Hamas is saying that the 1967 borders would be a good starting point for their children to use when driving the Jews into the sea. I’m probably biased since I’m a member of the tribe, but that’s how I read “accept that for now.”
olaf
42
He was and is a piece of shit. Can it be disputed that he was behind the slaughter of the Israeli athletes? That he never sponsored hijackings and suicide bombings? The world is better off with him dead and its a complete joke that he won a Nobel peace prize.
olaf
The official, stated, aim of the IRA is a Gaelic only Ireland, i.e. one free of the several hundred thousand Protestants in the north. That would involve “driving them into the sea”. The majority of Irish people would settle merely for the re-unification of the island. The IRA have now, for the most part, given up on their more extreme aims, and have turned to the political process to create a united Ireland within the EU. If, based on this, I stated that a united Ireland was an impossibility because they wanted to drive the Protestants into the sea, would that be reasonable?
The Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of Palestine lived together without much incident until someone decided it would be a good idea to create a new faith-based nation there. It doesn’t seem impossible that they could do again, but there’s going to have to be a lot of concessions given by both sides.
The alleged links between Arafat and Al-Aqsa were based on the dossier that Sharon presented to Bush in 2002, to support his widely criticised destruction of Palestine and the PLA. Apart from the fact that the source was dubious, being as Sharon has a personal grudge against Arafat and was motivated by the need to support his unpopular attacks with something substantial, the dossier itself didn’t even prove any direct links at all.
JM1
45
But still provided enough evidence to invade Iraq.
Oops…
The official, stated, aim of the IRA is a Gaelic only Ireland, i.e. one free of the several hundred thousand Protestants in the north. That would involve “driving them into the sea”. The majority of Irish people would settle merely for the re-unification of the island. The IRA have now, for the most part, given up on their more extreme aims, and have turned to the political process to create a united Ireland within the EU. If, based on this, I stated that a united Ireland was an impossibility because they wanted to drive the Protestants into the sea, would that be reasonable?
The Jewish, Muslim and Christian people of Palestine lived together without much incident until someone decided it would be a good idea to create a new faith-based nation there. It doesn’t seem impossible that they could do again, but there’s going to have to be a lot of concessions given by both sides.[/quote]
If the standard sermon on Sunday in an Irish Catholic church involved telling the parishioners that killing a Protestant was a free ticket to heaven, and that it was there religious duty to kill as many as possible under all circumstances, and the funerals of people who murdered Prtoestant children were raucous parades were people chanted “Kill the Protestants”, wore masks and fired guns into the air, then yes, I would say it was reasonable to conclude that the IRA isn’t credible when talking about peace.
When is this time you are talking about when Jews, Christians and Muslims were living together without much incident, anyway? I can’t really think of one.
Qenan
47
While I’m not necessarily disputing this fact, what kind of growth rates are we talking about? The current population of Israel is divided about 80/20, with the Jewish population in the majority. What kind of growth rate or time scale are we talking about to see this kind of eventuality?[/quote]
According to most of the figures I’ve seen, the growth rate of the Jewish population is about 1.4%, whereas the Arab Israeli growth rate is about 3.5% (e.g., Jerusalem Post article). If that holds up, there will be as many Arab Israelis as Jewish Israelis in about 70 years.
Israel can’t let Palestine become wholly independent, or even give Palestine a chance to raise its standard of living, because that would be the end of the West Bank water.
On the specific issue of West Bank water, there are numerous precedents for a viable permanent water-sharing structure between states – even semi-hostile, unstable states. A great example would be the 1987 protocol between Turkey (which controls the Tigris/Euphrates headwaters) and Syria. Even Syrian support for PKK terrorism never brought about a Turkish intervention against the headwaters.
There are numerous African water protocols as well, most significantly the 1959 Agreement that successfully stabilized “the politics of the Nile” between Egypt, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa – not exactly a stable region since 1959!
Toddy
49
Yeah, but such a sharing arrangement is impossible between Israel and Palestine, unless the Palestinians are kept at a much lower standard of living than their neighbors. Under Oslo each Israeli has access to 246 cubic meters of water per year, while each Palestinian gets just 57 cubic meters of water per year. If you give the Palestinians a state and allow them to build a modern society, economic improvements will cause water usage to increase dramatically. There just isn’t enough water for everyone in the region to enjoy an Israeli-level standard of living. So either the Israelis lower their standard of living to allow the Palestinians to better theirs, or they keep the Palestinians at a lower status to maintain the status quo.
I just don’t see why the Israelis would be interested in making any kind of compromise deal on water, as it would do incredible damage to Israeli commerce and society. Simply allowing Palestine to come into existence and move onto stable footing as a real state would directly threaten the existence of Israel, even if you take terrorism completely out of the picture.
The only real option – building incredibly expensive desalination plants and then piping water across the entire region (apparently under consideration the past few years) – is simply unaffordable right now for everyone (though Arafat, long may he burn in hell, could apparently have paid for the whole damn deal out of his checking account). The plant idea also wouldn’t be welcome to Palestinians, because of the cost of the water (estimates say at least $1 per cubic meter, and you can bet the real cost would wind up being much higher) and because the plants would be wholly on Israeli territory; Israel would control the taps and could shut them off at any time. On the other hand, of course, the Israelis would continue to have full rights to the “natural” water provided by the West Bank aquifiers. So why would anyone voluntarily surrender a natural resource to a traditionally hostile neighbor, simply on promises that the neighbor would replace the resource?
Crazy as it sounds right now, I think a one-state solution is the only one tenable. This region simply can’t support two states at anything close to an equal level of development.
I take it you’ve never seen an IRA funeral or the famous murals of Belfast. Bar the hyperbole, the situation isn’t all that different. The Catholics of Northern Ireland have also been a little less oppressed in recent years than the Palestinians, so tend to be a little less angry about the situation. Still, some of those murals could be quite explicit in what they’d like to do to the Protestants (and the same on the other side too).
The time before Zionism. The time before millions of European and American Jews turned up in the country to set up a Jewish nation in a form of neo-colonialism. There are still small groups of Jewish people in the region who continue to see themselves as locals and disagree with the whole idea of a Jewish state. It wasn’t their idea after all.
When is this time you are talking about when Jews, Christians and Muslims were living together without much incident, anyway? I can’t really think of one.[/quote]
The time before Zionism. The time before millions of European and American Jews turned up in the country to set up a Jewish nation in a form of neo-colonialism. There are still small groups of Jewish people in the region who continue to see themselves as locals and disagree with the whole idea of a Jewish state. It wasn’t their idea after all.[/quote]
You’re talking about some time after the first Muslim Conquest but before the British Mandate? What does that leave? The Crusades? The Ottoman Empire?
Still small coherent communities of pre-WWII Jews who retained the concept of a pre-Zion Jewish culture through three generations serving in the IDF? Where are these communities?
You’re talking about some time after the first Muslim Conquest but before the British Mandate? What does that leave? The Crusades? The Ottoman Empire?
Ummm… like a much much longer time than Israel has existed as a nation.
Still small coherent communities of pre-WWII Jews who retained the concept of a pre-Zion Jewish culture through three generations serving in the IDF? Where are these communities?
There are plenty of Jewish communities that oppose Zionism, even the state of Israel itself. I’m not an expert on Judaism, but from what I’ve read the Orthodox Jewish community was not happy with the creation of Israel, as they believe this event was not supposed to occur until the return of the Messiah, and any man made creation is a sin. The Neturei Karta, for example, are a small group based in Jerusalem, who have been there since before Zionism, who oppose the state of Israel. I remember they recently protested in Vienna when a new street was named after one of the founders of Zionism, which they oppose vehemently.
The vast majority of Orthodox Jews held the position that the state of Israel was wrong, at least until the state was created, and the Orthodox party Agudat Israel asked the UN to vote against the creation of Israel. There were great problems in the late 19th/early 20th century between the new European Zionists and the indigenous Jewish people of Palestine. The worst of it was probably in the 20s, when Jakob de Haan, a former Zionist and spokesmen for the Orthodox party, was murdered. Prior to that, however, there were vocal complaints about the arrogant attitude of the new European immigrants and their treatment of the locals, Jewish, Christian and Muslim.
Yes, that’s a longer time, my point was that it’s not a time when there was anything like religious harmony in the region.
The communities you mentioned seem to be polical groups, not communities who in any sense have retained some pre-Israeli sense of being “locals”
I suppose I’m going to have to ask you to define harmony. I’m not sure a full on choir is necessary, but the lack of people blowing themselves to bits would be a bit more harmonious than anything we’ve seen in a long time.
I suppose I’m going to have to ask you to define harmony. I’m not sure a full on choir is necessary, but the lack of people blowing themselves to bits would be a bit more harmonious than anything we’ve seen in a long time.[/quote]
Well, if swords are more harmonious than bombs, I guess there was more harmony then. But the whole history of the region involves the putting of people to the sword at almost every point in time.
HARMONIOUS SWORDS REGION HISTORY, ASSEMBLE!
You’re talking about the murder rate? Was it a more signifigant murder rate than anywhere else in the world? Was it more murderous than say, London, Moscow, or Rome during the same time period? The fact that there were murders does not disprove anything Tim is saying.
Bonus: is there any place on earth that doesn’t have some “putting of people to the sword?” What is your point?
My point is that there was never a time when the Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine lived together without much incident. That I’d like Tim to name a specific 60 year period with less religious violence between the three groups than right now.
I’m still not sure what you mean. Ottoman rule from 1517 to 1917 wasn’t significant for its bloodshed between the different religious groups. Before the Ottomans, Saladin took it from the Crusaders. Although the Crusades were all about “putting people to the sword” for their religious beliefs, Saladin has a reputation among the Christians for generosity and chivalry.
Forget 60 contiguous years; this is eight centuries.
From my reading of the history of the region the “putting to the sword” tended to come from the outsiders contesting the region, such as the Crusaders.
The communities you mentioned seem to be polical groups, not communities who in any sense have retained some pre-Israeli sense of being “locals”
Well, you introduced the word “communities”, not me, but the Neturei Karta seem to be a pretty homogenous community of pre-Israel Orthodox Jews living in Jerusalem.
