No, he wasn't, at least not with a majority vote...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Neither did Clinton (in either election) or Bush or Nixon or Tony Blair or even Gore if he had won. There are a lot of elections in which the winner didn't get a majority. That doesn't mean they weren't elected. (Tony Blair's party won a majority but he only won his constituency.)
A new nation (democratic) formed to include all territories now seperated (Gaza, Israel, West Bank).
Rename it so it neither reflects jewish or muslim heritage .
Give Palistinians and Israelis alike full citizenship.
No official state religion.
Complete seperation of state and church.
Anything significant left out?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, why can't the Jews have a state that reflects their heritage? 300 million Muslims live in states that reflect theirs. Basically, you are calling for the destruction of Israel. NoahJ is wrong. Palestinians would go for this in a heartbeat. Their birthrate is higher. The demographics of such a state would mean that before very long Jews would be a minority in this new state. And there's a good chance that you would also see a significant Muslim emigration to this new state. Perhaps even from it's inception it would be minority Jewish. Why would the Jews sign off on such a plan? They aren't very secure now. There's no reason to believe they'd be more secure in this new political entity. And what makes you think that the Muslim population would acquiesce to maintaining this new country as a secular state once they had the upper hand? BTW, what would you call this state?
1. What about the Golan Heights and the Sheeba Farms area? I'd think this issue needs to be resolved in order to have a true regional peace.
2. Israel will surely demand that the Palestinians in a future Palestinian state not form a conventional military force, or only a very limited one. What kind of security guarantees would you suggest?
3. What do you think of some sort of peacekeeping force, similar to the U.S. troops in the Sinai that separate Israel and Egypt?
4. Access to religious sites in Israel and Palestine. Some sort of accomodation needs to be reached here.
5. What about a Truth and Reconcilliation committee similar to what was done in South Africa? This might help heal old wounds.
Generally I like your ideas, although I don't think the Gaza/West Bank trade will work. Nonetheless, I rather talk peace ideas than trade ethnic/religious insults.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hi, gobble. I'll try to answer your questions:
1.The sheeba farms area has been designated by the UN to not be part of Lebanon. The UN agreed with Israel's borders after they pulled out of lebanon.
The Golan Heights is a Israel-Syria issue but you're right it must be settled. I suggest Israel removing the settlements but keeping the area as a no-mans land with UN peacekeepers.
2.The guarantee would mean absolutely NO attacks from the new Palestinian State of any kind, otherwise Israel has the right to take military action.
3.I would prefer no peacekeeping forces get involved in that area, but they may be necessary.
4.The border wouldn't be completely closed, hopefully so access would be ensured.
5.There really does need to be something like this, where both sides admit to wrongdoings. There are plenty of liberal on Israel's side who can do this, but there need to be palestinians willing to do this without fear of being shot by Arafat or his minions........................................... ..
[quote]A vital region aflame and on the march. Unresolved disputes over old imperial boundaries breeding terrible violence. A fanatical belief system stitched together from religious traditions, romantic cults of violence, and modern ideologies, then fanned by fire-breathing, charismatic leaders and propped up by timid plutocrats terrified of the masses. Genuinely well-intentioned progressives finding themselves the unwitting supporters of murderous fanatics. America and the Jews savagely attacked as the hated representatives of all that is wrong with the modern world.
No doubt about it, Europe was a frightening place in the 1930s and '40s. Fascism and communism squeezed out the democrats and then turned on each other; America and Britain, after early hesitations and defeats, successfully stamped out the greater conflagration, whose ashes hardened into the cold war. And while communism survived a few decades longer, it too collapsed when internal contradictions and the containment of the West became too much to bear. To be sure, history has never really ended in Europe - just ask the Bosnians or Chechens. But its world-threatening systems of conflict were ended and the ideologies that sustained them discredited.
Comparing now and then, uncanny similarities abound. And this, as the Marxists used to say, is no accident. The new ideology of "jihadism" consists, partly, of the detritus of the worst European ideologies. Jihadism, like fascism and communism, has itself arisen in response to powerful currents - of modernization then, and globalization now.
When I say "jihadism," I do not mean to denigrate the "jihad of the spirit," which is a profound concept in Islamic law and theology. And I'm not calling, God forbid, for civilizational war. Rather, I mean to give a name to a specific configuration of old beliefs and new ideologies arising in today's Middle East - a configuration that is not without precedent. Indeed, by glancing backward at the historical antecedents to our present predicament, we can focus on our long-term policy objectives and devise the best ways to achieve them.
Here, then, are some of the striking similarities:
Legitimate grievances left unanswered and protests deflected by cynical elites. John Maynard Keynes rightly predicted the disasters of the punitive peace of Versailles. The Russians and Slavs groaned first under the czars and then the commissars - and, boy, were they angry. Since the end of the Ottoman Empire, the people of the Middle East have largely been ruled by a succession of autocrats who have delivered neither freedom nor prosperity (the Gulf petrocracy aside) and have worked mightily to deflect their peoples' understandable rage elsewhere. The Palestinians and their interests have been cynically neglected by the Arab states, steadily sold out by their leaders, and treated unjustly by Israel...<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, why can't the Jews have a state that reflects their heritage? 300 million Muslims live in states that reflect theirs. Basically, you are calling for the destruction of Israel. NoahJ is wrong. Palestinians would go for this in a heartbeat. Their birthrate is higher. The demographics of such a state would mean that before very long Jews would be a minority in this new state. And there's a good chance that you would also see a significant Muslim emigration to this new state. Perhaps even from it's inception it would be minority Jewish. Why would the Jews sign off on such a plan? They aren't very secure now. There's no reason to believe they'd be more secure in this new political entity. And what makes you think that the Muslim population would acquiesce to maintaining this new country as a secular state once they had the upper hand? BTW, what would you call this state?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When put that way Palestinians might go for it, and then exploit it. But if there was anything in place to enforce this separation of church and state, and other high minded ideals, there is no way the leadership would do it. None.
I find his "similarities" vague and used only to stir up images and feelings of hitler, satlin, fascism, and Communism in connection with Islam. He draws us through a history lesson and the moral: we must smash them into a pulp in order for them to come to terms. And oh, good things like civil rights will come out of it for us.
In this case, I think this solution would turn into WWI and not (as he infers) stop a WWII.
"No, he wasn't, at least not with a majority vote..."
Neither did Clinton (in either election) or Bush or Nixon or Tony Blair or even Gore if he had won. There are a lot of elections in which the winner didn't get a majority. That doesn't mean they weren't elected. (Tony Blair's party won a majority but he only won his constituency.) <hr></blockquote>
Hitler was actually given "undemocratic" power by the german president at the time, Hindenburg, who issued a decree that allowed Hitler to make laws without legislative approval. At this time the nazi party was the biggest, but did not have majority in the reichstag (assembly). Had normal democratic institutions been upheld, Hitlers rise to power would have been much more difficult.
Hitler was actually given "undemocratic" power by the german president at the time, Hindenburg, who issued a decree that allowed Hitler to make laws without legislative approval...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm aware of all this history. You wrote that he didn't get a majority of the vote (which is true) as if that established the illegitimacy of his rise to power. It doesn't. Hindenburg's actions, however, are wide open to criticism.
When put that way Palestinians might go for it, and then exploit it. But if there was anything in place to enforce this separation of church and state, and other high minded ideals, there is no way the leadership would do it. None.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you suggest it be enforced? And you have defined separation of church and state as high-minded. You are aware that there are a lot of people over there who wouldn't accept that definition, aren't you? Someone else might think that dying for a cause is equally high-minded. Setting aside this debate over definitions, I haven't seen any "high-mindedness" on the Palestinian side and precious little of it on the Jewish side.
I think if the Jews elected someone more moderate and a little more merciful we can cut down on the violence and eventually move closer to real peace. Sharon is doing nothing to bring peace. He is trying to protect his own people like any leader should but that's not enough. They need someone more moderate that the palistinians can trust and don't have so much animosity towards.
<strong>I think if the Jews elected someone more moderate and a little more merciful we can cut down on the violence and eventually move closer to real peace. Sharon is doing nothing to bring peace. He is trying to protect his own people like any leader should but that's not enough. They need someone more moderate that the palistinians can trust and don't have so much animosity towards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. A sharon-Arafat truce seems next to impossible. Both have bitter histories with each other and sharon is known as "The butcher" by the Palestinians for the 1982 war (sharon could have killed Arafat then but did not. He "regrets" that now.)
<strong>I think if the Jews elected someone more moderate and a little more merciful we can cut down on the violence and eventually move closer to real peace. Sharon is doing nothing to bring peace. He is trying to protect his own people like any leader should but that's not enough. They need someone more moderate that the palistinians can trust and don't have so much animosity towards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It goes both ways. Israelis don't trust Arafat so the palestinians should replace him. But they can't-he's basically a dictator. Sharon was elected as a result of Palestinian violence. If the palestinians want to deal with someone from the labor party they have to stop killing civilians......................................... .....
<strong>Now Sharon wants to build electric fences around the palestinian towns! This guy is incredible.
Both the Israelis and the palestinians should let their leaders move to Florida (/Sansibar?) and let some younger guys take over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now this I agree with................................
Of course the Ion't trust Arafat. He cannot be trusted! EVER. The Palistinians have put all their hopes and confidence in a man that will never bring them lasting peace.
Comments
but who'll occupy the ghettos of jerusalem if palestinians become equal/represented?
<strong>
By Thentro: Rember, Hitler was elected.
No, he wasn't, at least not with a majority vote...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Neither did Clinton (in either election) or Bush or Nixon or Tony Blair or even Gore if he had won. There are a lot of elections in which the winner didn't get a majority. That doesn't mean they weren't elected. (Tony Blair's party won a majority but he only won his constituency.)
<strong>How about this:
A new nation (democratic) formed to include all territories now seperated (Gaza, Israel, West Bank).
Rename it so it neither reflects jewish or muslim heritage .
Give Palistinians and Israelis alike full citizenship.
No official state religion.
Complete seperation of state and church.
Anything significant left out?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, why can't the Jews have a state that reflects their heritage? 300 million Muslims live in states that reflect theirs. Basically, you are calling for the destruction of Israel. NoahJ is wrong. Palestinians would go for this in a heartbeat. Their birthrate is higher. The demographics of such a state would mean that before very long Jews would be a minority in this new state. And there's a good chance that you would also see a significant Muslim emigration to this new state. Perhaps even from it's inception it would be minority Jewish. Why would the Jews sign off on such a plan? They aren't very secure now. There's no reason to believe they'd be more secure in this new political entity. And what makes you think that the Muslim population would acquiesce to maintaining this new country as a secular state once they had the upper hand? BTW, what would you call this state?
>The palestinians have been giving since 1948.<
No, the Palestinians have been attacking Jews since 1948. Too ****ing bad that they lost............
<strong>Steve 666,
Interesting peace plan. A few questions:
1. What about the Golan Heights and the Sheeba Farms area? I'd think this issue needs to be resolved in order to have a true regional peace.
2. Israel will surely demand that the Palestinians in a future Palestinian state not form a conventional military force, or only a very limited one. What kind of security guarantees would you suggest?
3. What do you think of some sort of peacekeeping force, similar to the U.S. troops in the Sinai that separate Israel and Egypt?
4. Access to religious sites in Israel and Palestine. Some sort of accomodation needs to be reached here.
5. What about a Truth and Reconcilliation committee similar to what was done in South Africa? This might help heal old wounds.
Generally I like your ideas, although I don't think the Gaza/West Bank trade will work. Nonetheless, I rather talk peace ideas than trade ethnic/religious insults.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hi, gobble. I'll try to answer your questions:
1.The sheeba farms area has been designated by the UN to not be part of Lebanon. The UN agreed with Israel's borders after they pulled out of lebanon.
The Golan Heights is a Israel-Syria issue but you're right it must be settled. I suggest Israel removing the settlements but keeping the area as a no-mans land with UN peacekeepers.
2.The guarantee would mean absolutely NO attacks from the new Palestinian State of any kind, otherwise Israel has the right to take military action.
3.I would prefer no peacekeeping forces get involved in that area, but they may be necessary.
4.The border wouldn't be completely closed, hopefully so access would be ensured.
5.There really does need to be something like this, where both sides admit to wrongdoings. There are plenty of liberal on Israel's side who can do this, but there need to be palestinians willing to do this without fear of being shot by Arafat or his minions........................................... ..
<a href="http://www.thenewrepublic.com/docprint.mhtml?i=express&s=mirsky041002"; target="_blank">From Fascism to Jihadism</a>
by Yehudah Mirsky
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 04.09.02
[quote]A vital region aflame and on the march. Unresolved disputes over old imperial boundaries breeding terrible violence. A fanatical belief system stitched together from religious traditions, romantic cults of violence, and modern ideologies, then fanned by fire-breathing, charismatic leaders and propped up by timid plutocrats terrified of the masses. Genuinely well-intentioned progressives finding themselves the unwitting supporters of murderous fanatics. America and the Jews savagely attacked as the hated representatives of all that is wrong with the modern world.
No doubt about it, Europe was a frightening place in the 1930s and '40s. Fascism and communism squeezed out the democrats and then turned on each other; America and Britain, after early hesitations and defeats, successfully stamped out the greater conflagration, whose ashes hardened into the cold war. And while communism survived a few decades longer, it too collapsed when internal contradictions and the containment of the West became too much to bear. To be sure, history has never really ended in Europe - just ask the Bosnians or Chechens. But its world-threatening systems of conflict were ended and the ideologies that sustained them discredited.
Comparing now and then, uncanny similarities abound. And this, as the Marxists used to say, is no accident. The new ideology of "jihadism" consists, partly, of the detritus of the worst European ideologies. Jihadism, like fascism and communism, has itself arisen in response to powerful currents - of modernization then, and globalization now.
When I say "jihadism," I do not mean to denigrate the "jihad of the spirit," which is a profound concept in Islamic law and theology. And I'm not calling, God forbid, for civilizational war. Rather, I mean to give a name to a specific configuration of old beliefs and new ideologies arising in today's Middle East - a configuration that is not without precedent. Indeed, by glancing backward at the historical antecedents to our present predicament, we can focus on our long-term policy objectives and devise the best ways to achieve them.
Here, then, are some of the striking similarities:
Legitimate grievances left unanswered and protests deflected by cynical elites. John Maynard Keynes rightly predicted the disasters of the punitive peace of Versailles. The Russians and Slavs groaned first under the czars and then the commissars - and, boy, were they angry. Since the end of the Ottoman Empire, the people of the Middle East have largely been ruled by a succession of autocrats who have delivered neither freedom nor prosperity (the Gulf petrocracy aside) and have worked mightily to deflect their peoples' understandable rage elsewhere. The Palestinians and their interests have been cynically neglected by the Arab states, steadily sold out by their leaders, and treated unjustly by Israel...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>
Yeah, why can't the Jews have a state that reflects their heritage? 300 million Muslims live in states that reflect theirs. Basically, you are calling for the destruction of Israel. NoahJ is wrong. Palestinians would go for this in a heartbeat. Their birthrate is higher. The demographics of such a state would mean that before very long Jews would be a minority in this new state. And there's a good chance that you would also see a significant Muslim emigration to this new state. Perhaps even from it's inception it would be minority Jewish. Why would the Jews sign off on such a plan? They aren't very secure now. There's no reason to believe they'd be more secure in this new political entity. And what makes you think that the Muslim population would acquiesce to maintaining this new country as a secular state once they had the upper hand? BTW, what would you call this state?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When put that way Palestinians might go for it, and then exploit it. But if there was anything in place to enforce this separation of church and state, and other high minded ideals, there is no way the leadership would do it. None.
I find his "similarities" vague and used only to stir up images and feelings of hitler, satlin, fascism, and Communism in connection with Islam. He draws us through a history lesson and the moral: we must smash them into a pulp in order for them to come to terms. And oh, good things like civil rights will come out of it for us.
In this case, I think this solution would turn into WWI and not (as he infers) stop a WWII.
Yea, that wont work. But for fun, lets think up some names!
"middle-land"
"conflict-zone"
"Is-a-stine"
"thentrostine" or "thentrael"
or lets just make it a symbol! like that artist that was formally known as a symbol known as the artist formally known as prince. (Prince)
here is one:
or is that coppy right...
<strong>
Yea, that wont work. But for fun, lets think up some names!
"middle-land"
"conflict-zone"
"Is-a-stine"
"thentrostine" or "thentrael"
or lets just make it a symbol! like that artist that was formally known as a symbol known as the artist formally known as prince. (Prince)
here is one:
or is that coppy right...
LOL!
I'm sure the Israelies would vote overwhelmingly to create a thentrostine or something else! hehe
But that was funny though.
"No, he wasn't, at least not with a majority vote..."
Neither did Clinton (in either election) or Bush or Nixon or Tony Blair or even Gore if he had won. There are a lot of elections in which the winner didn't get a majority. That doesn't mean they weren't elected. (Tony Blair's party won a majority but he only won his constituency.) <hr></blockquote>
Hitler was actually given "undemocratic" power by the german president at the time, Hindenburg, who issued a decree that allowed Hitler to make laws without legislative approval. At this time the nazi party was the biggest, but did not have majority in the reichstag (assembly). Had normal democratic institutions been upheld, Hitlers rise to power would have been much more difficult.
<strong>
Hitler was actually given "undemocratic" power by the german president at the time, Hindenburg, who issued a decree that allowed Hitler to make laws without legislative approval...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm aware of all this history. You wrote that he didn't get a majority of the vote (which is true) as if that established the illegitimacy of his rise to power. It doesn't. Hindenburg's actions, however, are wide open to criticism.
<strong>
When put that way Palestinians might go for it, and then exploit it. But if there was anything in place to enforce this separation of church and state, and other high minded ideals, there is no way the leadership would do it. None.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How do you suggest it be enforced? And you have defined separation of church and state as high-minded. You are aware that there are a lot of people over there who wouldn't accept that definition, aren't you? Someone else might think that dying for a cause is equally high-minded. Setting aside this debate over definitions, I haven't seen any "high-mindedness" on the Palestinian side and precious little of it on the Jewish side.
Both the Israelis and the palestinians should let their leaders move to Florida (/Sansibar?) and let some younger guys take over.
<strong>I think if the Jews elected someone more moderate and a little more merciful we can cut down on the violence and eventually move closer to real peace. Sharon is doing nothing to bring peace. He is trying to protect his own people like any leader should but that's not enough. They need someone more moderate that the palistinians can trust and don't have so much animosity towards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. A sharon-Arafat truce seems next to impossible. Both have bitter histories with each other and sharon is known as "The butcher" by the Palestinians for the 1982 war (sharon could have killed Arafat then but did not. He "regrets" that now.)
<strong>I think if the Jews elected someone more moderate and a little more merciful we can cut down on the violence and eventually move closer to real peace. Sharon is doing nothing to bring peace. He is trying to protect his own people like any leader should but that's not enough. They need someone more moderate that the palistinians can trust and don't have so much animosity towards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It goes both ways. Israelis don't trust Arafat so the palestinians should replace him. But they can't-he's basically a dictator. Sharon was elected as a result of Palestinian violence. If the palestinians want to deal with someone from the labor party they have to stop killing civilians......................................... .....
<strong>Now Sharon wants to build electric fences around the palestinian towns! This guy is incredible.
Both the Israelis and the palestinians should let their leaders move to Florida (/Sansibar?) and let some younger guys take over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now this I agree with................................