Israel

[Undertaker #59]

Here is a nice light topic to discuss. ;)

What do you believe is the solution is Israel? IS there a solution that would make everyone at least happy enough to stop the violence?

I will say here up front that I am not very educated on the topic. It's why I wanted to post it to see if I could gain any insight from any of you bright fellows on this. :)

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Israel? I'm for it.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Here is a nice light topic to discuss. ;)

What do you believe is the solution is Israel? IS there a solution that would make everyone at least happy enough to stop the violence?

I will say here up front that I am not very educated on the topic. It's why I wanted to post it to see if I could gain any insight from any of you bright fellows on this. :) There doesn't appear to be a compromise to each side's position. Israel wants to stay in the Middle East, and the Arabs want them out. Short of moving the Israelis to Wyoming, I can't see how we get peace anytime soon.

I actually think that the wall Israel is building could have been helpful, if they hadn't used it to do another land grab at the same time. One thing that might be helpful would be the creation of a sepaerate Palestinian state. Unfortunately, nothing positive is going to happen until the Palestinians find a much better leader than Arafat.
________
roor bong (http://roorbongs.org)

[#1Patsfan_chica]

What they should do is cut the country in half. Have the people from Israel live in the north and the Palestinians live in the south.
If people can just have a normal and civilized chat then maybe some stuff can get done.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by #1Patsfan_chica
What they should do is cut the country in half. Have the people from Israel live in the north and the Palestinians live in the south.
If people can just have a normal and civilized chat then maybe some stuff can get done.
What would that solve? The Jerusalem issue would still be touchy at best.
Then there's the fact that the Arafat seems to want to keep his people oppressed so that he can retain power.

Why, though, would Israel agree to have their country split in half? Let's say, for example, Cubans in Florida turned violent. At some point, you'd be willing to say: "Hell, let's give them from Jacksonville on south." Somehow I doubt it.

Here's the thing. This is a map of the middle east:
http://www.mideastweb.org/middle_east_map.gif
Notice how small Israel is compared with the Arabic nations. Do you really think that this area is too much for the Israeli's to ask for? Think they're greedy?

[Undertaker #59]

The problem as I understand it is so much of Israel is viewed as holy land by Jews, Muslims, AND Christians. I don't see how there could be ANY solution where one religious group was not angry over their access and control.

[HOF]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Here is a nice light topic to discuss. ;)

What do you believe is the solution is Israel? IS there a solution that would make everyone at least happy enough to stop the violence?

I will say here up front that I am not very educated on the topic. It's why I wanted to post it to see if I could gain any insight from any of you bright fellows on this. :)

Israel is, in my opinion, Yahweh's "chosen country" and al' that hapens to Israel will be "dictated" by Bible prophecy!

[patsRmyboys]

You are an idiot...stop using quotation marks around everything and crack an English book and learn how to spell. My father came here from Portugal when he was 15 and he can spell and, more than likely, speak a whole lot better than you.

[bideau]

Originally posted by HOF
Israel is, in my opinion, Yahweh's "chosen country" and al' that hapens to Israel will be "dictated" by Bible prophecy!

:LOL: ROFL

[HOF]

Originally posted by patsRmyboys
You are an idiot...stop using quotation marks around everything and crack an English book and learn how to spell. My father came here from Portugal when he was 15 and he can spell and, more than likely, speak a whole lot better than you.

Maybe!

[patsRmyboys]

No maybe about it you ham and egger...Go back to the buffalo range. Aren't the ****, I mean Bills about to play the Jets? Off with you then...

[HOF]

Originally posted by patsRmyboys
No maybe about it you ham and egger...Go back to the buffalo range. Aren't the ****, I mean Bills about to play the Jets? Off with you then...

Ham and egger? I'm into health food! I do eat the "antobiotic free" eggs thou, on occasion!

[HOF]

Originally posted by patsRmyboys
No maybe about it you ham and egger...Go back to the buffalo range. Aren't the ****, I mean Bills about to play the Jets? Off with you then...

I will be there at 4PM! With the the radio on! I'm hoping for an historic game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[patsRmyboys]

that's A historic game...you only use AN when the next word begins with a vowel...such as...You're AN A$$...and here's an example of when to use A...You're A Beeotch...see how that works?

[HOF]

Maybe I'll check into it! Thanks!!!!!!!!!!

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by patsRmyboys
that's A historic game...you only use AN when the next word begins with a vowel...such as...You're AN A$$...and here's an example of when to use A...You're A Beeotch...see how that works?

You had to bring up grammar, didn't you?

'An' is not just used when the next word begins with a vowel.

The excerpts below are taken from Using the Articles “A” and “An” (http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/043001.htm) on Get It Write Online's pages.

One subscriber wrote to ask about the proper use of the articles a and an. Like many of us, he thought he had been taught simply to put a in front of consonants and an in front of vowels. Rather than looking at the actual letter with which a noun begins, however, we should consider the sound we hear at the beginning of it.

.....

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) points out that often when a word starting with the letter h begins with an unstressed or weakly stressed syllable, writers tend to use an when speaking. Many people would say, for example, “an historian” rather than “a historian.” The Chicago Manual of Style, however, ignores the issue of stressed syllables and advocates the use of a since the word historian (as well as similar words, like historical) starts with the consonant sound “h.” We would never say “an hysterectomy” or “an horse.” If a word starts with a silent letter, as in the words "herb" and "heir," we hear the vowel sound and should use "an."

[HOF]

Originally posted by Annihilus
You had to bring up grammar, didn't you?

'An' is not just used when the next word begins with a vowel.

The excerpts below are taken from Using the Articles “A” and “An” (http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/043001.htm) on Get It Write Online's pages.

One subscriber wrote to ask about the proper use of the articles a and an. Like many of us, he thought he had been taught simply to put a in front of consonants and an in front of vowels. Rather than looking at the actual letter with which a noun begins, however, we should consider the sound we hear at the beginning of it.


.....

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) points out that often when a word starting with the letter h begins with an unstressed or weakly stressed syllable, writers tend to use an when speaking. Many people would say, for example, “an historian” rather than “a historian.” The Chicago Manual of Style, however, ignores the issue of stressed syllables and advocates the use of a since the word historian (as well as similar words, like historical) starts with the consonant sound “h.” We would never say “an hysterectomy” or “an horse.” If a word starts with a silent letter, as in the words "herb" and "heir," we hear the vowel sound and should use "an."

Did I use it right? I am reading this quickly as I have to go! I liked Office Space!

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by HOF
Did I use it right? I am reading this quickly as I have to go! I liked Office Space!

It depends upon how you 'say' the word historic. Phonetic examples:

Example 1
An istoric game (the 'h' is basically silent in this pronounciation).

Example 2
A historic game (h is pronounced like the h in 'hank').

The difference is subtle, but there is a difference in the two pronounciations. Therefore it would seem to me that in the form that the sentence appears on this board, either one would be correct. So I guess that means that you're ok using it the way that you did. ;)

It's kind of like words that are acceptable with two different spellings such as gray or grey.

[HOF]

Originally posted by Annihilus
It depends upon how you 'say' the word historic. Phonetic examples:

Example 1
An istoric game (the 'h' is basically silent in this pronounciation).

Example 2
A historic game (h is pronounced like the h in 'hank').

The difference is subtle, but there is a difference in the two pronounciations. Therefore it would seem to me that in the form that the sentence appears on this board, either one would be correct. So I guess that means that you're ok using it the way that you did. ;)

It's kind of like words that are acceptable with two different spellings such as gray or grey.

Thanks very much! I wasn't expecting this sort of enlightment on this board! My gut feeling was that it was correct, however, that poster is intent on "challenging" everything i say and I want to set a good example ( and represent the "yahoos" and "Billy Bobs" well ) by being a bit humble and "correctable"!!

You're a Patriots fan?????????????

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by HOF
Thanks very much! I wasn't expecting this sort of enlightment on this board! My gut feeling was that it was correct, however, that poster is intent on "challenging" everything i say and I want to set a good example ( and represent the "yahoos" and "Billy Bobs" well ) by being a bit humble and "correctable"!!

You're a Patriots fan?????????????

Yeah, I'm a Pats fan - but I don't take sides over grammar. I would suggest you watch your use of so many exclamation points though.

:D

[HOF]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Yeah, I'm a Pats fan - but I don't take sides over grammar. I would suggest you watch your use of so many exclamation points though.

:D

I know that it may not be grammatically correct but I am an expressive, emotional guy.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by HOF
I know that it may not be grammatically correct but I am an expressive, emotional guy.

I was just givin' you hell HOF - you can use them all you like. :)

[HOF]

Originally posted by Annihilus
I was just givin' you hell HOF - you can use them all you like. :)

Oh I know! After al lthese years I've learned not to "read the worst" in emails, posts, etc.

Now I need for you to analyze my frequest use of quotes!

Patsarmyboys picks on those too!

Maybe i should start a "Drew Bledsoe is, argualbly the greatest QB ever". That way way the board will go nuts and I can use the "arguably" as a disclaimer!

Kidding!

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Everyone in Israel sucks at grammar, too.

[perhaps2]

With Arafat in dire straits, hopefully they can get a moderate in to reach some sort of compromise.

[dchester]

Originally posted by perhaps2
With Arafat in dire straits, hopefully they can get a moderate in to reach some sort of compromise. Maybe townes would be interested. I hear he is considering going abroad for a while.
:eek:
________
Ford TowCommand history (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_TowCommand)

[Mark_Henderson]

This is probably the most unsolvable situation on the planet (now that the Red Sox have won the WS). Basically, you've got to blame it on the Romans for throwing the Jews out 1,850 years ago. I support Israel, but at the same time, I don't blame the Palestinians for being pissed off about losing their land.

Israel needs to exist, but I think that their efforts to settle the West Bank further agitated the Palestinians and made things worse. If, in the nearly 40 years since they occupied the West Bank & Gaza, the Israelis had devoted themselves to funding Palestinian universities, hopistals & job creation in the W. Bank, viewing the expense as their just cost because they had to take Palestinian land for Israel proper to exist, I think they'd be in better shape now. Undoubtedly, there would still be extremist Palestinians that wanted to destroy Israel, but reasonable moderates would be more empowered. It wouldn't take much for the Palestinians to have a better standard of life than their Arab neighbors and to have some tangible benefits that Israel had given them.

Things have become so escalated now, I don't know what the answer is. Maybe the Israelis just need to build the wall and militarily destroy anyone on the other side who messes with them. But, when you're that outnumbered, the odds are that at some point in the future, the people on the other side of that wall will get their **** together enough to threaten your existence. I think Israel's long term interests are better served if they can diminish the hatred of at least some of the Palestinians.

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester
Maybe townes would be interested. I hear he is considering going abroad for a while.
:eek:

Count me in.


Cast your vote at wwwtownesforleaderoftheplo@jerusalem.rr.com



My first demand is that the american government step down and a new election to get truly democratic leaders occurs. Only then can we have a true democratic partner in peace, and only when we have the dove of peace balance the scales of justice can we have a true and open dialogue about peace and security with our pissmeoffreallybad Israeli neighbors. Howewer, if pople would be willing to cough up megabucks to rebuild the infrastructure of Palestine's Homeland, and invest heavily in jobs and education then i would agree to allow international peacekeeping force of overwhelming strength to provide police and security functions until the palestinian people could develop their own.


Very unreasonable, I realize, but my pitch nonetheless.


BTW-Jerusalem could simply be an international Holy Land with no one possessing it.

Just a thought.

[townes]

One more thought.


How about if the U.S. had invested the 200 billion plus they sank into Iraq, without the loss of life, and rebuilt the infrastructure of Palestine? Think that may have had a better shot at spreading goodwill and democracy than invading and occupying Iraq did?

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
BTW-Jerusalem could simply be an international Holy Land with no one possessing it.

Just a thought. I think that idea has been floated by the UN. I think the only ones that rejected it were the Israelis and the Palestinians (who each feel that they should own it).
________
Toyota Mark X Zio specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Mark_X_Zio)

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
One more thought.


How about if the U.S. had invested the 200 billion plus they sank into Iraq, without the loss of life, and rebuilt the infrastructure of Palestine? Think that may have had a better shot at spreading goodwill and democracy than invading and occupying Iraq did? That's an interesting alternative to the Bush approach. The only problem I see with it is that every Arab country that needed foreign aid might decide the way to get it was to bomb a city in the US. Some people actually didn't feel that the best response to 911 was to reward the Arabs for hating us.
________
medical marijuana (http://medicalmarijuanacard.info)

[townes]

Originally posted by dchester
That's an interesting alternative to the Bush approach. The only problem I see with it is that every Arab country that needed foreign aid might decide the way to get it was to bomb a city in the US. Some people actually didn't feel that the best response to 911 was to reward the Arabs for hating us.


The Palestinians didn't have anything to do with 9-11, but the Saudis sure as hell did. Build Palestine and sanction a repressive saudi government and the U.S. would have been heroes in the arab world. Attacking the only state that didn't harbor al-queada and planning a long term occupation in the middle east has only made the entire situation worse.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
One more thought.


How about if the U.S. had invested the 200 billion plus they sank into Iraq, without the loss of life, and rebuilt the infrastructure of Palestine? Think that may have had a better shot at spreading goodwill and democracy than invading and occupying Iraq did? This is a GREAT idea. It would give the whole world the message:
"Breed and finance enough terrorists, behave unreasonably in peace negotiations, and make a nuisance of yourself for long enough, and eventually the saps in the U.S. will sink 200 billion into YOUR economy, too!"

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
The Palestinians didn't have anything to do with 9-11, but the Saudis sure as hell did. Build Palestine and sanction a repressive saudi government and the U.S. would have been heroes in the arab world. Attacking the only state that didn't harbor al-queada and planning a long term occupation in the middle east has only made the entire situation worse. I agree with you about Saudi Arabia. Since we ARE in Iraq, it would be pretty cool to let them self-govern, and cut a deal to put some bases there (good for their economy, ya know). Then we'd have a little more leverage with the House of Saud.

[Spinal Tap]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
This is a GREAT idea. It would give the whole world the message:
"Breed and finance enough terrorists, behave unreasonably in peace negotiations, and make a nuisance of yourself for long enough, and eventually the saps in the U.S. will sink 200 billion into YOUR economy, too!"

Brilliant! :thumb:

[townes]

Flagg, you can take a Hatfield/McCoy approach if you want, but the best interests the Israeli's and palestinians lie in security and a stable Palestinian state. I believe this can be accomplished to the benefit of everyone, and i believe it would be the best approach to recasting the fortunes of the middle east. i think the Bush policy of creating democracies through force is oxymoronic.

[perhaps2]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Here is a nice light topic to discuss. ;)

What do you believe is the solution is Israel? IS there a solution that would make everyone at least happy enough to stop the violence?

I will say here up front that I am not very educated on the topic. It's why I wanted to post it to see if I could gain any insight from any of you bright fellows on this. :)

Actually if Arafat does die, hopefully the Palestinian people select a moderate to negotiate with the Israeli's. Unfortunately, the Israeli's have elected a hardliner, so as I see it, it's a no win situation. Any way you slice and dice Israel, no one's happy with the outcome. Or maybe they could make Jerusalem like the Vatican, a soveriegn country within a country?

[townes]

I see absolutely no reason that jerusalem shouldn't be an international holy city that belongs to no specific faith.

Both sides have legitimate grievances, but the goal has to be security, stability, and a prosperity for both peoples that allows the first two conditions to maintain existence. By introducing a huge international peacekeeping force and assisting the Palestians in developing a true judicial and policing system the conditions for peace could be created. By providing the funding for a complete rebuilding of the palestinian infrastructure, as well as loans and microloans for developing business and employment you create the social stability necessary to allow the palestinians to function as a stable society. The combination of measures provides both security and relief for Israel and allows their economy and overall well being to radically improve as the threat of terrorism diminishes significantly. When all these conditions are met then the Palestinians will be in a position to prevent and address any actions against Israel through their own police and justice system, and would have to be held accountable for doing so.

Ultimately the only way to defeat terrorism is to marginalize and eradicate the ideology behind it within their own societies, as it will never go away as long as the conditions creating it are kept in place.

[perhaps2]

I hate to say it, but I think the Israeli's wouldn't take to the idea of the United States helping out Palestine. Just a sneaking suspicion.