Does the US have a ship named after someone other than a white person? Honest question.
Usually the ships are named after a person that had a significant affect on the country, and it shouldn't really matter if that person is Arab, Jewish, Christian, White, Black, Asian, etc, etc....
If you put everyone under the same rule, one person = one vote, then the nation would be democratic but not "Jewish." I suspect that is not something the Israelis would be interested in.
It takes more than a vote to make something democratic. A democratic government even if voted in has to respect basic prinicples like freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc...and then agree to hold regular elections afterwards.
The arab growth rate far exceeds the Jewish one, so it would be only a matter of time before muslim arabs were the majority. The last time the Palestinians had an election, they voted in Hamas, the least democratic government possible.
So yes you are correct Israelis have no interest in being the subjects of Hamas.
When you have two populations that have two fundamentally different moral and cultural systems, where they draw their basic ideas of what constitutes democracy (in this case Jewish and Arab/Muslim), a true democracy will never work. At least it hasn't come about yet. The two state solution makes more sense, and it has nothing to do with Israelis being undemocratic.
By the early 1940s Jews owned about one third of Mulk land in Palestine and Arabs about two-thirds. The vast majority of the total land, however, belonged to the government, meaning that when the state of Israel was established, it became legally Israel's. (I believe that about 77% of the land was owned by the government, assuming 6 million dunams of private land as shown in this invaluable webpage on the topic from which I got much of this information.
When the State of Israel was established in 1948, it was due to a partition plan that was drawn up (numerous times) and voted on by the UN. It gave the favor to the Jewish leaders, thus granting them large chunks of land (that belonged to Arab gov't). "Legally". Even though Palistinian leaders opposed it.
Don't get me wrong, I think the plan was a great idea. It was a solution that would have worked well had the Palestinian leaders not oppesed it so much. They felt like they were getting cheated, but I think if they could have looked into the future to see what would have become of Palestine, they may have looked at things differently. It could have worked well.
Is there any good sites out there on the history of this conflict?
I don't really care about an authors opinion on who is at fault just facts on why things are the way they are today. Looking from the outside and not having a side it almost seems like Isreal is just a big bully and the Palesteins are doing what anyone would do when someone takes over their land. But again that's based on very little information outside some CNN/Fox News info.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
If you put everyone under the same rule, one person = one vote, then the nation would be democratic but not "Jewish." I suspect that is not something the Israelis would be interested in.
That's something Israel should be interested in. Religious states are a bad idea from the get-go. If you want to make sure you have a target on your back, throw religion in the mix of your national identity. Ask Ireland how well that works out. If you are a country with 20-45% of your population not practicing the Jewish religion, you are now officially neglecting a large portion of your population.
Brand your country as the free state of the middle east, and take the Star of David off of your flag. People of all religions and backgrounds that don't enjoy persecution in the crapholes they are currently living in should be flocking to Israel. They should be the USA to a whole bunch of surrounding Mexicos.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
That's something Israel should be interested in. Religious states are a bad idea from the get-go. If you want to make sure you have a target on your back, throw religion in the mix of your national identity. Ask Ireland how well that works out. If you are a country with 20-45% of your population not practicing the Jewish religion, you are now officially neglecting a large portion of your population.
Brand your country as the free state of the middle east, and take the Star of David off of your flag. People of all religions and backgrounds that don't enjoy persecution in the crapholes they are currently living in should be flocking to Israel. They should be the USA to a whole bunch of surrounding Mexicos.
I do tend to agree with that, and make no mistake, there are politcal parties in Israel that want to move in that direction. There are Arabs (Muslim and Christians), as well as Jews that are politcally active in trying to bring about such reforms.
That is the thing about Israel and why I think it deserves protection. It has some faults, but it is overall a free country where people with dissenting opinions can express them without being punished and can work for change. This cannot be said about most, if not all other countries in the region.
Although I disagree that the Star of David would need to be removed. It's a historical icon associated with the region. Just look at how many European countries have crosses on their flags.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 11-20-2012 at 12:48 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
That's something Israel should be interested in. Religious states are a bad idea from the get-go. If you want to make sure you have a target on your back, throw religion in the mix of your national identity. Ask Ireland how well that works out. If you are a country with 20-45% of your population not practicing the Jewish religion, you are now officially neglecting a large portion of your population.
Brand your country as the free state of the middle east, and take the Star of David off of your flag. People of all religions and backgrounds that don't enjoy persecution in the crapholes they are currently living in should be flocking to Israel. They should be the USA to a whole bunch of surrounding Mexicos.
This idea does not appreciate what it is to be a minority. Especially one in an oppressive middle eastern state. If Israel did this, they'd find themselves under Hamas rule within the year.
Also, why is it only Israel that is forced to abandon their identity and sovereignty. Why not make France the place where all immigrants get to flock. What's with the double standard?
Regardless of what side you take, as soon as you post those maps, you're labelling yourself as someone who has zero actual knowledge of the history of the area.
Implying Palestine even existed as a nation like that is junk, and you should be equally as angry about the rest of the British Palestine area that is now "occupied" by Jordan.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
It takes more than a vote to make something democratic. A democratic government even if voted in has to respect basic prinicples like freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc...and then agree to hold regular elections afterwards.
The arab growth rate far exceeds the Jewish one, so it would be only a matter of time before muslim arabs were the majority. The last time the Palestinians had an election, they voted in Hamas, the least democratic government possible.
So yes you are correct Israelis have no interest in being the subjects of Hamas.
When you have two populations that have two fundamentally different moral and cultural systems, where they draw their basic ideas of what constitutes democracy (in this case Jewish and Arab/Muslim), a true democracy will never work. At least it hasn't come about yet. The two state solution makes more sense, and it has nothing to do with Israelis being undemocratic.
Well, if you had a unified state, Hamas would not be voted in. That becomes clear after a few moments of thought. Therefore that point, along with a few of the non sequiturs in your post, need not be addressed.
Democratization via a Palestinian elected majority would mean a reversal of some biased civic laws and practices, even to the point of biasing them against people of Israeli heritage. These could all be done legally and democratically while making life miserable for a fraction of the society. I abhor that such practices happen now at the expense of Palestinian livelihood, and would vehemently oppose the tables being turned via popular vote... even if it is tempting for some to see it as "just deserts." Unjust is unjust.
Further, democratization via popular vote even when all laws are objectively applied, would inevitably change the cultural make-up of predominantly Jewish areas simply by dilution. I'm not in favour of that.
Is there any good sites out there on the history of this conflict?
I don't really care about an authors opinion on who is at fault just facts on why things are the way they are today. Looking from the outside and not having a side it almost seems like Isreal is just a big bully and the Palesteins are doing what anyone would do when someone takes over their land. But again that's based on very little information outside some CNN/Fox News info.
This video was created by an Azerbaijinian news source. They aren't especially pro-Israeli or Arab. This video gives some good insight into geo-politics you don't normally hear about.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Well, if you had a unified state, Hamas would not be voted in. That becomes clear after a few moments of thought. Therefore that point, along with a few of the non sequiturs in your post, need not be addressed.
Democratization via a Palestinian elected majority would mean a reversal of some biased civic laws and practices, even to the point of biasing them against people of Israeli heritage. These could all be done legally and democratically while making life miserable for a fraction of the society. I abhor that such practices happen now at the expense of Palestinian livelihood, and would vehemently oppose the tables being turned via popular vote... even if it is tempting for some to see it as "just deserts." Unjust is unjust.
Further, democratization via popular vote even when all laws are objectively applied, would inevitably change the cultural make-up of predominantly Jewish areas simply by dilution. I'm not in favour of that.
Those things could happen....or the state could turn out like the other 30 arab/muslim states in the region, where minority rights are non-existent.
Also, why wouldn't they vote in Hamas? Hamas beyond their hatred of Israel runs on a platform of islamic government. That appeals to a lot of people regardless of the occupation. Egypt voted in islamic governments, as are many of the other naitons in the arab spring.
You're asking Isralis to sacrifice their sovereignty and the culture/society the have built to trust the fact they won't, once again, become minorities in an islamic/arab regime. The majority of Jewish Israelis are descended from people who were persecuted and forced from their homes by tyranical arab/muslim regimes.
You're proposition that Israel/Palestine needs to be the first nation in human history to figure out to run a democracy with two entirely different ethnicities/religions working together is pretty ludicrous. Please show me an example of one time that has worked out in the long run before you accuse the Israelis of sabotaging democracy.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Well, if you had a unified state, Hamas would not be voted in. That becomes clear after a few moments of thought. Therefore that point, along with a few of the non sequiturs in your post, need not be addressed.
Highly dubious conclusion unless you believe the only goal of Hamas is peace and co-existence with the Israeli state, and these were the the only reasons individuals voted for them.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
Those things could happen....or the state could turn out like the other 30 arab/muslim states in the region, where minority rights are non-existent.
Also, why wouldn't they vote in Hamas? Hamas beyond their hatred of Israel runs on a platform of islamic government. That appeals to a lot of people regardless of the occupation. Egypt voted in islamic governments, as are many of the other naitons in the arab spring.
You're asking Isralis to sacrifice their sovereignty and the culture/society the have built to trust the fact they won't, once again, become minorities in an islamic/arab regime. The majority of Jewish Israelis are descended from people who were persecuted and forced from their homes by tyranical arab/muslim regimes.
You're proposition that Israel/Palestine needs to be the first nation in human history to figure out to run a democracy with two entirely different ethnicities/religions working together is pretty ludicrous. Please show me an example of one time that has worked out in the long run before you accuse the Israelis of sabotaging democracy.
Those things could happen....or the state could turn out like the other 30 arab/muslim states in the region, where minority rights are non-existent.
Also, why wouldn't they vote in Hamas? Hamas beyond their hatred of Israel runs on a platform of islamic government. That appeals to a lot of people regardless of the occupation. Egypt voted in islamic governments, as are many of the other naitons in the arab spring.
Because Hamas is a reactionary vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
You're proposition that Israel/Palestine needs to be the first nation in human history to figure out to run a democracy with two entirely different ethnicities/religions working together is pretty ludicrous. Please show me an example of one time that has worked out in the long run before you accuse the Israelis of sabotaging democracy.
Please address what is being written. I've repeatedly argued that I do NOT favour a one state solution because the demographics would drown out the Jewish culture. I don't want that.
Please read and respond to people's actual positions rather than the positions you impute to them. It's the only way we can have a discussion.
This idea does not appreciate what it is to be a minority. Especially one in an oppressive middle eastern state. If Israel did this, they'd find themselves under Hamas rule within the year.
I think if you establish a semblance of a stable state with stable government, you'll see Hamas support evaporate. I'd best by and large most votes for Hamas in Gaza come from people seeing it as a way out of their current situation. Get them out of their current situation, and I bet people would happily drop their support for what they viewed as a necessary evil. Obviously much easier said than done.
Quote:
Also, why is it only Israel that is forced to abandon their identity and sovereignty. Why not make France the place where all immigrants get to flock. What's with the double standard?
France is rather flooded with immigrants. My US/Mexico example was more alluding to the US problem with illegal immigration. If Israel became a secular state and continued demonstrating dedication to human rights, I'd expect people swimming across rivers and jumping fences to get in.
Then maybe you see surrounding countries realize they need to loosen up to keep from losing their population, dominoes start to fall.
All very utopian, wishful thinking, but anything that moves in this direction is a positive for the whole region.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
The hatred and anger in Canada/Belgium and Switzerland, is nothing compared to the current issue(s) at hand.
As for South Africa, it is heading the way of Zimbabwe. There is a big belief that once Nelson dies, that it will kick off. Only the respect for Nelson keeps the lid on things.
BTW, for your 3 good examples, there are many many more poor examples.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
