Sweeping Hamas Victory in Palestinian Election

[Solecismic]

The Irani people would welcome a U.S. invasion about as much as Kerry supporters would welcome a French invasion in our streets. When push comes to shove, nationalism rises.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think the people would rise in support of us, if we did.

did Donald Rumsfeld tell you that?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think the people would rise in support of us, if we did.

There's a saying in Tennessee...it's in Texas, I think it's in Tennesse...Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...fool me twice...... We can't get fooled again!

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

did Donald Rumsfeld tell you that?

College buddy stationed over there that has been approached several times by Iranians asking when we're going to "free them".

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

College buddy stationed over there that has been approached several times by Iranians asking when we're going to "free them".

Well that's all the evidence I need. Let's get us some Iranians!

[st.cronin]

I think it's pretty funny that people are arguing that now that Hamas has a position of authority, they're suddenly going to change their mind about jews.

[Anthony]

if we go into Iran without UN support i'm moving out of America, cuz we's gonna get nuked.

[Qwikshot]

I'm gonna sit in the lawn chair, with my white Russian, sunglasses, and lie back and bask in the glowy glow of the nuclear bloom.

Frankly, this isn't surprising, none of it...what other parties were there? Hamas funds a lot in Palestine.

Let it run its course; of course, I wouldn't be surprised is Hamas blames Israel for any shortcomings during it's run, should be able to get them support for years to come.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There's a saying in Tennessee...it's in Texas, I think it's in Tennesse...Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...fool me twice...... We can't get fooled again!

This reminds me of the dialogue in Anchorman between Ron Burgundy and Brian Fantana

"...60% of the time; it works ALLLLLL the time!"

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Well that's all the evidence I need. Let's get us some Iranians!

It's a hell of a lot more than what other people have to go on here. "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

I'm not saying that everyone there would welcome us, but put two and two together, and it makes sense to me.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

College buddy stationed over there that has been approached several times by Iranians asking when we're going to "free them".

Stationed with what organization?

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

You're nuts. We already tried that with Iraq and it failed miserably (referring to the failure of the people rising in support of us, not the operation as a whole). And in Iraq, we weren't taking on a Muslim government.

Didn't they rise up before during George the 1st reign, but we decided not to pursue the ousting of Saddam causing hundreds of thousands to be slaughtered and brutilized under Saddam's restrengthened regime?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It's a hell of a lot more than what other people have to go on here. "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

I'm not saying that everyone there would welcome us, but put two and two together, and it makes sense to me.

It is crazy the number of people in this thread who have said, "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

As for what makes sense to you . . . You have once again shown that anecdotal evidence that fits your pre-defined worldview is all you need to be convinced.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Stationed with what organization?

US Army, this was back when we first went in.

[MrBigglesworth]

I thought this sounded spot on from a guy that knows a lot about the Middle East:

Originally Posted by Juan Cole

Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. Elections in the absence of this key societal context can produce authoritarian regimes and abuses as easily as they can produce genuine people power. Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad. And by either creating or failing to deal with hated foreign occupations, he has sown the seeds for militant Islamist movements that gain popularity because of their nationalist credentials.

I think it is hard for the adminstration to install these qualities in other countries because they don't believe in them for this country. We've long known that they have had disdain for international law, but now we know they have been actively breaking FISA for 4 years and vow to continue doing it. Economic policy has been tax cuts and a disasterous Medicare bill, with attemps to destroy the security of SS and health insurance. And the checks and balances part is obvious.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

College buddy stationed over there that has been approached several times by Iranians asking when we're going to "free them".

I know several Iranians personally and they all agree that if we were to invade, it would make Vietnam look like a picnic.

There, my anecdotal evidence beats yours.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It is crazy the number of people in this thread who have said, "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

As for what makes sense to you . . . You have once again shown that anecdotal evidence that fits your pre-defined worldview is all you need to be convinced.

Pot....meet kettle.

At least I have some evidence and realize what it is, rather than just go based upon sheer emotion. My quote was just that many people are assuming that because the Iranian government is at odds with us, that the people hate us, that is just not the case.

I'm not saying they love us either. There are people on both sides, and I think if we went into Iran we might have an easier time of it than we have had in Iraq. But, I think going into Iran is going to be a mess from a military perspective. All things considered, we have had a pretty easy go of it in Iraq.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

US Army, this was back when we first went in.

When did the US Army go into Iran?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

When did the US Army go into Iran?

Back when we first went into Iraq, after we finished things up with their military and started rebuilding, tons of Iranians poured over the border to go to the Shi'a holy places in Iraq. My buddy was approached several times by Iranians wondering when we were going to go into Iran and "free them".

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Pot....meet kettle.

At least I have some evidence and realize what it is, rather than just go based upon sheer emotion. My quote was just that many people are assuming that because the Iranian government is at odds with us, that the people hate us, that is just not the case.

I'm not saying they love us either. There are people on both sides, and I think if we went into Iran we might have an easier time of it than we have had in Iraq. But, I think going into Iran is going to be a mess from a military perspective. All things considered, we have had a pretty easy go of it in Iraq.

I do not base my opinon on "sheer emotion." I base it on the numerous reports about Iran in scholarly literature. I base it on the history of countries being invaded. I base it in part on what has happened in Iraq (nationalism and external influence create a massive insurgency). I base it on the fact that I grew up with someone who is half-Iranian and still has a lot of family in Iran. I base it on the fact that I haven't seen a single person with any objective qualification support your view. But if you want to call that "sheer emotion" and your view "some evidence," by all means, go ahead.

If you think Iran would be easier than Iraq then you really are on crack or wholly unaware of the history, demographics, geography, and politics of Iran. Or both.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by John Galt

If you think Iran would easier than Iraq then you really are on crack or wholly unaware of the history, demographics, geography, and politics of Iran. Or both.

Whattya mean?

hxxp://images.airliners.net/photos/photos/6/7/6/593676.jpg

There's Tehran. Have at it boys.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It's a hell of a lot more than what other people have to go on here. "Oh, they live in the Middle East, they must hate us."

I'm not saying that everyone there would welcome us, but put two and two together, and it makes sense to me.

Many Iraqis felt the same way, but when they actually saw the troops in the streets, it made them a little sick to their stomachs.

I know Iran has a thriving university population that just hates what's happened with the government over the last few years, but that's why I made the analogy to the anti-Bush crowd.

As much as people here hate Bush and feel he's running the country into the ground, you'd be hard-pressed to find support for a foreign invasion of America. Nationalism always trumps everything else in people's hearts.

[Qwikshot]

I have this theory on why the U.S. is rapidly losing favor abroad:

And it's not just because of Bush, I think that is accelerating the process.

But I really think it has to do with the Cold War, which evidently "we" won. Europe was always the chess board upon which Russia and the U.S. battled, but as oil and other resources were needed, this fueled the need to strengthen "democracy" to other regions like South American, Southeast Asia, and Africa.

While Europe was always a stalemate, most Europeans I would assume thought it in the best interests of preservation to support U.S. interests because of the Bloc Nations.

Once Russia fell, the need for U.S. assurance was minimal. There was no threat that Russia would invade Western Europe. The U.S. however, failed to understand that this was no longer their neighborhood that needed protection (the lesser of two evils) and now these countries want to demonstrate their own assertiveness. The U.S. had been marginalized, but still was trying to assert its influence.

This trickled to the Middle East; always a key player in oil consumption, we constantly ignored human rights issues for the sake of capitalism (much like our consumption of Chinese products). I think that when we went it alone in Iraq that there was a misconception that if we lead, they will follow, and it has been mistaken.

U.S. foreign policy needs to adjust to the new views of emerging powers; we need to work with the system rather than force action. I think that with more effective diplomacy we could project a better image for the U.S., but for now, we invite scorn and ridicule, and I doubt that most nations will offer sympathy should a new wave of terrorist attacks occur on American soil. ("You reap what you sow" type attitudes).

I'm not in favor of isolationism, I'm in favor of understanding other nations, and finding a means of cooperation and support to bring forth a united view of governance, regardless, of government instituion is presiding, that is capable of being beneficial and just to its peoples.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I do not base my opinon on "sheer emotion." I base it on the numerous reports about Iran in scholarly literature. I base it on the history of countries being invaded. I base it in part on what has happened in Iraq (nationalism and external influence create a massive insurgency). I base it on the fact that I grew up with someone who is half-Iranian and still has a lot of family in Iran. I base it on the fact that I haven't seen a single person with any objective qualification support your view. But if you want to call that "sheer emotion" and your view "some evidence," by all means, go ahead.

If you think Iran would be easier than Iraq then you really are on crack or wholly unaware of the history, demographics, geography, and politics of Iran. Or both.

That's good to know. I base my belief on the history of the region, geography, and politics of Iran. The demographics I am more sketchy on because I do not know tons about the current economic conditions there. The initial military campaign would be brutal, because the geography is like it is, but I think the follow up to the campaign would be easier because Iran is a more homogenous society than Iraq is, where you have three major populations that do not like each other.

I also agree with what Jim says, Nationalism is a powerful idea, and that could override any feelings of discontent with the current government.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Once Russia fell, the need for U.S. assurance was minimal. There was no threat that Russia would invade Western Europe. The U.S. however, failed to understand that this was no longer their neighborhood that needed protection (the lesser of two evils) and now these countries want to demonstrate their own assertiveness. The U.S. had been marginalized, but still was trying to assert its influence.

Excellent observation. They want to demonstrate their own assertiveness, and in the case of France and Germany, they were making a fortune in Iraq while US companies were not allowed to do business there. Economically, France, Germany, and Russia all had reasons for not wanting us there!

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

This trickled to the Middle East; always a key player in oil consumption, we constantly ignored human rights issues for the sake of capitalism (much like our consumption of Chinese products). I think that when we went it alone in Iraq that there was a misconception that if we lead, they will follow, and it has been mistaken.

I don't think this is what happened. I think it was more an idea that if we don't do anything, it's going to be the same old, same old. How many times did Iraq need to thumb their noses at the UN before we finally got tough with them? I think much of the disagreement abroad stems from two things:

1) Some countries had a lot to lose economically.

2) Many countries stood a lot to gain by not allying themselves with us.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

U.S. foreign policy needs to adjust to the new views of emerging powers; we need to work with the system rather than force action. I think that with more effective diplomacy we could project a better image for the U.S., but for now, we invite scorn and ridicule, and I doubt that most nations will offer sympathy should a new wave of terrorist attacks occur on American soil. ("You reap what you sow" type attitudes).

US foreign policy needs to focus on doing what is best for the US. Working with the system is fine, if it furthers our goals. However, I question what "working with the system" actually is doing. If that is going to the UN, I think that is flawed as the UN has repeatedly shown that it does not produce results, plus, the only nation that can truly enforce the UN decisions is the US.

During the 80s, Western Europe disagreed with how President Reagan dealt with the Soviets. History has shown that he dealt with the Soviets in the correct way. Since that time, I think we have screwed up in how we deal with Russia, but that was under Bush I and Clinton's watch.

What is happening now is that Western Europe is trying to figure out how they fit into world now that their is only the US as a world power. How do they keep from being dominated by the US on the world stage? I think that is the big question. However, given our common cultural heritage, I think we will continue to be close allies with Canada, England, and Australia. Much of NW Europe will be close to us. France, I have no clue how our relations with them will progress.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think much of the disagreement abroad stems from two things:

1) Some countries had a lot to lose economically.

2) Many countries stood a lot to gain by not allying themselves with us.

I think the fact that we were completely wrong about WMD and everyone but us knew it, and also everyone but us knew how terrible the occupation would be, was also a major factor.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

That's good to know. I base my belief on the history of the region, geography, and politics of Iran. The demographics I am more sketchy on because I do not know tons about the current economic conditions there. The initial military campaign would be brutal, because the geography is like it is, but I think the follow up to the campaign would be easier because Iran is a more homogenous society than Iraq is, where you have three major populations that do not like each other.

Orrrrr we could just let them overthrow the government if that's what they really want to do. If not, they can continue to live under that government. How about that?

I know that's a really simplistic answer, but I think it fits.

[miked]

I can't believe people actually think it's ok that Hamas won and that they will drastically change. I think a similar situation would be if Al Queda ran a party in Iraq and won the elections there. Would we expect them to be peaceful and change their ways?

Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, speaking outside a mosque Friday, said, "Israel has nothing to give for the Palestinian people."

He said it was a waste of time for the Palestinian Authority to speak with Israel and if Israel "has something to fulfill the basic demands of the Palestinian people concerning the occupied territories, concerning the detainees, concerning the question of Jerusalem and other national interests, we are going to re-evaluate these arguments."

I'll bet they'll be changing their views and charter very soon

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by miked

I can't believe people actually think it's ok that Hamas won and that they will drastically change. I think a similar situation would be if Al Queda ran a party in Iraq and won the elections there. Would we expect them to be peaceful and change their ways?

I'm guessing that they would respond by saying that their actions are a direct reaction to the injustices* they have suffered. Saying, "would we expect them to be peaceful and change their ways?" is probably also thought by Hamas in regards to Israel, and Al Qaeda in regards to the US and our foreign policy.

Just wanted to throw that out there.

*Obviously, what is perceived as injustice by some is not perceived as injustive to others.

[Brillig]

Some interesting developments http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGBEGUHCF1.DTL

Particularly Fatah refusing Hamas' offer to form a coalition government, and President Abbas' hinting that he and the PLO might continue to negotiate with Israel leaving Hamas holding power only over domestic policy.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Brillig

Some interesting developments http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGBEGUHCF1.DTL

Particularly Fatah refusing Hamas' offer to form a coalition government, and President Abbas' hinting that he and the PLO might continue to negotiate with Israel leaving Hamas holding power only over domestic policy.

Hmmmm....massive power struggle forthcoming?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think the fact that we were completely wrong about WMD and everyone but us knew it, and also everyone but us knew how terrible the occupation would be, was also a major factor.

[SFL Cat]

dola -- it is my personal opinion that any WMDs Iraq (and it is a fact that Iraq had biological weapons since he used against Iran during the 1980s war and also used them on segments of his own population after the Gulf War) had were ferreted out of that country into Syria. The administration is letting the "Iraq had no WMDs" prevail because they don't want it known that the weapons they were going after may already have been distributed to various terriorist organizations.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Hmmmm....massive power struggle forthcoming?

double dola -- Palestinians blowing up....Palestinians?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

double dola -- Palestinians blowing up....Palestinians?

Sounds like it won't be long....

Originally Posted by CNN

Furious election losers demand party boss quit


DEVELOPING STORY

A young Palestinian throws something on a burning car.
Angry Fatah supporters took to the streets of Gaza City today, blaming Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for their party's trouncing by the militant group Hamas in this week's parliamentary elections. Clashes between Fatah and Hamas wounded four people Friday evening, Palestinian security sources said.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Sooner or later you have to face the fact that everyone was right and we were wrong.

[SFL Cat]

At the time, everyone else (Europeans) thought Iraq had WMDs too, they just didn't want us toppling Saddam's government because they were getting some nice $$$ from him on the sly.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

At the time, everyone else (Europeans) thought Iraq had WMDs too, they just didn't want us toppling Saddam's government because they were getting some nice $$$ from him on the sly.

Here comes the pure and noble US to save the day, right?

Don't be so naive.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Sooner or later you have to face the fact that everyone was right and we were wrong.

WTF? You are quickly losing any validity in your statements. Not everyone thinks the Iraq war was a bad idea. Quick making broad generalizations you can't possibly back up.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

dola -- it is my personal opinion that any WMDs Iraq (and it is a fact that Iraq had biological weapons since he used against Iran during the 1980s war and also used them on segments of his own population after the Gulf War) had were ferreted out of that country into Syria. The administration is letting the "Iraq had no WMDs" prevail because they don't want it known that the weapons they were going after may already have been distributed to various terriorist organizations.

And this is supposed to make us feel good?

Besides, if this is true, then it makes the Bush Administration look even more incompetent. Rumsfeld, et. al., told the world that we knew exactly where the weapons were. Powell went to the United Nations and showed them satellite photos!

So what you're saying is that although we knew where the WMDs were, and had troops on the ground and exceptional resources, every last WMD was spirited out of the country into Syria?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

At the time, everyone else (Europeans) thought Iraq had WMDs too, they just didn't want us toppling Saddam's government because they were getting some nice $$$ from him on the sly.

Not just the Europeans:

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I love the Idea the Iranians will rise up if we invade. If we couldn't get people on our side after deposing a monster like Saddam, what chance do you think we have of winning hearts and minds in Iran?

Sure, the kids in Iran are pissed off at the way the old Mullahs won't let 'em rock and roll, but the idea that they'll support an American invasion because they're bored is totally insane. It's like imagining that the kids in Footloose would've backed a Soviet invasion of Nebraska because John Lithgow wouldn't let them hold school dances.

The argument between Mullahs and kids in Iran is a classic family fight. And you know what happens when some intruder crashes in on the middle of one of those: the whole family unites in about a millisecond and tears him apart.

The Iranians already hate us. They have since 1953, when the CIA staged a coup to get rid of a popular Lefty Prime Minister, Mossadeq. Way back in the 70s, when most of the world still kinda liked us, crowds in Tehran chanted "Marg bar Amrika," "Death to America." Sort of tells us the whole story there.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

At the time, everyone else (Europeans) thought Iraq had WMDs too, they just didn't want us toppling Saddam's government because they were getting some nice $$$ from him on the sly.

That's just a flat out lie. It's GOP propoganda.

http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...allieswmd.html

The debate on Iraqi WMD continues. For example, Russia was not convinced by either the September 24, 2002 British dossier or the October 4, 2002 CIA report. Lacking sufficient evidence, Russia dismissed the claims as a part of a "propaganda furor."2 Specifically targeting the CIA report, Putin said, "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another." He goes on to say, "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."3 However, Putin was apprehensive about the possibility that Iraq may have WMDs and he therefore supported inspections. The Russian ambassador to London thought that the dossier was a document of concern. "It is impressive, but not always…convincing."4

French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."6

It lists sources too, news articles before the war, not spin after the fact. You are simply wrong.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by miked

I can't believe people actually think it's ok that Hamas won and that they will drastically change. I think a similar situation would be if Al Queda ran a party in Iraq and won the elections there. Would we expect them to be peaceful and change their ways?

Wait and see... we're still in the posturing phase. It make take 3-6 months before reality sets in for the Hamas leadership. It's a lot harder to run a country than to snipe from the sidelines. There's no way they maintain their ideological purity.

From an International Crisis Group report on Hamas released a week ago:

The record of the last several months, as Hamas rubbed elbows with issues of local governance and campaigned for national office, offers a preliminary, mixed picture of how political integration might affect its outlook and conduct. In its pragmatism, and even willingness to deal with Israel on day-to-day operational affairs, Hamas rule at the local level has been almost boringly similar to its predecessor. Local politicians emphasise themes of good governance, economic development, and personal and social security, leaving specifically religious issues and the conflict with Israel to the background. With only scant exceptions, they have yet to try to impose their vision of an Islamist society.

Nationally, too, signs of pragmatism can be detected. Far more than Fatah, Hamas has proved a disciplined adherent to the ceasefire, and Israeli military officers readily credit this for the sharp decline in violence. In recent statements, Hamas leaders have not ruled out changing their movement’s charter, negotiating with Israel, or accepting a long-term truce on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines. Today, their electoral platform is in these respects closer to Fatah’s outlook than to Hamas’s founding principles.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My reading time has been a bit scarce lately, so could anybody supply some insight on exactly WTH this little blurb actually means? (I have a tough time envisioning a coalition of Palestinian Stephen Hawkings running a government)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060127/D8FDA2800.html

Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' top ideologues, said the group would consider forming a government of technocrats with no connection to Hamas. Such a government might relieve some of the international pressure on the group.

"We want a government for the Palestinian people, and if we couldn't do that then there are lots of options, one of which is a technocrat government," he said.

[Dutch]

This won't end well. That's not a put down of Democracy at all, but when they go to war, I don't wish for anybody to intervene. Let them duke it out and let the victors write history.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My reading time has been a bit scarce lately, so could anybody supply some insight on exactly WTH this little blurb actually means? (I have a tough time envisioning a coalition of Palestinian Stephen Hawkings running a government)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060127/D8FDA2800.html

Ghazi Hamad, one of Hamas' top ideologues, said the group would consider forming a government of technocrats with no connection to Hamas. Such a government might relieve some of the international pressure on the group.

"We want a government for the Palestinian people, and if we couldn't do that then there are lots of options, one of which is a technocrat government," he said.

I'm guessing this is something more along the lines of the difference between the IRA & Sinn Fein, not a government of Stephen Hawkings. "Technocrat" could simply be a less-than-perfect translation for "political operator".

So, you'd have a group at the table who represented the terrorists, but technically weren't the terrorists.

I'm not going to make a judgement on that, just speculating what JiMGA's article might have meant.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

This won't end well. That's not a put down of Democracy at all, but when they go to war, I don't wish for anybody to intervene. Let them duke it out and let the victors write history.

The problem with that is that if it's just the Palestinians vs. the Israelis, the Israelis will win going away, and the situation won't be much different from the one we have now, except perhaps the neighboring Arab states will be even more hostile towards the Israelis.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The problem with that is that if it's just the Palestinians vs. the Israelis, the Israelis will win going away, and the situation won't be much different from the one we have now, except perhaps the neighboring Arab states will be even more hostile towards the Israelis.

I don't see how the violence can end to be honest.

I would like to see the Palestinian state be stood up AND Jerusalem turned into a free city-state that is off-limits to sovereign armies.

If for no other reason than to prove it won't work. (I think it would)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't see how the violence can end to be honest.

Well, I'm with you there. As I believe someone else has stated, I think the crux of the problem is that you have two populations of people who have been brought up to hate each other. Several generations worth, now. I'm not sure how you get these people to agree to anything, to be honest.

Then again, they've managed some semblance of progress in Northern Ireland... (not exactly an analog, I know, but...).

I would like to see the Palestinian state be stood up AND Jerusalem turned into a free city-state that is off-limits to sovereign armies.

If for no other reason than to prove it won't work. (I think it would)

At this point, any crazy idea (even yours ) shouldn't be off the table.