Do you agree that in a one-state solution, the state shouldn't be called Isreal?

 

I agree, it should be called Israel.

Gabe, thank you. You've responded to all my post, even in places that you don't comment on. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

I'm tired right now, I'll respond to you tomorrow.

Gabe, thank you. You've responded to all my post, even in places that you don't comment on. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

I'm tired right now, I'll respond to you tomorrow.

 

You said yourself that part was off topic :huh: .

Do you agree that in a one-state solution, the state shouldn't be called Isreal?

 

I agree, it should be called Israel.

I can't understand what you're saying because of the comma splice. :roll:

Seriously though, calling it Israel is just as bad as calling it Palestine.

I don't give a flying [bleep] what it's called. I don't think anyone should care, so long as Arabs are not treated as second-class citizens.

 

As to the question of war, I believe that war is preventable. War is a failure of politics. Speaking of which, FP has an article out for their Sept/Oct 2011 edition:

 

Think Again: War; World peace could be closer than you think

Do you agree that in a one-state solution, the state shouldn't be called Isreal?

 

I agree, it should be called Israel.

I can't understand what you're saying because of the comma splice. :roll:

Seriously though, calling it Israel is just as bad as calling it Palestine.

 

And that's where we are stuck again.

Call it Israelestine.

Call it Israelestine.

 

Yuck.

I was thinking this very question.

 

Call it the Christan way - State of Jerusalem.

Call it Israelestine.

 

Yuck.

If you think about it, if both sides actually agreed to that it would be a pretty good start lol.

How come the Jews get the whole of their country name, but the Arabs don't?

How come the Jews get the whole of their country name, but the Arabs don't?

Because the Arabs lost the bloody war.

 

;-)

 

 

Or they could just call it Palestisreal.

That's not even a solution. Palesrael is a solution.

That doesn't work, all I read is 'Pale Israel'

 

:(

Palisraelestine, anyone?

 

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.

 

-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.

 

-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.

Palisraelestine, anyone?

How about Bob? Bob is a wonderful name, easy to remember and short to type.

Palisraelestine, anyone?

Or Isratine, which is the name proposed by Muammar Qaddafi.

Palisraelestine, anyone?

How about Bob? Bob is a wonderful name, easy to remember and short to type.

So is Omar.

Palisraelestine, anyone?

How about Bob? Bob is a wonderful name, easy to remember and short to type.

So is Omar.

Nice 5000th post. Yeah, I like Omar. I think it gets my vote.

Palisraelestine, anyone?

How about Bob? Bob is a wonderful name, easy to remember and short to type.

 

ARrghhh I was gonna say that this morning but then I said "nah... I shouldn't goof around in this thread". I spent like a good 10 minutes considering saying it or not. I HATE YOU!

Palisraelestine, anyone?

How about Bob? Bob is a wonderful name, easy to remember and short to type.

 

ARrghhh I was gonna say that this morning but then I said "nah... I shouldn't goof around in this thread". I spent like a good 10 minutes considering saying it or not. I HATE YOU!

:twss:

 

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.

Why is the page stretched out like that? Also I messed up on a few quotes, sorry.

The former is a consequence of the latter I think.