Jason Moyer on 13/1/2009 at 16:40

---

Actually, the UN and the zionists were the ones who proposed a two-state solution to the Palestine problem, with Israel being roughly 1/4 of the size of the Palestinian state. This was rejected by the Arabs in 1947 (and more than likely other times) because they were unwilling to accept any situation where the entire region wasn't a single Arab state. It's kind of sad that if the Arabs had accepted UNSCOPs proposals in 1947 the problem might not exist. Although, frankly, given the amount of hatred for Jews in the region I doubt that any sort of compromise, no matter how much it favored the Arabs, would have made them happy.

Nameless Voice on 13/1/2009 at 17:22

---

I was thinking that, too. I'll sidestep the issue by saying that Palestine doesn't really have a government with any real power right now. But if they had it, they'd probably classify as a "religious nutcase state" too.



I'd agree with you there, though I'd use the example of a fundamentalist Christian party instead. But, if Ireland elected such a government, I would strongly object to the British deciding to invade the country to remove them.



I eventually gave up on that one when Intel just became a ridiculously better choice to buy (at the time when I bought my computer). Good for you to stick with it.



Arrest the British! :D



All in all, though, this thread isn't going to do anything useful, so it seems a bit pointless unless we manage to get someone annoyed enough to leave TTLG and never come back...

jtr7 on 13/1/2009 at 19:06

---

Too bad ScottKnowsBest had to get himself banned. He'd be good for some laughs and more of my quasi-pseudo-rage.:ebil:

I'm joking...sorta.:erm:

demagogue on 13/1/2009 at 20:36

---

Don't forget the part where your government of nutjobs is launching rockets into Britain. Is that also the part where Britain just lays down and takes it, do they invade and disarm, or do they say "Well, I suppose we weren't really using N Ireland anyway" and abandons it outright?

That's just a baiting question (although it does make the point you can expect some States just congenitally invade when provoked. Remember the Faulklands. Of course the US doesn't even need the provocation. *sad*) But on that note, I've been meaning to ask you seriously about the (http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddhdzt2m_15c4pff4fp) Irish analogy.

Some people think Palestine would do better just "selling out" and cutting a deal for statehood instead of fighting and dying for effectively the same deal decades later, and Arafat had his best chance in 2000. But after a lifetime of taking notes from Michael Collins in his struggle, Arafat departed from him in rejecting the deal. Since Irish history took the other road, I was sincerely curious what the Irish retrospective attitude on 1921 was looking back after about a century, if normal Irish people felt it was worth it in the end to normalize relations, bitter deal and all, and if that says anything to Palestinians, or maybe the analogy isn't fair for some reason.

I hate how long posts break up the flow of a thread, though, so I'm going to try Google Docs again to ask the same question in detail ... It should be publicly viewable.

Aja on 13/1/2009 at 21:27

---

time to get fitty in here to clean this shit up