The former is a consequence of the latter I think.

 

Pardon?

@Gabe;

 

I am going to respond to your above post without having to fiddle around with the glitched quotes.

 

-On Hamas: The reason for Hamas' success is the perception that Israel doesn't give a [bleep] about Palestinian refugees, and that Fatah and the PA is corrupt and inefficient (something which is partly true). People then look at Hamas, and its affiliate the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, doing humanitarian work, and they feel looked after. They also see Hamas trying to harm Israel, which is what they feel has been done to them, and they feel vindicated. I'm not saying it's alright, but I am saying that it is within Israel's power to change the situation by changing their actions

 

-On the issue of a 'war': I think that Israel is the single country on earth that has the worst relations with its neighbours. I think that, in an inevitable future (it's a matter of when, not if) in which the 'west' is not in a position to help - in some respects, this is already the case - there will be little that Israel can do to prevent insane neighbours like Iran and the massively powerful Hizbullah from dealing them massive damage. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a possibility that Israel seems to be ignoring and just relying on the US.

 

-Sharia law would not cause an issue unless Islamist parties came to power. Ever heard of secularism? It works a treat in Turkey and many other Muslim countries - not all Islamic countries are like Saudi Arabia.

The paged is stretched is because the quotes tags are disorganized. Just requote the post and do some copypasting to replace what you wrote.

Saudi Arabia is also Israel's best friend.

I fixed it.

 

A palestinian state would only be set up if Israel was involved in the process, so I really doubt this would happen.

 

 

-As such, I think that Israel should give Israeli citizenship to Arabs and incorporate Gaza and the West Bank into their state. The democratic framework in Israel is already in place and works quite well.

 

 

This I will agree, but it's somewhat not viable because of Hamas.

 

Money=/= brilliance.

 

This is where you lost me completely. First, did you name that Palestine originated from the word Falistina which was a name from the Bible that the Romans called this land to insult the Jews? It was the Arabs that could not pronounce and they pronounced it Palestine instead. So this is a hell no argument. Also, Arabs out numbering Jews in this state would not be viable at all. After all of this, do you really think peace is going to come this easy? This would end up being like what the colony of Maryland ended up being. Not realistically viable. You're completely wanting to destroy parts of the Jewish culture and replace it with Islamic.

 

 

 

-It is true, that Israel is not showing any signs of willingness when it comes to setting up the Palestinian state. But if we look at Israel's position, it's looking increasingly shaky. The USA has debts that are at 98% of GDP (102% by 2012), it has a divided and inefficient polity that is totally incapable of sorting out its problems (Europe's politicians are only marginally better, but they don't give Israel very much at all compared with the US of A), and even at this dire stage, they're basically just trying to delay the problem indefinitely. There will come a time when the US can't support Israel anymore; when this happens, Israel might find themselves a little more willing to compromise, or risk the wrath of increasingly hostile neighbours.

 

Do you think that if a war broke out all countries are just going to stand there and not do a thing?

 

 

-I'd say that Hamas complicate the issue of incorporating Arabs into the state, but they don't make it unviable. Israel also has to realise that blockading Gaza is only going to widen and stregthen Hamas' support base; indeed, I think they know this, and are using this to their advantage.

 

Because incorporating a terrorist group whose soul purpose is to kill the Jews and destroy Israel is a good idea.

 

 

-To say that the Romans renamed it to simply humiliate the Jews would be a very imbalanced approach. The Romans renamed it, as with various other parts of their empire (Britain comes from the Roman name Britannia, Iberia is a Roman appellation, and so on), in order to fully integrate it into their empire. It's not a specifically Jewish thing. If other parts of the world have kept their Roman names, such as Great Britain, it makes no sense that Palestine should be renamed after an ancient Jewish state that was created once the Jews had managed to colonise the area for themselves. Similarly, the Jewish culture of Israel is not natural; it is a fake, pseudo-culture created because Arabs were forced out and recolonised by Jewish emigrants. If the 11 million Palestinians were to return, there'd still be 5 million Jews anyway. In Jewish areas of London, trust me the Jewish culture is strong when there are just a few thousand there. In a country of 5 million Jews, the Jewish culture would not be under threat.

 

Philistines were the enemy of the Jews... So yes, it was indeed to insult them. Also, Sharia law alone would cause such a controversial that would make this not viable.

I'm sure Palestinians would rather be called that way not Philistines, because that word is a synonym for an idiot.

^ Palestinians are just Arabs. Philistines aren't around anymore, but they were essentially a race/culture in Biblical times who were the Jews' arch-enemies.

Exactly. They don't have a unique culture or anything, they just share a common culture as other Arabs.

Exactly. They don't have a unique culture or anything, they just share a common culture as other Arabs.

That's not to say that Jews have a right to steal their land, burn their mosques and override their culture because of some Biblical claims.

 

And, truth be told, there are unique cultural divides among Arabs across the Middle East and Maghreb.

What's all this crap about Sharia Law? I'm waiting for all you legal experts to present me with a way of "banning Sharia Law" in a country that doesn't have separation of church and state without banning all private arbitration. No matter how popular the banning of Sharia courts may become, the only non-discriminatory way to accomplish such a ban would be to ban all private mitigation of civil cases, because that's all that the "sharia courts" are: private mitigation of civil cases. It is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

What's all this crap about Sharia Law? I'm waiting for all you legal experts to present me with a way of "banning Sharia Law" in a country that doesn't have separation of church and state without banning all private arbitration. No matter how popular the banning of Sharia courts may become, the only non-discriminatory way to accomplish such a ban would be to ban all private mitigation of civil cases, because that's all that the "sharia courts" are: private mitigation of civil cases. It is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

I fail to see quite which country you are referring to with your point. I don't know of an Islamic country that combines the church and the state. Maybe once we've cleared that up we can proceed.

What's all this crap about Sharia Law? I'm waiting for all you legal experts to present me with a way of "banning Sharia Law" in a country that doesn't have separation of church and state without banning all private arbitration. No matter how popular the banning of Sharia courts may become, the only non-discriminatory way to accomplish such a ban would be to ban all private mitigation of civil cases, because that's all that the "sharia courts" are: private mitigation of civil cases. It is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

I fail to see quite which country you are referring to with your point. I don't know of an Islamic country that combines the church and the state. Maybe once we've cleared that up we can proceed.

I thought pretty much every Islamic country has a fairly close combination of church and state?

What's all this crap about Sharia Law? I'm waiting for all you legal experts to present me with a way of "banning Sharia Law" in a country that doesn't have separation of church and state without banning all private arbitration. No matter how popular the banning of Sharia courts may become, the only non-discriminatory way to accomplish such a ban would be to ban all private mitigation of civil cases, because that's all that the "sharia courts" are: private mitigation of civil cases. It is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

I fail to see quite which country you are referring to with your point. I don't know of an Islamic country that combines the church and the state. Maybe once we've cleared that up we can proceed.

I thought pretty much every Islamic country has a fairly close combination of church and state?

The church refers specifically to the Christian body and its unique organisation. Islamic countries have nothing quite as organised as the church (though there are many churches, they span across nations and continents) of which I am aware.

What's all this crap about Sharia Law? I'm waiting for all you legal experts to present me with a way of "banning Sharia Law" in a country that doesn't have separation of church and state without banning all private arbitration. No matter how popular the banning of Sharia courts may become, the only non-discriminatory way to accomplish such a ban would be to ban all private mitigation of civil cases, because that's all that the "sharia courts" are: private mitigation of civil cases. It is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

I fail to see quite which country you are referring to with your point. I don't know of an Islamic country that combines the church and the state. Maybe once we've cleared that up we can proceed.

 

Any country, really. Gabe mentioned Sharia, so I'm just curious as to what he thinks of Jewish or canon law being enforced as it is in Israel -- if the people involved in such a private matter choose to use it to settle civil disputes, they can do so. Why does he bring up Sharia but fail to mention those?

What's all this crap about Sharia Law? I'm waiting for all you legal experts to present me with a way of "banning Sharia Law" in a country that doesn't have separation of church and state without banning all private arbitration. No matter how popular the banning of Sharia courts may become, the only non-discriminatory way to accomplish such a ban would be to ban all private mitigation of civil cases, because that's all that the "sharia courts" are: private mitigation of civil cases. It is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law.

I fail to see quite which country you are referring to with your point. I don't know of an Islamic country that combines the church and the state. Maybe once we've cleared that up we can proceed.

 

Any country, really. Gabe mentioned Sharia, so I'm just curious as to what he thinks of Jewish or canon law being enforced as it is in Israel -- if the people involved in such a private matter choose to use it to settle civil disputes, they can do so. Why does he bring up Sharia but fail to mention those?

Oh I see. I misunderstood you. I am personally a secularist who is against all religiously based codes of law, and as such I am not in much of a position to answer the question.

Oh, so am I. Although you cannot ban Sharia/Jewish/Canon law without discrimination, imo -- especially in America, I feel that any bans violate the First Amendment. It also poses a problem for all other private means to settle such disputes. You can certainly regulate it, though. However, it's always funny to hear people screaming about Sharia, when Jewish law is used to solve civil suits all of the time in the US. It's driven by xenophobic racism, mostly, which is what I was getting at with Gabe.