Who do you favor in the Israel-Palestine conflict?

[ChairmanSanchez]

Idea of Palestinians deserving their state is stupid as Jersey Shore. Also, both needs to be stopped RIGHT NOW.

I agree on Jersey Shore at least....why is Israel always right in your views?

[Senator Clarence]

I have read all of the posts here and have enjoyed this discussion- I chose Israel wich I never would have done 40 years ago. Some one mentioned the USS Liberty- that incident happened when I was in the Navy and shook many of us... our ships are very clearly identified as being ours and there is almost no chance that was done by mistakte- I resented the Isrealis for many years afterwards

Over the years I have changed... some of it due to involvement in my church and some of it following the conflict over the years- and some considerin what the Jews have gone thru...they have undergone persecution unlike any other ethnic group in the world and having a strong Jewish state can protect them from harm
Politically- I find the notion of porpotional response to be not realistic... it is a repeated example but if Quebec lobbed rockets into Vermont we would not respond proportionally...the rocket attacks are constant from Gaza even though the West Bank is a completely different story

But moreso I come as a Christian...I know this will put me in disagreement with many of you. I ask myself who will let me visit and worship in Jerusalem and who will let the Jews...the highways in Saudi Arabia divide exits for Muslims and Infidels and only Muslims can enter Mecca...will Jerusalem become the same? Christians and Muslims have full democratic and religious rights in Isreal right now- I do not believe it would be the same if the Palestinian s were in control.

This issue is much like Afghanistan- we are involved in something which has a history ten times as long as our nation's history. I support Israel bcause I believe it is by far more democratic and accepting of other faiths.

Let the salvo commence...

[Χahar]

No, of course Jerusalem wouldn't be the same because it's not a holy city. Don't be ridiculous.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Clarence, entirely setting aside for a moment any views that you might have on the UN as an institution, how would you feel about making Jerusalem in some way international or a 'treaty city', as was called for by the original 1947 plan?

[Senator Clarence]

I do not have a problem with that at all- though if we were to consider the UN and how this would be acheived it might not be as practical... another idea could be to split Jerusalem excluding the Old City and make only the Old City an international zone with the rest being able to serve as the capital of Israel and- if they wanted- Palestine...this could include the area fought over for settlements

[asexual trans victimologist]

Land swaps in outer Jerusalem with the Old City and immediate environs (perhaps Bethlehem as well) being internationalized seems like it could work. Israel certainly doesn't seem likely to give up the Knesset site, for instance, and besides, where else could a permanent capital of Palestine possibly go?

[Senator Ben]

Israel, of course.  That includes, however, the establishment of a Palestinian State.  I fully reject the notion that one must oppose Palestine to support Israel.

[dead0man]

Indeed.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I support an independent Zululand.  I reject the notion that to be pro-white one must be anti-black.

Considered using Romans and Jews to avoid the cliche, but figured the cliche is the the most accurate comparison, even though there are crucial difference such as that the Afrikaners were there first and also weren't quite so fond of bombing civilians and funding terrorism.

[Χahar]

I support an independent Zululand.  I reject the notion that to be pro-white one must be anti-black.

Considered using Romans and Jews to avoid the cliche, but figured the cliche is the the most accurate comparison, even though there are crucial difference such as that the Afrikaners were there first and also weren't quite so fond of bombing civilians and funding terrorism.

Claims that the Afrikaners were there first are kind of sketchy at best, since they were played up quite a bit by whites in order to assert their indigenous claim to the land.

[So the Heroes Fall]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "there". South Africa is a big place.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Well, whatever the case, the Dutch were there first, certainly in the cities.  Of course, the Khoi-San/Bushmen were there first, first.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

Unequivocably Israel. Could the Israeli government expand civil liberties towards the Palestinian communities? Absolutely. But the understanding needs to be that Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount) belongs to the Jew. Add to that id still end foreign aid.

[asexual trans victimologist]

The Bantu were in the northern and eastern (currently most heavily populated) parts of South Africa first, whereas the Dutch do seem to have been in the Cape Province before them. South Africa is unique in that relatively few people currently there are really 'indigenous', they all just sort of collided.

Of course that doesn't justify the history of apartheid, especially considering there were people in the Cape Province before the Dutch, they just weren't Bantu.