Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

no i don't think so either, but that's not what i meant to say either. When i said "would make the people on the ground the happiest" i implied but did not explictly state, for now and in the future.

This would neccissarily encourage a resoultion that would result in people having the incentive to act "correctly" in the future.

If a certain resolution of the israel dispute led to some unhappiness for israels now, but encouraged a better net social outcome in the future, i would consider this a soulution that would make "the people on the ground" happiest.

The fundamentalists of both sides will never agree
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Israel remains an anachronism.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know whether to agree or not. What are the pracical applications of this statement ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not implying, of course, that Israel should cease to exist!

Bu the tenets underlying the very creation of the state of Israel, which also determine Israel's policies ever since its creation, have become absurdly anachronistic!

Israel was created as a state by Jews for the Jews, with exclusivity all over it. (Herzl's principles were "improved" by the Reformed Zionists of Zabotinsky.) This seemed absolutely legitimate, if not vital, in the 19th century. It was the era of nationalism. It was also the time when anti-semitism reared its ugly head quite forcibly on the world stage, once again, as witnessed, among other events, by the Czarist pogroms in Russia and the Dreyfuss affair in France.

But not anymore! Creating and running a state now by the Ruritanians for Ruritanians under stricty Ruritanian customs and laws is silly, if not criminal! (Which is why, incidentally, the Balkans remain, too, an anachronism. Witness the Kosovo mess.) The modern model for nation-states should be the United States of America, which is our most advanced model -- end of story!

This is why I'm saying that the solution to the problem (although it is quite a romantic one, by now) is the one-state solution. A country that encompasses ALL the disputed land, perhaps even including the damn Golan heights, from Gaza to the Jordan river. With the same rules, laws and regulations that apply in every western democracy, explicitly forbidding one nation or religion runnign roughshod over another. With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America.

Now THAT would propel the whole of the Middle East towards modernisation, democratization and secularization, you betcha!...

Re: The fundamentalists of both sides will never agree
 

i actually think that'd be a fantasitc solution, but only if the people involved were willing to play within the parameters you've set out.

America works because even people who don't like the end of government policy like it better then they'd like rebelling.

Iraq (currently) doesn't because insurgents who don't like the end government policy don't like it better then they like rebelling.

I think the solution you propose would lead to large elements (though not all parts) of the citizenery choosing the second option.

Re: The fundamentalists of both sides will never agree
 

[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

What part
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ?

Re: Israeline
 

>> Quote:
Cyrus has stated that Israel has nothing to fear [in military terms] from its neighbours as it is militarily stronger.

Yes. Is this even debatable ?<<

If you honestly don't believe Iran is a significant and credible military threat to Israel, then you have a *lot* of work to do to get up to speed.

Do that before commenting further, and perhaps we can have an intelligent, informed discussion.

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

The key doctrine that governs Israeli military policy is the notion that should any given Arab state lose a war, the citizens will still be part of an ethnic and religious majority in any other Arab country, while if Israel were to lose a war they would be dispersed back to Europe (or worse) and be once again living under the policies of a different ethical standard.

Re: Official Cyrus vs. MMMMMM Israel/Arabs Thread
 

>>while if Israel were to lose a war they would be dispersed back to Europe (or worse)<<

Given the Iranian president's recent publicly proclaimed vow to "wipe Israel off the map", I'd say that they're looking at "or worse".

How much money did you make on Rosh Hashana?
 

Which is why I claim (and the pro-Zionists get all upset) that Israel remains an anachronism.

Israel is only an anachronism to the united states in which all forms of group identity are lost.

Yet, even in that united states, the statutory holidays are christian holidays and observant jews are still required to miss work on saturdays and holidays, costing millions in lost business.

In Israel, jewish holidays are statutory holidays and jews don't miss work for religious observances.

this is the most clear cut example.

Re: What part
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With its external security firmly guaranteed by UN and America

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's OK now for the US to be the world cop as part of your political solutions, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What part do you need explained about the difference between regime change and guaranteeing a nation's frontiers ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Regime change in Iraq guaranteed the frontiers of its neighbors. Just ask Kuwait.