be dandy afterwards...

War isn't inevitable. It's not even likely. It's internecine conflict in Israel itself that is inevitable, unless there is a drastic change to the current situation.

well, Israel and Arabs will never get along, but their IS hope for Jews and Arabs, Nasser (whom i hate for grabbing my grandparents lands and giving it to the poor, socialist bastard, made everyone poor instead... ) has planted hatred to jews in general, but now jews arnt regarded as the enemy (at least in the process) which makes an absorbtion of jewish israelis one day possible, if they wish to go home to their arab lands, Libya for one offered a free citizenship to all jewish libyans of Israel.

Arabs actually seem to have more trouble getting along with each other than with Israel. But Jews are treated quite well in most of the Arab world. It's "Zionists" that they hate.

Israel has 20% arab, to join the AL a country needs to have Arabic as an official language, and have a large native arab population, thus Somalia, Djibouti and Comoros, small arab populations, and Arabic as a secondary language.

It's not a matter of what it needs to join the Arab League. It's a matter of why the hell would a nation of Jews who are historically at war with their Arab nations ever join something called the Arab League? It makes about as much sense as France joining the Arab League. There are plenty of Algerians there, after all.

One of the main reasons with Australia is excluded from many Asian forums is because most Australians are of European descent, and it has a Western culture. Geographically, Israel belongs in the Arab League, as Australia belongs in ASEAN. Practically, it's another matter entirely.

well, Israel will never have long peace unless they give back the 1967 green line...

They'll never have peace if they kowtow to Arab demands without receiving something in return. The Golan heights are an increibly strategic position. Giving them up to Syria would be similar to Czechoslovakia giving the Sudetenland to Germany, though not, of course, nearly as dramatic.

yet i find arabs as doing the biggest mistake in their lives... in negotiations you usually put high demands so it would down to your demands, but arabs just demanded what they want, and said its not negotiable (hope that sounded unbias)

I once heard it said that Arabs tend to negotiate with Israel on an "all-or-nothing" basis. They refuse to settle for less than all their demands, and the result is that they always end up with nothing. Israel seems to do the same thing, but since it's negotiating from a position of strength, it's a far more viable option. To quote Thucydides: "The strong do what they can, while the weak do what they must."

 

[Imrahil91]

Create an Arab state or confederation for all Arabs - Sunni, Shia, Christians...
Create a Kurdish state for all Kurdish people.
Give Israel Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights, the Arabs there must move to the new Arabia.
There must be a lot of population transfers, but that's easier than learning the people there how to live peacefully side by side.

 

[Lord Baal]

Create an Arab state or confederation for all Arabs - Sunni, Shia, Christians...
Create a Kurdish state for all Kurdish people.
Give Israel Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights, the Arabs there must move to the new Arabia.
There must be a lot of population transfers, but that's easier than learning the people there how to live peacefully side by side.

We want "realistic solutions," not a world without lawyers.

 

[Hafezudine]

You know 5 years ago people said we will never have peace unless we pull out of Gaza, we did just that, and there's no peace, why do you think it will be different with the west bank?

who said that pulling out of gaza would lead to peace!!!...pulling our of both and agree on the creation of palestine will bring peace... thats for sure... the palestinians wont have anything to fight for anymore... all they wanted (most of them) is done...

 

[Lord Baal]

who said that pulling out of gaza would lead to peace!!!...pulling our of both and agree on the creation of palestine will bring peace... thats for sure... the palestinians wont have anything to fight for anymore... all they wanted (most of them) is done...

Radicals will always start trouble. The problem is that Palestine can't control the radicals, and Israel tends to go overboard in punishing them.

 

[Winner]

you know Israeli population 6 million (including 1 million arabs) while Arab population is now almost 400 million, third largest ethnicity, exceeded only by Han-Chinese and Hindu Indians...

And yet, somehow, the 6 million Jews always win. Must be really frustrating...

plus Arab weapons united would be too strong for any country (perhaps excluding USA) to beat... with around 46 million men, and around 200 thousand tanks and thousands of plans that were brought from the Americans, and russians and Japanese and germans...

Arabs are divided into several countries, the poor ones are very well trained fighters but have no technology, while the rich are very advanced, yet poor fighters.. put them bot together, and they would rerule from France to China again.

Sorry to break the news to you, but Arabs are (in general) hopeless military dilettantes. You can dream about the "glorious" past as much as you wish, but today, Arab countries are militarily insignificant, poor and rather annoying nuisance which only causes trouble to the rest of the world. Even if they united, it would only make their defeat more spectacular

Israel on the other hand, has two scenarios, will either have an Arab majority by 2020, which will make the Israeli government (that cant be ruled by non-jews) more flexible to accept Palestinian issues, thus making peace easier, or the Orthodox Extermist Jews of Israel, who are becoming more of a majority will increase, and will lead Israel to adopt more extreme politics, which will probably lead to a total war with neighboring Arabs, which they believe that Palestinians must be kicked out of their lands, and go to any other country, while some even go as far as calling for kicking all arabs from Sinai to Iraqi borders.

anyways, regardless of the future expectation, the solutions as i see it is:

*Arab Palestinian State in West Bank and Gaza strip (including E. Jerusalem).
*Jewish Israeli State in the rest of the land or Palestine (including W. Jerusalem).
*Arab, Muslim and African states formalize economic and political relations with Israel.
*Palestinian Refugees who have lived or born in pre-Israel state (pre1948) can go back to their homes, while everyone else who was born outside 1948 palestine can't, yet can freely go their but not get a citizenship.
*Israel must retreat from all lands it occupied, including Sheba'a Farms in Southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights.
*Israel's Integration in the Arab League, and its acceptance as a Member in the Arab League, (which will assure peace in the region.)

This is about as realistic as me accepting Jesus as my personal savior

If it was only for the people who were actually born on the territory of present day Israel-proper, then it could be allowed. But allowing anybody else to enter, even without citizenship, would be a national suicide for Israel (which is what you're aiming for here, obviously).
Then, what could Israel possibly gain by joining a club of corrupt Arab dictatorships? There is much higher probability it would rather join the EU (which is not to say that the probability is high overall, just higher than membership in the Arab League).

I have a better plan: resettle Palestinians in neigbouring Arab countries, annex Gaza Strip, E. Jerusalem, the West Bank and Golan Heights, and establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon (again). With Israel safe and separated from the main aggressor (Palies), the conflict will gradually become less intense and less important.