Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Everyone here pontificating about ethnic cleansing ought to keep in mind that that is exactly what Hamas and all Israel's neighbours wish to do to the Jews.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Everyone here pontificating about ethnic cleansing ought to keep in mind that that is exactly what Hamas and all Israel's neighbours wish to do to the Jews.

I don't think anyone is condoning that, I don't think anyone is trying to stick up for them either, but rather pointing out that these ideas, concepts, feelings, and horrible acts aren't unidirectional.

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is the so-called 'Lone Wolf' scenario. I don't think there is very much that can be done to anticipate and prevent this kind of attack.

It's impossible to mass screen users of public and private transport. It's impossible to regulate knives when every household needs several of them for normal cooking purposes. It's impossible to detect a conspiracy that consists of one guy deciding to make this kind of attack by himself.

You can only wait for the attack to happen, then react as quickly and effectively as possible.

Like with a personal firearm carried for self defense?

Welcome to the fold

To be frank I think that would result in even more carnage as random bystanders open up on the perp, then on each other, then get shot by the police, since only the actual criminal(s) would know who was the right person to shoot.

 Frazzled wrote:

Stop retaliating with massively uneven force

You can argue the other points you made, but this doesn't even reach the coherent test.

1) What do you think the purpose of retaliation is?
2) If Israel were really retaliating, there would be no Palestinians left alive.

To anyone who has been over there, could Israel split Jerusalem with a wall, one side to Israel, one side to Palestine?

Alternatively, could Israel move the Wailing Wall itself, stone by stone, to another location?

Forgive my ignorance here.

Best solution(well, the best solution would be for Israel to accept that a Jewish state is an untenable idea unless they're willing to perpetrate total genocide on the Palestinians, which they would also hopefully refuse to do on the grounds it's despicable, and on the basis of that admission honestly and genuinely move forward with a one-state scenario, but nobody's naive enough to think the USA will remove its tongue from Israel's backside long enough to put them in a position where they'd have to commit to honest self-reflection and compromise); neither side is capable of being an adult, so take away their toys. Jerusalem needs to be made an independent city-state under the control of an elected council with equal numbers of Israelis & Palestinians with a tiebreaker member appointed by the UN from a neutral country, access to all parts of the city for all peoples & faiths should be guaranteed by the deployment of a substantial contingent of UN Peacekeepers. Israel can claim it as a symbolic capital city, but only after they get the settler lobby under control and stop stealing the West Bank out from under the Palestinians. Palestine can claim it as a symbolic capital city, but only after Hamas agree to an IRA-style monitored disarmament.

Why is Kerry and the US getting involved? A few stabbings...thats just your average high school party in most cioties in the US. Meanwhile a few miles West, if there's an accident Red Storm starts up.

 Bullockist wrote:


If you can't hold the country , you don't win.

Again, silly interpretation of history. They held it against multiple attackers in 67 and 73. They've forced all of their opponents to the bargaining table and even gone as far as to return land won in defensive wars.

This Palestinian problem is little more than civil unrest. If push came to shove they could solve the problem in a 1 week expulsion campaign. You're conflating their good will with an inability to hold the land. There is no scenario under which the Palestinians will ever retake Israel aside from trying to breed out the Jewish and Christian population.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.

Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
No were advocating the removal of a group from a country. Thisgroup is responsible for some of the most violent terrorist attacks in the world and do not wish to live in peace with the country but instead wish to take it over and force the other religions to obey them.

You're right, we should deport Israel's current government and place the country under more sensible and peaceful rule.

The Jews deserve a country of their own

Why?

Islam on the other hand has Saudi Arabia for most of its holy sites and instead of moving there they are far more interested in fighting the jews for a small part of the middle east, even though there is no oil or other natural resources there to exploit.

Yeah, "we were already living here when you arrived" is such a horrible reason to want to continue to live somewhere. They should just uproot their entire lives and move to Saudi Arabia because that's where Muslims naturally want to live, when they're not trying to kill all the Jews.

PS: are you aware that Islam is not a monolithic culture, and there are vast numbers of Muslims who share very little culturally with Saudi Arabia?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Oh but its the THIRD holiest site in islam don't you know!

How far down the heirarchy of "holiness" in the eyes of islam does one go down before things become meaningless?

I see, so religions are only allowed to have two holy sites, and should be forced to give up the rest? I guess that means the world can only have two Christian churches, so we'll have to close all of the rest.

Remember folks, what touched this round of escalation was not Israel killing a kid or anything like that....its was the collective sentiment that JEWS might enter (or even start praying at!) one of the multitude of muslim "holy" places. What touched this off was racial/ethnic inclusivity in regards to a religious site. Ponder that for a few minutes.

And next week we'll have a thread about how Israel bombed a bunch of innocent people or bulldozed a town to make room for their own settlers. Let's not pretend that Israel's hands are clean in this mess.

Implying Dome of the Rock is actually holy and wasn't a political ploy by the Umayyad caliphate to subvert the monopoly Ibn al-Zubayr had on pilgrimage because of the Ka'ba

 kronk wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.

Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.

Or, more likely, we would find out the existence of a Jewish Israel is not the source of unrest in the middle east.

 CptJake wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.

Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.

Or, more likely, we would find out the existence of a Jewish Israel is not the source of unrest in the middle east.

Well...yea.

The problem I see is that if Israel went back to the 1967 borders, nothing would change. As a historical reminder, PLO attacks were occurring BEFORE 1967.
you're already seeing arguments that Israel won't have peace until there is one state-aka Palestinians return to Israel proper. That means the elimination of Israel as a nation under current politics so thats not going to happen.

So Israel pulls back to 1967 borders. It seals its borders and declares Gaza etc can do whatever they want, Israel will view them as separate countries and will no longer occupy.
Then what?

It's obvious what happens next, Frazz.

We'll be back here in 50 years talking about another wave of stabbings/bombings/violence.

I've long came to the conclusion that neither side is serious about peace. I honestly think a permanent undercurrent of violence suits extreme elements on both sides.

For the Palestinians, it allows the victimhood mentality to continue. For Israel, it allows them to keep up the us against the world mentality.

For people in Britain, it reminds us of the Northern Ireland situation, and after a while, people don't want to hear about it.

For want of a better word, it just gets...boring...

 CptJake wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.

Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.

Or, more likely, we would find out the existence of a Jewish Israel is not the source of unrest in the middle east.

You don't know what your talking about CptJake, Arabs all love one another, in fact no Arab state has ever gone to war with another Arab state. Besides Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran......wait..crap, nevermind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and on the note that Israel couldn't hold its own territory. I refer you to the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur War. Several Arab countries spent years preparing an invasion of Israel only to be stopped by Israel and then in turn invaded by israeli armies. You can say nonsense such as "well without the US helping" the US supplied arms and munitions...thats it. Every Arab state except Jordan was taking HUGE amounts of Soviet aid. Israel was out numbered several times over by the forces arranged against it, even after arming its reserves (most of the population) and Israel still won. It would take a few weeks to remove every Muslim Palestinian from the entirety of Israel, but Israel doesn't do that because they aren't butchers like everyone tries to portray them as. Have you ever noticed that every single Israeli air attack, artillery strike or Small Arms engagement seems to always result in only woman and children dying? Are the Israeli's that bad at aiming or do you think maybe, just maybe, the Muslims are lying constantly to try and get world opinion against Israel, A tactic i would remind you they have been using since the 1950s. According to Sadat the US Shot down all the Egyptian Air force, and that the Egyptians in turn shot down the entirety of the Israeli air force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on a last note, I just heard on NPR this morning that the new policy in Jerusalem is for any Muslim convicted of a terrorist attack such as attacking people with a knife, will have their House confiscated and their family evicted from Jerusalem. Pretty good policy to remove the rabble from Jerusalem.

 kronk wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.

Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.

Sure. That mighty work. Until the next Holocaust.

Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?

It still won't solve things in the long run. Muslims of all sects are united in their hatred of Israel. Without Israel to unite them, they'd just go back to fighting themselves sectarian style. Sunni vs Shia vs Alawite. Like Syria but on a much grander scale.

It'll also have the effect of displacing the Israel-Islam conflict to Europe. There are big populations of Muslims living in Europe, how do you think they'll feel if there was a sudden influx of Jews?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?

Of course not. It's just as asinine a statement as "Get rid of all the damn Muslims", which is a point people are missing.

There will never be peace in the region.

Drill that Alaskan oil. Mine that Virginia Coal. Turn Nevada into a giant fething Solar Power Cell.

Do whatever you have to do so that we can stop giving a gak about the region.

Ah, clearly I missed the sarcasm.

 kronk wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?

Of course not. It's just as asinine a statement as "Get rid of all the damn Muslims", which is a point people are missing.

There will never be peace in the region.

Drill that Alaskan oil. Mine that Virginia Coal. Turn Nevada into a giant fething Solar Power Cell.

Do whatever you have to do so that we can stop giving a gak about the region.

I don't give a gak about the region at all, I just care about Israel. WHich is weird because im a catholic but whatever.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Personally I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Islamic sites and people from Israel. Force Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, Jordan and other Islamic countries to take in the "Palestinians" and then enforce a strict border policy to protect Israel. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks but in the end the removal of the Palestinian problem would probably calm the middle east and not continuously inflame it.

Personally, I think a better solution that would cause MASSIVE unrest at first, but would eventually lead to calmer heads would be for the removal of all Israelis from Israel. Force the European countries to take in the "Israelis" and then enforce a strict border polity to protect Palestine. At first this would create a lot of backlash and attacks, but in the end, the removal of the Israeli problem would probably calm the Middle East and not continuously inflame it.

Sure. That mighty work. Until the next Holocaust.

Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?

It still won't solve things in the long run. Muslims of all sects are united in their hatred of Israel. Without Israel to unite them, they'd just go back to fighting themselves sectarian style. Sunni vs Shia vs Alawite. Like Syria but on a much grander scale.

It'll also have the effect of displacing the Israel-Islam conflict to Europe. There are big populations of Muslims living in Europe, how do you think they'll feel if there was a sudden influx of Jews?

They should move to the US, specifically Texas. Bring forth the matza ball TexMex.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Do you really think the solution for peace is to forcibly relocate the middle east' s population of Jews and send them back to the countries that either tried to exterminate their grandparents or turned a blind eye not too long ago?

Of course not. It's just as asinine a statement as "Get rid of all the damn Muslims", which is a point people are missing.

There will never be peace in the region.

Drill that Alaskan oil. Mine that Virginia Coal. Turn Nevada into a giant fething Solar Power Cell.

Do whatever you have to do so that we can stop giving a gak about the region.

I don't give a gak about the region at all, I just care about Israel. WHich is weird because im a catholic but whatever.

I don't care at all about Israel, which is weird because I'm also Catholic.

I don't care at all about Dallas which is weird because, wait, thats not weird, I'm from Houston, we hate Dallas.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't care at all about Dallas which is weird because, wait, thats not weird, I'm from Houston, we hate Dallas.

I'd rather go to the dentist so he can drill on my one tooth than go to Dallas.

Kronk understands.

As a problem it's pretty much intractable,

not only that but the extremists on both sides still think they can 'win' (and basically remove the other from the country)

but it's just not going to happen

I may not like the Israeli governments policies but at least it has a (relatively) stable government that does it's best to run a functional state.

The Palestinians suffer from factionalism and ingrained corruption and their instability further reduces the pressure for Israel to actually negotiate.... why bother as even if they do accept a treaty a significant proportion of the population will not abide by it

so maybe the way to go is to get somebody else to run the basic services of government for the Palestinians for a few decades thus stabilising the food/water/shelter/policing aspect of things meaning there will be far fewer people driven to militancy be desperation

smaller millitias will be less inclined to 'spend' lives, and will have more incentive to stick by negociated treaties, which means Israel in turn will loose the excuse of 'just reacting', and will also feel safer and so more likely to negociate too

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I just care about Israel.

Yes, thank you, we noticed.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
As a problem it's pretty much intractable,

not only that but the extremists on both sides still think they can 'win' (and basically remove the other from the country)

but it's just not going to happen

I may not like the Israeli governments policies but at least it has a (relatively) stable government that does it's best to run a functional state.

The Palestinians suffer from factionalism and ingrained corruption and their instability further reduces the pressure for Israel to actually negotiate.... why bother as even if they do accept a treaty a significant proportion of the population will not abide by it

so maybe the way to go is to get somebody else to run the basic services of government for the Palestinians for a few decades thus stabilising the food/water/shelter/policing aspect of things meaning there will be far fewer people driven to militancy be desperation

smaller millitias will be less inclined to 'spend' lives, and will have more incentive to stick by negociated treaties, which means Israel in turn will loose the excuse of 'just reacting', and will also feel safer and so more likely to negociate too

Well in my longer post above I mentioned that Israel has come up with a solution. If you act in this manner, stabbing people, throwing rocks at the government forces and such you and your family will lose your home and be forcefully removed from Jerusalem. So what Israel has done is told the Muslim and jewish hardliners that if you want to live in Jerusalem you will be peaceful or we will kick you the feth out.

Yeah, abandoning the rule of law that stands as basis for modern civilization sounds like an excellent plan, I don't see how that could go wrong!

As has been mentioned already, there will never be peace there. Only way is to wipe out whole civilizations. And no one except the Muslims are willing to do that.

yellowfever wrote:
As has been mentioned already, there will never be peace there. Only way is to wipe out whole civilizations. And no one except the Muslims are willing to do that.

Well, except the muslims and half this thread.

The world would surely become a better place for killing off whole swathes of the human race to stop a few knife murders.

You know it makes sense.

Hey it worked for Doctor Strangelove.

I'm not saying it should be done. Merely pointing out that Muslims will always fight infidels. It's what they are taught.