Liberals taste good when fried.

Plus let's consider that Arabs can live in Israel but are there any Jews living in Palatine? No? Exactly. That's because they're the racists. It's the same thing throughout the Muslim world. The stupid west tolerate their culture and they tolerate nothing. Meanwhile all of Europe is being breded out. This is the only thing that this idiot has said that is true.

I think you mean to say there are no Jews living under Palestinian administration on the west bank or gaza? There are Jews although not many in Iran Iraq Egypt and a sizable community in morocco.

Ebay- That's why we nuke them all.

It's hard to tell if Ebay and krellin is sarcastic or trying to be serious? I'm afraid you're being serious. I've been in both Tel Aviv and drove through the Gaza region.
Let me tell you, it's not a question of racism that makes the choice. Any sain person with the financial possibility would choose places like Tel Aviv. Wealthy people live in rich places. Poor people live in poor places. Why else would that have been 'given' the Gaza strip?

Israel as a whole was poor when it was Palestine, modern technology is what made it a "rich place"

Gaza is poor because Arab leadership throughout the Middle East has insisted that Palestinians remain in refugee camps with the promise of moving back to Israel some day, rather than trying to make lives for themselves. 3 generations of refugees have had their lives on hold because of this. Israel was a backwater wasteland when Jews started emigrating there, and European Jewish money made it what it is today. Think of what Arab oil money could do for Gaza, if people were allowed to build lives there, rather than remain refugees.

I didn't know foreign aid counted as modern technology.

where is the live game advertising?

"continue to deny your existence?" - i don't think anyone denies the existance of Israel, that would mean going around saying there is no jewish state, this defence force soldier kicking my head in is imaginary...

You mean deny the right to exist, or refuse to recognise the state as legitimate.

"if people were allowed to build lives there, rather than remain refugees." - not every Gazan is forced to live like a refugee because of other Arab states, some do try to build lives for themselves, and schools and power generators - some NGOs even tried to bring in power generators and concrete scaffolding on a ship recently (can't remember what it was called) - Israeli attacks destroy much of the infrastructure, and the blockade prevents them from importing anything useful.

So while Palestine hasn't done itself any favours, it woudl still be a much nicer place if not for the Israeli Defence Force, Air strikes (using US bombs) and the continued failure to acheive any kind of peace.

There are 500,000 people in refugee camps in Gaza.
There are 120,000 people in refugee camps in Syria
There are 194,000 people in refugee camps in the West Bank
There are 225,000 people in refugee camps in Lebanon
There are 200,000 + people in refugee camps in Jordan

These are people that have been in camps for either 62 years (after 48) or 43 years (after 67).

(There are millions more Palestinian 'refugees'. Those are only the ones in camps.)

ok, your point is clearer to me now, thanks dbj.

Of course, it is impossible to ask Israel to lift the blockade on Gaza, because that would directly result in Israeli deaths. Equally, they cannot let building materials in as they can be used to reinforce tunnels or as part of explosives. Thus the innocent people of Gaza are stuck between a rock and a hard place because of the actions of their neighbours.

How about those engaging in discourse here state their principles and apply them consistently?

the principle of self-determination would have a different effect in each situation it was applied to, and even a full statement of the principle woudln't describe all of the possible local results - however consistantly applied.

There is no single simple principled solution - further any attempt to do so will neglect some (probably important) person/opinion/'player' in the system.

Nukes... Nobody is left out of that system. Equal opportunity destruction.

Israel should go for a three state solution, with Egypt and Jordan taking over the Palestinian territories adjacent to their borders, with the offer of Israeli citizenship for those who don't want to be Egyptians or Jordanian.

Or we could let the Turks run the show. After all, they did a halfway decent job for a couple hundred years. Maybe we should help them get their empire back.

Either solution has the added benefit of being radiation free; at least in the short term.

But neither gives Palestine independence. You are just trading one task master for another. do you really think that is going to appease the hardline Palestinians?

The hardline palenlstinians won't be pleased until all the Jews leave or die. So I'm not sure trying to please them is a worthwhile pursuit.

Nuke palestineans.

@amon savag: "All this hostility makes me hot for you". One minute you want to nuke someone and the next you want sex with me? So butch. Neither is going to bring peace to the Middle East which was the original question.

@Ebay: I am English but I live in The Netherlands and no, fortunately, I do not have to tolerate the same thing. There again, neither my country or residence or citizenship denies other human beings their basic human rights. The ME conflict has been going on so long that "who started it?" is meaningless, "who is the agressor?" is meaningless.

"Wear the shoes before you speak" are you Israeli? If not, then by you own dictum you should shut up.

@DBJ: disproportionate response has been Israeli strategy long before 2007. Selling a peace that tolerates transgression will not be easy, which is why strong leadership on both sides is necessary. It is indeed sad that Rabin was assasinated by a religious nut, similarly sad that Sadat was killed.

@Amon Savag: your keeness to nuke people is troubling. Have you sought counselling?

@DBJ: "The hardline palenlstinians won't be pleased until all the Jews leave or die. So I'm not sure trying to please them is a worthwhile pursuit. " Pleasing hardline Israelis is not going to solve things either.

Both sides have idiots whose wishes will have to be discounted if peace is to be achieved.

@Amon Savag: in case you think that I am against nuking anyone, I am in favour of people who cannot spell being nuked.

@DBJ: the continued existence of Palestinian refugee camps is indeed awful. The Arab world, especially the oil rich states, could have done much more to help them. IMHO the displaced Palestinians have been as badly served by their fellow Arabs, the Israelis and the UN.

@Dingleberry I think the Palestinians are in a position where they're going to have a task master for a while; however, in both cases I believe they'd find Egypt and Jordan much more amicable than the current Israeli situation. Plus both E & J can provide a level of security to Israel that a two state solution does not.

@Yayager: I agree that E&J would do a better job of preventing rocket attacks than Hamas/the PA is willing/able to do at the moment. The questions are a) could they stop all of them and b) would they want to do the job? Egypt is already very embarassed at it's role in enforcing the Gaza blockade, stopping rockets will be very unpopular in the souk, something even Mubarak pays attention to.

@diplomat- Nuking would bring survivors together in peace to help survive against the nuclear winter. Counselor says I need to find Jesus. I say "Nuke me, and the search will go faster". I have 100 dollars saying that more Israelis can spell correctly than Palestinians. Does this mean you'd nuke Palestine before you'd nuke Israel?