Israeli/Palestinian conflict

there are some exceptions to this rule though. for example the mongols did actually win the war - since their economy booster for a while. or the romans while their glory lasted and so on. basically if u can win the war the right way (culture, governemnt, military) but that is really hard to achive especially if the other party hates u to the core

no such thing as an inocent in wars between countries. so long as you know its happening its your responsability as a citizen of one of the participating countries to do something about it. if you agree with it then you do what you can to help. even if thats going through your regular job from day to day making sure that when the wars done and over with you still have a country. if you disagree or dont care either way and keep on with your life you are still supporting a country that openly killing people, as such your still part of the problem even if you dont like it. i think you get my point by now, so ill shut up.

in the case of isreal killing "innocents" tell me how you know the difference between inocents and terrorists? they look the same and act the same till one pushes a button and goes boom.

id also like to look at motivation here. isreal from what ive seen just wants to be left well enough alone. the muslins want isreal and everyone living there obliterated in the name of there god. agreed sreal hasnt had the best foreign policy but it doesnt change much. so looking at isreals side, how do you fight civilians with nasty ideal without killing the civilians that dont? in the case of the county itself hating isreal its cause one of those radicals made it to head of state.

i know i havnt read through the whole thread but can any of you give me a reason to attack isreal other than doing it for some bogus god?

Blowing up buses & markets with civilians isn't a way to gain "freedom from oppression". I would find your argument more believable if Hamas wasn't firing indiscriminately into Israel and attacking civilian targets. Israel has a clear and standing military. If Hamas only attacked military targets then I would find your argument more believable. I still think Israel could have done a better job but, I can certainly see from the perspective of the Israeli people.



You just earned yourself a place next to Mnx as a "good Muslim" which is one step closer to me thinking that the majority is actually peaceful instead of wanting to go Jihad on my ass.

now that quote says it all. let's add one more...

"Only those who're prepared to be shot deserve to shoot."
-Lelouch vi Brittania-

The thing is, if they don't react to the killing, they'll just be hunted and killed anyway, or be taken over to be opressed which can be worse. And seeing as how previous negotiations backfired, what else are they supposed to do...?

Put very simply; Israel should not be there in the first place, Jews are a religion not a race. However the way the Palestinians are going about things is unjust in itself. I cannot see it ending via Israel ceding territory (would give credence to what the Palestinians had been doing up to then - they would agree a temporary ceasefire, but never really stop trying to eradicate the "nation" of Israel) Nor will the Israeli's give up their "home".

The only realistic way this is going to end is that the Israelis perform a little holocaust of their own upon the Palestinians. Disgusting - but also the most likely end to this conflict. The western powers are not going to step in and take action as they are on the side of Israel.

I would solve it by eradicating nationalism, and breaking down the boundaries between countries once and for all.(simple huh? :? )

SOUNDS simple. how can you achieve that anyway? although i do support the idea...and lets eradicate religion too while we're at it. those extremists believe they're doing this for religion, so we'll just eliminate their reasons.

Not sure about eradicating religion, I believe that people should be free to practice whatever religion they like, as long as they do not harm others while doing so. What we should be thinking about is how to take power away from religious organizations. In America at least there is a worrying closeness between church and government.

I don't think the extremists are doing this just because of their religion, I think they are opposing the injustice that is the state of Israel. They're going about it the wrong way though. How to break down the borders of the world? It will be difficult as almost all countries foster a sense of national pride (which leads to distrust and dislike toward other nations). I suppose what the world really needs is education and free media, a neutral means of getting information to the entire world - the internet? :P

If people understand that it is in their best interests to work as one world state, then perhaps progress can be made. However most people would be too shortsighted to see what they have to gain from this.

yeah, true. but almost all religion, especially big ones, claim that it's the only one true religion. from that, they feel the itch to spread and force it onto others. that's why i say let's just eliminate that damn stupidity once and for all.

and yeah, eliminating that stupidity is the hard part, really.

Slight problem champ.

First you advocate one of two routes. No government (True communism) or single world government (One world order). Either way is all fine and dandy but, each has their own problems which I won't address but, a little critical thinking and they will reveal themselves to you.

If order to remove nationalism you would have to remove individuality and replace the "thoughts" of being an individual instead of a "global citizen". This presents a problem, counting people only as a member of a larger group restricts rights and individual liberty and freedom. The next problem is human nature. People will associate with people who are like them. Aryans will associate with Aryans, blacks with blacks,etc. So the world isn't broken up by "countries" anymore it would be broken up by race, religion, politics, region, etc. In the end, you essentially accomplished...nothing.

On topic: The "Nation" of Israel was created by the U.N. the government of the planet in a sense. They granted Israel statehood in approximately the same area they had (A.k.a theLand of Israel) . Also "Jews" are also a race of people which have strong ties "Judaism". Look at Einstein, he was a Jew and an agnostic at the same time. Kind of pokes a hole in your "Jews are only a religion" theory.

Yes I advocate no government. In principle it is far better than the situation we have right now. Why is it that on this forum, people state the obvious and thinks that you haven't thought your theories through?? People should be treated as individuals, though they are, and always have been part of the human race.

On your "people will associate with people of their own race"; if they choose to do that then that is their right to do so, providing they do not harm others, however someone who is a little more enlightened would not merely stick to groups based on their ancestry, but would hope to learn from all the people they meet. I personally don't judge my friends based on race or ancestry at all, if everyone made a concerted effort to become better people, then they would do the same.

The finer details are yet to be finalized but I would imagine that if i can create a situation where it is in people's best interests to shake off their ignorance and follow an altruistic way of life, they could practice their religions without hatred. Regions would be meaningless, people could go where they pleased. Politics is a broad subject, there will always be disagreements, people just have to be mature enough to resolve them amicably.

The U.N. is not the "government of the planet", it's a joke. When the nations' governments have the wrong idea it is difficult to make progress. China is a member of the U.N., China......whose government have an atrocious human rights record and still revere Mao (difficult to really discern who the worst people in history were - there were a lot of them, but he is right at the top of the list, can you name anyone worse?).

I disagree, just because someone's ancestry may lead back to ancient Israel, it does not make them "a Jew", the choice to identify as a "Jew" in terms of race is purely subjective and one person's own choice - that does not mean they should have their own country, no matter the cost to other people. That is ridiculous, you know what? I've just decided that I am an Aztec, come on UN - give me a country!

I find your theories and principals laughable. You hold such lofty ideals that they will never begin to be put into place. Governments will no give up their power by dissolving their boarders.

People will associate with their race which will develop down the road into racism. Groups will hate each other. It's human nature to despise those who are different.

Religion can't be practiced in peace (except for maybe Buddhism). Even if people could go anywhere. Radical Christians or Muslims would kill or convert all the heathens and non-believers. Religion is part of the problem.

At least we agree that the U.N. is a joke but, the problem is the U.N. is a government. The "government" of governments to make sure we all get along like the Federal government works with the states. Anyways, nothing said that the government had to play nice wither everyone in order to become a member. Several countries around the world aren't members. When you become a member state of the U.N. you are bound by the rules of the U.N. and have a voice within negotiations. At the end of the day the U.N. is a government and all governments seek to attain and maintain power. The U.N actually wishes for all it's member states and it's "global citizens" to disband their armed forces, militias and drop all weapons so that only the U.N. would have armed forces to "keep the peace".

So under your logic, I'm not Cherokee since ancestry is such a minor detail. Jews are a race of people, that is a fact. Continue to deny the facts and you'll just look like a moron. Just accept the fact that "Jews" are a race of people who have a strong connection to a specific religion. If every English person is christian but, not every Christian was English then by your logic. The English are not a race. My example with Einstein already countered your theory. Since he was genetically a Jew but, was agnostic when it came to religion.

If I may include sir... This theory is HIGHLY improbably as humans are very greedy and selfish species. (actually what type of species isn't) Trust me, humans will never be able to live up to the ideals you have just stated, hence wee need something to keep us in check: a government.

If a government didn't exist, there would be chaos like no one would believe. People are social by nature so they will form groups and will always have qualms about another group and fights will break out and even within one's own group there will be chaos as there is no government to set up laws and to police its own people.

This is my exact view on A.E.'s "ideals" in a nutshell..and put in a more polite way.

It will be virtually impossible, but it is an ideal for the future. A society that can be worked toward. I know humans are a greedy and selfish species, in the end it will be how leaders control and manipulate that greed, that will lead to humans following something even resembling an altruistic ideal.

The whole scape of human instinct would have to change to achieve true altruism. The closest thing you could get these days would be to brainwash every child at birth. I would not advocate this, so I'm pretty much left looking to the future for a viable method. An opportunity to achieve my utopia. Are you honestly saying that this is not an ideal that you could look forward to as well?

If not, then tell me what would be better?

I think something is really only an ideal if it was possible in some way. Your "ideal" world is just a dream that will never happen. It's not just that the chances of it are low; it is impossible to achieve. It's like wanting a world where giant robots are used to fight wars, and each side has more robots than soldiers. Physics says that such a thing will never happen, and psychology says that your world will never come to be. Over a thousand years, humans have stayed the same basic creatures. Though we have learned more things, we still like a solid structure to live in. Take away the structure, and some people feel uneasy, while others feel powerful and give the former a reason to feel uneasy.

The only way to make people be friendly to each other is to make them frightened, and that isn't true friendliness. And if it's not true friendliness, then all it takes is one person who feels really stressed out to do something crazy, and then other stressed out people follow suit, and you're right back where you started - with a bunch of animals who call themselves humans but still have the basic, primal fears and instincts of the lion and the tiger.

I wouldn't say that it would never happen, if there is one person like me in the world then there is a possibility that there can be more. Humans have evolved to the point where a lot of people see violence as unacceptable. Humans have adapted to the modern age of mass media, people's views are shaped by what they watch on television. It is a matter of convincing them that it is in their best interests, in order to start the process.

Considering what some people believe these days, it should not be impossible to achieve this. When it comes to maintaining the situation, that would be done by showing the obvious superiority of this society over what they had before. When an idea is genuinely better than another, you don't need to use smoke and mirrors or underhanded tactics in order to control the people. If the people have sense, they will be happy with what they have got.