I wouldn't have much of a problem with that but if both sides were armed equally, it would probably just result in the demise of both, assuming you are referring to nukes.
How do we solve the Middle East problem.
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
I wouldn't have much of a problem with that but if both sides were armed equally, it would probably just result in the demise of both, assuming you are referring to nukes.
By actually going into the disputed areas as they did in Bosnia. That would be a good start. How's that neck of the woods doing today?
Agreed.
Both sides would have to be tired of the battle, as was the case in Northern Ireland. The IRA was willing to police it's people with great vigor to ensure splinter cells didn't get off the rez.
Agreed.
Agreed.
And finally, agreed.
Thanx Francis.
Like?
Agreed. Now that I've refreshed my memory with the Camp David talks, they seem reasonable to say the least.
This is true, but this is part and parcel of the problem, the blame game, we're trying to get past that.
Sadly, from past experience, agreed.
As I said in my first post, that portion of their manifesto must be removed and forgotten.
Sadly, they were once the renaissance people of the globe. That changed with one sad act that made the west take notice and it's been a slow sad death ever since.
I'm hoping his man of vision image was not just an act. I hope he can do something worth while there.
I will address this once and once only for the sake of decorum eao. The Israeli's learned on their dat eof birth, once the Arabs amassed their Armies, they would strike. At no time in history has anyone in their place been condemned for that act. Only the Israeli's.
Since their Armies were poised to attack, along with Egypt's, it would be safe to say you are incorrect.
This kind of smear campaign and Zionist boogieman baffle gab is part of the problem, not the solution.
And you claim I have a distorted vision of history? :lol:
Do you have a reasoned and rational idea to contribute?
But in all great struggle, outside help can be of assistance and beneficial.
Bosnia. Nuff said.
That can be misconstrued as 'interfering'. But I agree, it is of great importance.
As we have, Canada has not declared any intentions other then Israel's right to exist. We, even under Harper have only reiterated that sentiment and added that we will not support Hamas, until they agree to recognise Israel's right to exist.
And...
More of the same old blame game eh eao? What didn't you understand about the OP or Gh's reminder?
So long as both sides are give the same treatment. And like responsible parents, all authorities must be willing to adhere to and enforce the removal of support.
I don't see the whole world lending a helping hand anytime soon.
They may have caused harm in doing so, but the out come was peace. Even uneasy peace is better then none. Korea, Bosnia, to name but two.
That's not a solution, that the end of life as we all know it.
No, but can you pretend to be one on the net?
Sorry, just a little levity to break the menotony.
Agreed.
Kind of like what Lone said, so my reply to him would apply here too.
Galloway?
Neither side should have nuclear weapons, but then again, Israel hasn't used them and has shown greater restraint then its aggressor's.
But I will give you kudo's for trying...;-)
And if we are, you can say...The end result would be the demise of us all.
Last edited by a moderator:
As it's been pointed out, this "conflict" has been going on for over 60 years now. It is past the time, in my opinion, for the 2 sides and the world to get their act together. The 2000 Camp David talks came damn close to an agreement. I would propose that the same agreement be put forward to both sides, the Isreali's and the Palistinians. I propose that the PEOPLE be allowed to vote on that agreement, both the Isreali's and the Palistinians, without their respective governments interfereing with that vote. U.N. observers could ensure that it is fair and legal, with U.N. troops backing them up to ensure no one is intimidated. If the people from both sides vote to go forward with the Camp David agreement, then both sides will sit down and hammer out the logistics. Failure would NOT be an option.
I agree GH, after reading the Camp David agreement. I whole heartedly agree. I would respect the borders as proposed in that agreement. I would support the recommendations put forth in that agreement.
If both sides would agree to it, it seems that the realization of the two state solution would be the end result. And so long as both sides remained peaceful. It could mean an end to that conflict.
Counting the Israeli dissidents and the Israeli peace movement and the Palestinians the outcome has already been calculated that is why a referendum has not happened, Israel as we think we know it, would cease to exist. UN observers are unreliable (Hati Rahwanda Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon) on and on.
What is needed is a new world order and we will have that by consensus or by force of arms. That is the order of these days.
What is needed is a new world order and we will have that by consensus or by force of arms. That is the order of these days.
Why do you say that DB?
That only applies to certain operations. I wouldn't say Haiti was a failure, though the rest certainly were. What about Bosnia, or Korea? Even as a fractured country, the South has risen to the chellenge and is doing quite well. The North, well lets just say it's not doing so well under its present leadership.
But isn't that something you've championed against?
I read a study by the Israelis that indicated just that, a landslide in favour of peace at, even at great cost to the Israelis, many of whom know the eventual outcome if the final Palestinian solution is not executed.
What about Kosovo? An ad hoc division for the big military base and the unempeded flow of heroin into central Europe and the further destabalization of the former Yugoslavia, who's destruction was a war crime. I digress, sorry gerry. The new world order will come Bear, the only thing to be decided in this present global war will be who rules, us or them, private capital or free people. It is that faction( private capital) that pays for the carnage in the ME and reaps the benifits so whatever we at this level might decide it is those abominations of humanity who will stand in the way of peacemakers just as they have done for the last hundred years.
Hati is a horror.
I'd be interested in seeing this study. Do you still know where you can find it? A link?
Could you PM me a copy, or post it, I'ld love to read it.
Don't forget the oil... ;-)
OK, I see. Do you truly believe this to be an accurate prediction, or are you just being dark for effect? I ask that with all due respect, I'm not being flippent or sarcastic. I know you a have flare for the dramatic sometimes.
I gave up on that little piece of rock years ago, so I haven't been paying attention, my bad, I'll have to catch up on it.
Haratz maybe? It was about two years ago gerry. There are a lot of Israelis who have already left Israel because they see the situation as hopeless, so the numbers favour the hard liners less and less every day.
Honestly, I don't know. What I do know, though, is that perceptions are important too.
In this respect, if Alberta started dictating to Ontario how it ought to run its affairs, Ontario's not likely to take too kindly to it. It would be more appropriate for Alberta to recognize Ontario as an equal and, as such, bring the issue up with the federal government if it falls into federal jurisdiction or if the Federal government can do anything about it. Otherwise, bring it up during first ministers' meetings and discuss it among first ministers on an equal footing. No guarantee this would solve the problem, but it is more likely that Ontario would be more positively responsive to it on the gounds that Alberta is treating it as an equal, unlike if Alberta just came along and publictly started criticizing Ontario. Looking at it that way, a bad solution presented by the Federal government, though possibly rejected by Ontario, would at least not sour relations more than they might already be. However, a good solution presented by Alberta could just as easily be rejected by Ontario out of pride, refusing to give the impression that it's allowing itself to be bullied by Alberta.
Same cold apply here. It's just basic psychology. If the UN gives its advice, it's essentially the advice of the worldwide community of nations, of which Israel itself is a member. If it's Canada that sticks its nose in it directly, then it always risks giving the impression that those foreigners, those arrogant Canadian outsiders, are trying to impose their values on us.
It just all boils down to psychology, and that's why I think Canada should go through the proper channels at the UN and not stick its nose in the issue directly.
Where I think we coud possibly be of great help is at the grassroots level. What if Canadians gave to Wahat al-salam? It could be the beginnings of a non-political solution to the problem, helping to promote grassroots friendships between people of different cultures.
Depending on the exact details of what you mean, this is more or less my idea. Sure we offer to assist through the UN, or at their request. But we have no more of a right to stick our noses directly into their affairs without their asking us than they do sticking their noses into our affairs without asking us.
A few years ago a Jewish father made a formal complaint against the Ontario government at the UNHRC, and won his case in principle at least. This kind of action is appropriate as Canada itself is a member of the UNHCR and so can be expected to hold to its standards. Granted, the Ontario government has to be willing to maintian those standards too, but then if the UN can't defend its rulings, that it's problem. Now the UNHCR's ruling received both agreement and disagreement in Canada, but all agreed that it had the right to make that ruling based on its mandate. Now imagine if country X just came along and started telling Ontario to change its school system because it violated international human rights standards? We'd likely have told that country to bugger off.
Same applies with my neighbour. I have no right to dictate to him what to do. I can ask nicely, but in the end, if he refuses to do it, my only recourse is to take him to a higher court. Same applies in international politics. It's a matter of ego, of national pride. No nation takes kindly to another nation its equal telling it what to do. That's what the UN is for.
I have another question. Who is 'we' in the OP?
If by we is meant mankind, then yes, we should get involved. If by we is meant Canada as distinct from mankind, then no we shouldn't get involved. In other words, we through our representatives at the UN. Seeing that Israel is part of the UN too, there is no more we and they, us and them. There is just one we.
If by we is meant Canada, then we are equals to Israel with a separate jurisdiction, just like Manitoba in relation to Saskatchewan. As Canadians they are one. Put provincially, separate entities. As a race, we are one. As nations, Caanda and Israel are separate entities.
If by we is meant mankind, then yes, we should get involved. If by we is meant Canada as distinct from mankind, then no we shouldn't get involved. In other words, we through our representatives at the UN. Seeing that Israel is part of the UN too, there is no more we and they, us and them. There is just one we.
If by we is meant Canada, then we are equals to Israel with a separate jurisdiction, just like Manitoba in relation to Saskatchewan. As Canadians they are one. Put provincially, separate entities. As a race, we are one. As nations, Caanda and Israel are separate entities.
My issues with the UN is that too many have the power of Veto or can influence those with that power..
So in my eyes the UN cannot help..
As for NATO, it depends on one nation that supports one side, so it is bias and that is only natural..
Hence why I said they must do the work themselves. It is also a better incentive if you work out the problem yourself them depending on others that have selfish interests at hand..
Do you think those that have Weapons Mfg ( US, France, Russia, Britain, etc ) have much interest to stop a war that generate economies ?
Yep. Mediation can do wonders sometimes. Choosing sides does too, but it's destructive.
Jeeez Starting to sound like Rockefeller, Beav. I s'pose you want to be ruler, too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)
Top Israeli Official Mocks Two-State Plan as ‘Childish and Stupid’
Not Exactly a Warm Welcome for the Obama-Abdullah Plan
by Jason Ditz, May 20, 2009
Just hours after reports began to emerge of the Obama-Abdullah Plan, which sought a two-state solution involving a contiguous Palestinian state which would be banned from having a military or entering any defensive pacts, one aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lashed out at the very idea of a two-state solution, calling it “childish and stupid.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu has reacted very coldly to Western calls for a two-state solution in the past, and many members of his coalition government are opposed to it in principle. Roughly two thirds of Netanyahu’s own Likud Party would reportedly oppose the deal, as presumably would many members of the smaller hawkish parties.
The Palestinian Authority seems willing to negotiate, and sources say they would be willing to relinquish direct control over al-Aqsa, provided the holy site remained under general Islamic control. But while Israel is reportedly planning to dismantle certain illegal outposts in the West Bank, those sort of blanket dismissals coming from the Prime Minister’s aides suggest the plan faces an uphill battle, at best.
Not Exactly a Warm Welcome for the Obama-Abdullah Plan
by Jason Ditz, May 20, 2009
Just hours after reports began to emerge of the Obama-Abdullah Plan, which sought a two-state solution involving a contiguous Palestinian state which would be banned from having a military or entering any defensive pacts, one aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lashed out at the very idea of a two-state solution, calling it “childish and stupid.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu has reacted very coldly to Western calls for a two-state solution in the past, and many members of his coalition government are opposed to it in principle. Roughly two thirds of Netanyahu’s own Likud Party would reportedly oppose the deal, as presumably would many members of the smaller hawkish parties.
The Palestinian Authority seems willing to negotiate, and sources say they would be willing to relinquish direct control over al-Aqsa, provided the holy site remained under general Islamic control. But while Israel is reportedly planning to dismantle certain illegal outposts in the West Bank, those sort of blanket dismissals coming from the Prime Minister’s aides suggest the plan faces an uphill battle, at best.
Remember gerrys request lester this is not to slide into personal joke and pokes.