To the "X should own it all" voters

[HannibalBarka]

In the "Israel-Palestine: final stand" poll, 27 voted "Israel should own all the land" and 11 "Palestinian should own all the land".

I am just curious how these people think this may be a solution to the problem. Are they advocating:

1. A single democratic state where all people Arab and Jews are equal ?
2. An apartheid like regime with the Arabs (repectively the Jews) as second-class citizens ?
3. A "pure" arab (repectively jewish) country by driving the jews to the sea (or the arabs to the desert)
4. Other.....

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The Arabs can dwell in Jordan. If necessary, they can be forcibly moved there and the border sealed.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
The Arabs can dwell in Jordan. If necessary, they can be forcibly moved there and the border sealed.

Well, that isn't news to anyone on this forum Simon.

 

[lz14]

If Arabs control it all, Jews will be all killed. But this won't happen, Israel has nukes, they won't hesitate to use it if the country is in danger.
If Israel control it all, Palestinians would be absorbed by other Arab nations. But countries like Jordan will never do it, it's way too harm for any country to accept so many refugees.(Jordan also has loads of Iraqi refugees) Plus 100 more Hamas will be born. (in fact this is what is happening)

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by HannibalBarka
Well, that isn't news to anyone on this forum Simon.

One answered as to which of the categories one advocated. Any 'secular democratic' single state would lead to demographic domination by the Arabs, and consequent manipulation of this by extremist elements, resulting in the removal of the Jews, who would not any means of recourse.

The second option is possible, but given current conditions, equally untenable.

So, in order to preserve the sovereignty and right to exist of Israel, there needs to be a decisive severance along defensible borders.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

Any 'secular democratic' single state would lead to demographic domination by the Arabs, and consequent manipulation of this by extremist elements, resulting in the removal of the Jews

But what you are advocating (removal of the Palestinian to Jordan) is similar to what the "extremist elements" are advocating (removal of the Jews to Europe/USA or God knows where)

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It is an extreme solution to a situation that has no other. They have had their chances. The surrounding Arab states do nothing about the issue, nor do they take the necessary steps to guarantee Israel's existance and security, such as making unconditional peace, and behaving in a peaceful and civilized manner without reward. Therefore, when surrounded by enemies, appropriate measures should be taken.

It is different in that one is not advocating a wholesale massacre of all Arabs, not only in the Middle East but all over.

 

[amadeus]

to Simon on this one.

 

[MrPresident]

There cannot be a Palestinian state until terrorism stops. Otherwise the establishment of such a state will create a terrorist haven on the border with Israel. This cannot be allowed. Therefore unless Palestinians can guarantee the stopping of all terrorist activity against Israeli and Israelis then there cannot be an independent Palestinian state. If this means an apartheid state in which Palestinians are second-class citizens then so be it.

 

[Jorge]

Originally posted by MrPresident
There cannot be a Palestinian state until terrorism stops. Otherwise the establishment of such a state will create a terrorist haven on the border with Israel. This cannot be allowed. Therefore unless Palestinians can guarantee the stopping of all terrorist activity against Israeli and Israelis then there cannot be an independent Palestinian state. If this means an apartheid state in which Palestinians are second-class citizens then so be it.

Yes, let's make pay the whole population for the actions of a few. That's the right thing to do for sure.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
It is an extreme solution to a situation that has no other. They have had their chances. The surrounding Arab states do nothing about the issue, nor do they take the necessary steps to guarantee Israel's existance and security, such as making unconditional peace, and behaving in a peaceful and civilized manner without reward. Therefore, when surrounded by enemies, appropriate measures should be taken.
It is different in that one is not advocating a wholesale massacre of all Arabs, not only in the Middle East but all over.

Well argumented. But then:
1. Why should the Palestinian be held responsible for the irresponsible actions of other Arab states ?
2. What do think of someone who do not advocate the wholesale massacre of all Jews, but "The Israeli jews can dwell in Canada, or Europe or Australia. If necessary, they can be forcibly moved there and the border sealed". Isn't this similar to what you are advocating (removal of the Palestinian to Jordan) ?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by MrPresident
There cannot be a Palestinian state until terrorism stops. Otherwise the establishment of such a state will create a terrorist haven on the border with Israel. This cannot be allowed. Therefore unless Palestinians can guarantee the stopping of all terrorist activity against Israeli and Israelis then there cannot be an independent Palestinian state. If this means an apartheid state in which Palestinians are second-class citizens then so be it.

So do you think:
1. the solution is a two states, not to be implemented until terrorism stops
or
2. one single state for all, the Palestinian will have their full citizenship when terrorism stops ?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

As Ive said before, the peace process is doomed because it violates one of the basic laws of physics: Two objects cannot occupy the same volume of space at the same time. Its either one or the other. An all Israeli state or an all Palestinian state. The peace process, by having as one of its primary assumptions that there can be two co-existing states, is a complete waste of time. Its a non starter and it has been since the first day, as the body count shows. There are two outcomes here, a short term one and a long term one. In the short term Israel will eventually have no choice but to expel the Palestinians and let the Arabs take care of their own. Long term however, there will be no Israel. The Arabs will overwhelm them eventually merely with their birthrates if nothing else. One day there wont be enough Israelis left to fight off the hordes of Arabs. Sure you say, Israel has nukes, what about that. In the case of Israel, nukes will only serve as revenge from the grave. For Israel to ever use its nukes means that Israel is doomed, and they might as well take out all their enemies with them in a blaze of glory.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

My sentiments are shared with the one called Simon Darkshade.

Please take notice that however much the other Arab countries scream at the rest of the world to help the poor, innocent Palestinians; they, themselves, do nothing except to perhaps help fund more terrorism.

If they truly felt sorry for the Palestinians (versus merely using them as a tool to ally the world in its annihilation of Israel), more proactive measures would be taken to lift the so-called Palestinians from the mire of their poverty and over-all situation.

The only (small) problem I have with moving Palestinians is that
(a) Many peacefully co-exist with Isrealis
(b) Many have perfectly legitimate, documented ownership of parcels of land. If Israel were to do as Simon suggests, compensation should be commensurate with this fact.



--CK

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by Colonel Kraken

The only (small) problem I have with moving Palestinians is that
(a) Many peacefully co-exist with Isrealis
(b) Many have perfectly legitimate, documented ownership of parcels of land. If Israel were to do as Simon suggests, compensation should be commensurate with this fact.
--CK

Again why is this better/less extremist than driving all the jews to Europe/Australia/Michigan ? with only one (small ?????) problem:
(a) Many peacefully co-exist with Palestinian
(b) Many have perfectly legitimate, documented ownership of parcels of land. If Palestine were to do as Hamas suggests, compensation should be commensurate with this fact.

You guys are just proposing the same solution as Hamas !!!!!

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by HannibalBarka


Again why is this better/less extremist than driving all the jews to Europe/Australia/Michigan ? with only one (small ?????) problem:
(a) Many peacefully co-exist with Palestinian
(b) Many have perfectly legitimate, documented ownership of parcels of land. If Palestine were to do as Hamas suggests, compensation should be commensurate with this fact.

You guys are just proposing the same solution as Hamas !!!!!

Woah, woah. Calm down. I was merely pointing out that a wholesale removal of all Palestinians is neither beneficial nor desired. You should know that there are plenty of Palestinians who, working in Israel (and sharing friendships with Israelis), are part of a beneficial symbiotic relationship with Israel.

I advocate Israel take over all the territory, bringing everyone under governmental control and administering (obviously) the entire area as their own.

I'm just not sure that a forced, absolute mass exodus of all Palestinians from Israel is the correct solution. Re-read the tone of my post; you will see I am pro-Israeli all the way, just with a smidgen of empathy/humanity (not that you do not possess these qualities).

--CK

 

[amadeus]

From the shores of Casablanca to the streets of Karachi, from the monuments of Istanbul to the port of Aden, I believe there is enough room for the Arabs to survive without a few more square miles of land in Israel.

 

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
From the shores of Casablanca to the streets of Karachi, from the monuments of Istanbul to the port of Aden, I believe there is enough room for the Arabs to survive without a few more square miles of land in Israel.

Well, there is that. Nonetheless, I just don't see it as a necessity to remove all Arabs from Israel. This is more of a question than a statement, as I do not know the full dynamics of the situation.

 

[Norlamand]

I have a feeling that most Israeli's would have little objection to sharing their land with decent Arabs. But the practical problem posed is that the whack-job, mouth foaming terrorist scum cannot easily be identified in the crowd. There are a fair number of Arabs with full Israeli citizenship living (and some holding office) in Israel. They, by the way, tend to be far more prosperous than their cousins dancing in the streets of Gaza. They live peacefully with their Jewish neighbors despite the fact that they may feel that Palestinians deserve a state of their own. If the rest of the rabble could try this approach they might get a peaceful solution and a state of their own.
The "right of return" question is another show stopper. Israel would be crazy to sign onto a deal that gave full rights of return to every terrorist that can by a ticket. Even if it were only for "peaceful" arabs the Israeli Jews would soon be outnumbered, and outvoted, in their own country!
I wonder what the first actions of the new Arab majority would be by way of legislation? I'm sure it would be similar to the even handed treatment of Israeli Arabs by the current Israeli constitution.........

 

[SeleucusNicator]

One million people of Arab descent and Muslim religion live as full Israeli citizens. They recieve benefits, they vote in elections, they can even serve in the military. In many cases, they have become members of the professional establishment; the stories of an Arab doctor saving the life of an Israeli victim of Palestinian suicide-bombing are many.

Israel need not, and should not, be a 100% Jewish state, much like France is not 100% french.