Org Mobile Site
View Poll Results: What Should Israel Do?
F
0
0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 46. This poll is closed
Here are the options:
A: Israel should write off the Palestinian Authority as a bad experiment, re-establish control of the Gaza and West Bank, formally annex these lands, and rigorously enforce a security zone around this new territory.
B: Israel should write off the Palestinian Authority as a bad experiment, re-establish control over the Gaza and West Bank, and continue to enforce security.
C: Israel should fence off as much of the Palestinian territory as possible, rigorously controlling this border.
D: The current situation is the best to be hoped for. Israel should continue to hit terrorist targets in response to attacks on its citizens, but try to allow the Palestinian Authority the chance to stabilize and turn towards a path of peaceful coexistence.
E: Israel should completely withdraw from all lands acquired during the 1967 conflict and allow these territories to revert to their original owners or to the Palestinian Authority.
F: Israel should withdraw to its original 1948 borders, returning all other territory to the original Palestinian owners or other nation from which it was taken.
G: Israel should return to the 1947 borders suggested by the UN, returning all other territory to the original Palestinian owners or other nation from which it was taken.
H: Israel should be declared a non-state by the UN and should cease to be.
I: Other (explain)
J: Gah (I always answer every poll this way, just to be a contrarian).
A: Israel should write off the Palestinian Authority as a bad experiment, re-establish control of the Gaza and West Bank, formally annex these lands, and rigorously enforce a security zone around this new territory.
B: Israel should write off the Palestinian Authority as a bad experiment, re-establish control over the Gaza and West Bank, and continue to enforce security.
C: Israel should fence off as much of the Palestinian territory as possible, rigorously controlling this border.
D: The current situation is the best to be hoped for. Israel should continue to hit terrorist targets in response to attacks on its citizens, but try to allow the Palestinian Authority the chance to stabilize and turn towards a path of peaceful coexistence.
E: Israel should completely withdraw from all lands acquired during the 1967 conflict and allow these territories to revert to their original owners or to the Palestinian Authority.
F: Israel should withdraw to its original 1948 borders, returning all other territory to the original Palestinian owners or other nation from which it was taken.
G: Israel should return to the 1947 borders suggested by the UN, returning all other territory to the original Palestinian owners or other nation from which it was taken.
H: Israel should be declared a non-state by the UN and should cease to be.
I: Other (explain)
J: Gah (I always answer every poll this way, just to be a contrarian).
for the love of God make it stop
Does option A include full Israeli rights for the inhabitants of the new annexed areas? I'd support a formal annexation, if this were the case, but younger Israelis seem to favour an annexation of the land without the incorporation of the Palestinians, either expelling the Palestinians or leaving them in legal limbo as 3rd class non-citizens living on Israeli land.
I was watching a local news magazine program the other day and they were interviewing Palestinian experts.
What the Palestinian experts said they wanted was for the Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return to the homes that they own and have the legal papers to prove they own yet they were kicked out of in 1948. And for Israel to be given a new name and allow all Palestinians to live on the land with the Jews under the new name.
Seems pretty reasonable.
Of course, Israel would never actually do any of that, and that option is not on the Poll. So I voted for option H.
What the Palestinian experts said they wanted was for the Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return to the homes that they own and have the legal papers to prove they own yet they were kicked out of in 1948. And for Israel to be given a new name and allow all Palestinians to live on the land with the Jews under the new name.
Seems pretty reasonable.
Of course, Israel would never actually do any of that, and that option is not on the Poll. So I voted for option H.
Back the PLO, the lesser of many evils. 1967 borders should be fine, arabs wanted to fight and lost. Stop the colonists, stop frustrating palestinian economy, build wall, and in general stop being such bully's. If you got to hit hard, and they should when it's necesary imvho, you got to be the better person.
for the love of (Insert fake deity here), who could possibly support something as brutal as option A?
Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
for the love of (Insert fake deity here), who could possibly support something as brutal as option A?
Click on the numbers and you'll see who for the love of (Insert fake deity here), who could possibly support something as brutal as option A?
Is there a single site with the maps?
Originally Posted by :
What the Palestinian experts said they wanted was for the Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return to the homes that they own and have the legal papers to prove they own yet they were kicked out of in 1948. And for Israel to be given a new name and allow all Palestinians to live on the land with the Jews under the new name.
Seems pretty reasonable.
It does What the Palestinian experts said they wanted was for the Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return to the homes that they own and have the legal papers to prove they own yet they were kicked out of in 1948. And for Israel to be given a new name and allow all Palestinians to live on the land with the Jews under the new name.
Seems pretty reasonable.
So we rename Israel what? And now in this new Palestinian state can all the Jewish refugees be allowed to return to the homes that they own and have the legal papers to prove they own yet they were kicked out of in 1948. And for Palestine to be given a new name and allow all Jews to live on the land with the Palestinians under the new name ?
A
I'm of the opinion that when someone wages war against you, you wage war against them.
CR
I'm of the opinion that when someone wages war against you, you wage war against them.
CR
Warmonger
You need to start a dialogue with them Whats wrong with you?
You need to start a dialogue with them Whats wrong with you?
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Warmonger
You need to start a dialogue with them Whats wrong with you?
It's the kind of mentality that sent you to Vietnam all those years ago. McNamara eventually learnt his lesson, but it seems Rabbit is yet to.Warmonger
You need to start a dialogue with them Whats wrong with you?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Back the PLO, the lesser of many evils. 1967 borders should be fine, arabs wanted to fight and lost. Stop the colonists, stop frustrating palestinian economy, build wall, and in general stop being such bully's. If you got to hit hard, and they should when it's necesary imvho, you got to be the better person.
All levels of Hamas have indicated that they will be satisfied with a return to 1967 borders. There won't be a formal cessation of war, merely a 10 year ceasefire, but the formula and the process by which it was arrived at replicate the process by which the IRA drew down their operations. If the Israelis are smart, they should take this up, look to make it permanent sometime in the future, and strengthen the mainstream Palestinian factions so they can clamp down on rogue violence. That is, of course, if they are really looking for peace, which I doubt more and more.Back the PLO, the lesser of many evils. 1967 borders should be fine, arabs wanted to fight and lost. Stop the colonists, stop frustrating palestinian economy, build wall, and in general stop being such bully's. If you got to hit hard, and they should when it's necesary imvho, you got to be the better person.
AFAICS, Israel wants the land, or at least those bits they deem valuable, but they don't want the Palestinians that go with them, fearing their incorporation will endanger the Jewish majority. Hence they have the options of either setting up an Apartheid system, making use of the cheap Palestinian labour but not allowing them full citizenship, or physically expelling them from the occupied territories. Neither is particularly noble, but they are at least more honest than this current charade whereby they annex land, virtually enslave the Palestinians, yet claim the moral high ground.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
So we rename Israel what? And now in this new Palestinian state
Their idea was not for it to be a Palestinian state but rather for it to be a Jewish/Palestinian state. So we rename Israel what? And now in this new Palestinian state
I must be honest that the Palestinian experts were very evasive and non-responsive when the moderator of the discussion asked them what the new name should be. I got the impression that they thought sweeping the name change issue under the rug until it it is just about to happen will help them actually reach that goal of a Jewish/Palestinian state and they think if they talk about it beforehand even though a name change is their intention, then it will shutdown their goal prematurely.
Originally Posted by :
It's the kind of mentality that sent you to Vietnam all those years ago. McNamara eventually learnt his lesson, but it seems Rabbit is yet to.
You disagree with what I said? It's the kind of mentality that sent you to Vietnam all those years ago. McNamara eventually learnt his lesson, but it seems Rabbit is yet to.
Originally Posted by :
All levels of Hamas have indicated that they will be satisfied with a return to 1967 borders.
Except in their charter LOL.All levels of Hamas have indicated that they will be satisfied with a return to 1967 borders.
Originally Posted by :
There won't be a formal cessation of war, merely a 10 year ceasefire,
So that they can build up their forces and infrastruture and renew their attacks on Israel. There won't be a formal cessation of war, merely a 10 year ceasefire,
Originally Posted by :
If the Israelis are smart, they should take this up, look to make it permanent sometime in the future
How many times have the Israelis given up land for peace? Has it worked? If the Israelis are smart, they should take this up, look to make it permanent sometime in the future
Originally Posted by :
fearing their incorporation will endanger the Jewish majority
Isnt in danger already? And if as you say they have an Apartheid system who cares how many Muslims are there? Theve got millions already. Unlike the number of Jews in surrounding nations.fearing their incorporation will endanger the Jewish majority
Originally Posted by :
What the Palestinian experts said they wanted was for the Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return to the homes that they own and have the legal papers to prove they own yet they were kicked out of in 1948. And for Israel to be given a new name and allow all Palestinians to live on the land with the Jews under the new name.
I think this is the best, those who live in Israel are allowed to stay, those who live in Gaza and the West bank are allowed to stay, Palestinian refugees who still live in refugee camps should be allowed to return as long as the country is able to integrate them into the society. Yeah, something like that, I think that is the only way to solve this, they will only not fight each other if they cooperate instead of going their independent ways. What the Palestinian experts said they wanted was for the Palestinian refugees to be allowed to return to the homes that they own and have the legal papers to prove they own yet they were kicked out of in 1948. And for Israel to be given a new name and allow all Palestinians to live on the land with the Jews under the new name.
Thus "I" as I think this is "other".
Gawain, look at Sinn Fein's charter. See if they've changed their goal of driving out the British from the island of Ireland. See how they've gradually adapted to a changing political climate. See how Britain actively changed that political climate to what it is today.
About the Vietnam comparison - see McNamara's anecdote. And as for the Jewish majority and your interpretation of the phrase, here's Olmert:
"We must ensure that there will be a proven Jewish majority, otherwise the term Jewish state becomes empty of meaning"
About the Vietnam comparison - see McNamara's anecdote. And as for the Jewish majority and your interpretation of the phrase, here's Olmert:
"We must ensure that there will be a proven Jewish majority, otherwise the term Jewish state becomes empty of meaning"
Pannonian, how many bombs and rockets has Sinn Fein set off this last year? How many children are they tutoring in the need for a world caliphate and the destruction of Israel? How many times do they call for the destruction of Israel?
How can you say that Palestine isn't waging war against Israel.
CR
Originally Posted by :
All levels of Hamas have indicated that they will be satisfied with a return to 1967 borders.
Except of course for the leaders and all levels of terrorists in the organization.All levels of Hamas have indicated that they will be satisfied with a return to 1967 borders.
How can you say that Palestine isn't waging war against Israel.
CR
well in all honesty, Israel is a fake, apartheid, fascist nation that under any other circumstances would have had regime-change affected long ago to liberate its indigenous people.. i dont see why they should get any concessions at all.
Care to explain any of that? They were created by the UN, allow all citizens to vote, and are a democracy, which blows away all your claims.
CR
CR
Originally Posted by :
Gawain, look at Sinn Fein's charter. See if they've changed their goal of driving out the British from the island of Ireland. See how they've gradually adapted to a changing political climate. See how Britain actively changed that political climate to what it is today.
See how their all British. They dont want to drive the British from the British Isles now and call it all Ireland do they?Gawain, look at Sinn Fein's charter. See if they've changed their goal of driving out the British from the island of Ireland. See how they've gradually adapted to a changing political climate. See how Britain actively changed that political climate to what it is today.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Pannonian, how many bombs and rockets has Sinn Fein set off this last year? How many children are they tutoring in the need for a world caliphate and the destruction of Israel? How many times do they call for the destruction of Israel?
AFAIK the IRA has never advocated a caliphate nor supported the destruction of Israel. But if we try to make sense of your emotionally-soaked and wildly off-course mutterings, Sinn Fein still has its ultimate aim the expulsion of the British from Northern Ireland. It has changed its mean from violence to politics, but the goal is the same. When we started talk with them, violence was still very much one of their tactics. Even when there were still bombings from rogue elements, we didn't give up on talks, but strengthened the main faction so they could more effectively deal with these margins themselves. The result? A satisfactory peace that doesn't look like ending in the forseeable future.Pannonian, how many bombs and rockets has Sinn Fein set off this last year? How many children are they tutoring in the need for a world caliphate and the destruction of Israel? How many times do they call for the destruction of Israel?
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Except of course for the leaders and all levels of terrorists in the organization.
How can you say that Palestine isn't waging war against Israel.
CR
Fatah and Hamas prisoners voiced an initiative that legitimised resistance inside the 1967 borders, but nowhere else. Those are the hardnuts who have the respect of the militants on the outside, as they'd given up much for the cause. Encouraged by this, the head of the elected Hamas administration suggested that, without a formal recognition of each other, an Israel and a Palestine might live side by side inside the 1967 borders. The main objections to this were raised by the militant elements in Syria. Then this year, the leader of those elements suggested a 10 year ceasefire in return for a restoration of the 1967 borders.Except of course for the leaders and all levels of terrorists in the organization.
How can you say that Palestine isn't waging war against Israel.
CR
There are close links between the Palestinian factions (especially the PLO) and the IRA. The above moves are very reminiscent, almost replicate, the process by which the IRA eventually gave up violence. Republican prisoners suggested it was time to switch to a political direction. Backed by the support of the hardcore, Sinn Fein prepared for politics and a drawdown of militancy. As the British government encouraged them with carrots, the IRA began a series of ceasefires, punctuated by bombs to keep the militants interested, but each ever longer in duration. After the last indefinite ceasefire, which lasted some 10 years, the IRA formally renounced violence.
Actually, what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians has been correctly characterized by the International Red Cross as war crimes and by a United Nations official as "an affront to civilization." By fake I mean it is not a real country--just like Iraq, actually.
The extremists in this thread makes me so fuzzy. 
Pannonian speaks reason. Though I suspect there's even less desire for peace in either side of this war than that other war, sadly enough.
So I suppose it has to come down to genocide or something, as is the implication beneath the extremist positions in this thread. Kill them all and the problem's gone. World Peace. Hurrah.
My answer? A and H. Pick your favorite oppressor and your favorite soon-to-be oppressed into extermination. Don't forget the justification too. Can't lose the moral high horse.
Oh, and Seamus: I'd love to hear your own opinion.
Pannonian speaks reason. Though I suspect there's even less desire for peace in either side of this war than that other war, sadly enough.
So I suppose it has to come down to genocide or something, as is the implication beneath the extremist positions in this thread. Kill them all and the problem's gone. World Peace. Hurrah.
My answer? A and H. Pick your favorite oppressor and your favorite soon-to-be oppressed into extermination. Don't forget the justification too. Can't lose the moral high horse.Oh, and Seamus: I'd love to hear your own opinion.
in a perfect world without religion they'd be able to live in peace :)
Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
in a perfect world without religion they'd be able to live in peace :)
I personally think they'll just fight over something else.in a perfect world without religion they'd be able to live in peace :)
Religion don't kill people; people kill people.
Religion is just the excuse for war. It has been since its inception. The gods are always on our side. Even for those who claim their nation to be secular.The king is appointed by the gods or god. Etc etc etc. It goes on and on.
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny:
Religion is just the excuse for war. It has been since its inception. The gods are always on our side. Even for those who claim their nation to be secular.The king is appointed by the gods or god. Etc etc etc. It goes on and on.
Religion. Cause. Nationalism. Pride. Revenge. Alleged treachery. Moral High Ground.Religion is just the excuse for war. It has been since its inception. The gods are always on our side. Even for those who claim their nation to be secular.The king is appointed by the gods or god. Etc etc etc. It goes on and on.
pick an excuse, pick any excuse...
I vote for option Z...
wait 1 more month and then they can do whatever the hell I want..
the 1 month is because I'm in business in Tel Aviv right now....so please don't start any crap while I'm here
P.S.- The state of Israel proved it's right to exist as far as I'm concerned as soon as I saw the strip clubs in this town
.....I have seen the promised land!!!!
wait 1 more month and then they can do whatever the hell I want..
the 1 month is because I'm in business in Tel Aviv right now....so please don't start any crap while I'm here
P.S.- The state of Israel proved it's right to exist as far as I'm concerned as soon as I saw the strip clubs in this town
.....I have seen the promised land!!!! Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
for the love of (Insert fake deity here), who could possibly support something as brutal as option A?
*Points to selffor the love of (Insert fake deity here), who could possibly support something as brutal as option A?
Better to have action than more doomed negotiation.
As things stand an accord is not going to be reached anywhere in the near (or even far) future.
Option A, imo, is the right option to choose as long as it is undertaken with the right intentions.
Once peace has been established, negotiation can begin.
military aggression only causes more desire for freedome hence more 'terrorists' recruited. Such conflicts in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan are impossible to win with traditional military techniques. For further reading, look at "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" by Robert Pape.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO