Verbose
Deity
Pretty story told to soothe, nothing more.
Am I the only sane one here (Israel)
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Second-class citizenship? Most people don't take that... women, blacks, etc. were second-class citizens and it was considered immoral. Why make an exception for the Palestinians?
Quackers
The Frog
And the UK was in control of Egypt since the XIX century, and are the ones who messed up with all of this after taking most of the mideast from the Turks...
Better let it rest, huh?
Yeah we "messed" it up (we are talking about a muslim nation btw). Can we lose some of the pathetic white liberal guilt. We had an Empire we were democratic. We have a Queen we are a democracy. We were the man of the 19th century. Embrace it don't feel guilty about it.
You imperialists were.... democratic? Then why didn't you allow self-determination to your subject peoples? Why did you force other countries to submit, invaded their territories, destroyed their cultures and then left only after mixing them up and cutting them up into different countries than the ones they'd been when you first wnet in there?
Quackers
The Frog
Yes Britain was a democracy...
Because the Empire part wasn't democratic. The homeland was.
The middle east had very few states. Saudi Arabia was full of nomadic drifters...
Because the Empire part wasn't democratic. The homeland was.
The middle east had very few states. Saudi Arabia was full of nomadic drifters...
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
Takhisis has a very good point; why do only the Jews get a homeland? Especially considering the Gypsies are more of an ethnic group rather than a religious one. Jews are not a race; that's one lie left over from Nazism.
Besides, this means gay people get their own country! Wheeee! We'd have male eggs and female sperm developed in a matter of weeks!
To summarise: "The Palestine Mandate - The World's Largest Playground."
Well to be fair, second-class citizenship isn't that bad provided you deserved it; i.e. if you were a criminal. All those who fire rockets and such certainly would deserve second-class citizenship.
The Palestinians who are innocent to the violence, not so much. That's the problem with collective punishments: they're guaranteed to get the offending people, but they hurt anyone else in the group.
Without getting overly off-topic, I'll say that kind of imperialism is not the one I endorse by any margin; I believe in mutual benefits - participation in government, exchange of resources, equal rights, etc. Basically just extending every inch of your society, but with force; culture for the most part can be left intact, but I will not accept being forced to wear a burqa or other barbaric practices under the defense of "culture."
Now, back on topic.
Yes, it was incredibly stupid for Britain to run their empire the way they did, the Israel issue especially. I understand the Jews felt they needed their own country to protect themselves, but there was probably a better way to go about it
If you check the wiki, you'll see that secret ballots were only instituted in 1872, that voter bribign was only criminalised in 1883, and universal suffrage only came into being in 1928.
And so you get the right to invade them? Wow.Quackers said:
Erm, well... collective punishments don't always get the culprits. Most of the terrorists aren't much harmed by blockades and the like, they'll simply make up for it by black-marketing or oppressing their fellow, um, 'punishees'.
amadeus
rad thibodeaux-xs
There was a point at which I honestly stopped caring how many of those people blow each other up; there will never be a solution that both parties could agree to.
1. All territories are conquered territories. The British were in control of it, and people with control over territories have done whatever they've wanted with it for thousands of years.
2. But you could at least say they were made possible bacause of it. Isn't that treaty one of the main reasons for Hitler's raise to power and WW2?
Takhisis said:
I could maybe support that, but the Gypsies didn't have the will or ability to run a country back then.
Quackers
The Frog
We had an Empire in 1928 btw 
No I'm saying when we arrived there no countries, no borders, in the European sense. In admininstrating these terrorities we did things which suited us.
No I'm saying when we arrived there no countries, no borders, in the European sense. In admininstrating these terrorities we did things which suited us.
How do you know that? The same question should have been asked of the Jews.
(x-post) those 'things' (apartheid, slave trade, exploiting natural resources, drafting manpower for wars, etc. etc.) suited European powers, not the people to which those 'things' were done.We had an Empire in 1928 btw
No I'm saying when we arrived there no countries, no borders, in the European sense. In admininstrating these terrorities we did things which suited us.
Zardnaar
Deity
Its an improvement over what they have now and it may be acceptable to the Israelis who won't accept Palestinians as citizens if they can just vote in Hamas or disband the IDF and replace it with some Palestinian militia that will persecute the Jews. Another option would be to ban all Palestinian political parties at first which would be much the same thing. As I said the eventual goal over 10-20 years would be to give them full voting rights but you would have to make the appeal of Hamas and similar groups to be entirely non appealing or you would just have a IDF coup if something like that was elected.
No, that's not the case. If you're a resident of the Territories you're a stateless person and can't live in Israel for the length of time required to qualify for Israeli citizenship via naturalisation.
Incidentally, to address the Israelistine model spoken of in the OP: a fairly decentralised federation called Israel-Palestine with both capitals at Jerusalem-Al-Quds would probably be the most workable 1-state solution. With each entity having its own government within a federation, the demographic issues would be (somewhat) defused by political structures allowing neither group to control the other. The model I'm thinking of is post-Dayton Bosnia except maybe non-territorial.
Basically you'd have a new two-person presidency and weak federal body (a senate?) overlaying the existing Knesset and PA. Arab-Israeli voters (or possibly everyone) would be entitled to choose which contest to vote in, in a similar manner to how Maori in NZ can choose whether to vote on the Maori electoral roll or the regular one.
Won't happen, but it's probably the fairest and most workable model.
Mansa Musa
Warlord
One state solution will never work. Israeli Jews would still discriminate against Arabs leading to even more societal resentment. Besides, do Palestinians really want to live in a state which has caused them misery over the past 60 years?
Two state solution will never work either.
There are 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank. 20% of Israel's citizens are Arabs. Even if an independent Palestinian state managed to be set up on 1967 borders or close to it (highly improbable), both countries will still have significant Israeli/Palestinian minorities unless wholesale ethnic clensing is applied. If you take out the Israeli-settled areas of the West Bank, the remaining Palestinian state would be little more than a Bantustan - artificial, disconnected and not capable of supporting itself without massive outside help.
Blacks suffered at the hands of white slavers in the USA and apartheid policies in the USA and South Africa. Both countries still exist, but in a different form. Israelis must get used to the idea that the price for settling Palestine is living in a country full of Arabs, and their ethnically-dominant Jewish state is something that is unsustainable without racist, illiberal and anti-democratic measures.
Beg pardon?? The 19th amendment (for better or worse) was passed in 1920.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
I guess the world would have been better if the US would have NOT supported a Jewish state in the ME. I mean, look at the craphole it is now.
