Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (200163)	8/30/2006 9:34:30 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 281500

Now you want to join two diametrically opposed groups of people into a country where the attacker in most cases, will be the dominant group and the other group will surrender it's right to determine it's own future. You're ignoring the plan as I laid it out and coming up with your own straw man plan! Who is the "attacker" under my proposal to slowly integrate Palestinian refugees into the New Country over the course of 20 - 50 years? Who has surrendered any right to determine his or her future in a land where all people are equal under the law? Unless you start by improving Palestine, you are going to fuel the total devastation of israel. My plan has Israel and the occupied territories becoming one country over time, so the Palestinians and the occupied territories will improve over time. And letting more Palestinians work in the New Country as citizens would improve the Israeli economy in the same way that cheap labor helps many economies. What makes you think Israel gets devastated if it were to nationalize 1% of the Palestinian refugees tomorrow, with the plan to nationalize more as soon as practical? What produces the devastation when all you are doing is increasing the population, and increasing the pool of cheap labor? People seeing Israel as hugely better than Palestine, would not take kindly to a 20 year time frame. If people were more like cows they might, but they aren't Well history proves you wrong. The 150k Pals which were nationalized by Barak did take kindly to it, and presumably they now contribute to the Israeli economy. You think if the current Israeli government announced my plan along with the names of the next 150k Pal refugees that get to become citizens, the 150k are going to decline and remain stateless? Of course they are going to accept citizenship.

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (200163)	8/30/2006 12:31:43 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Unless you start by improving Palestine, you are going to fuel the total devastation of israel. But that's why folks like Elroy want, Ichy.. It's called forced re-distribution of wealth. While the Palestinians are not required to contribute anything to the economic and political arrangement, the Israelis would suddenly absorb a tremendous social entitlement liability. Note that Elroy has never (that I've seen) stated that Palestinians should permit the immigration of Israeli Jews into the West Bank and Gaza. He doesn't want to admit that under Palestinian law, it is a capital offense to sell land to a Jew. There is no possibility for a unification of Israel and Palestine, even as separate autonomous states of a larger bi-lateral federation/confederation, until there exists a merging of a commonly observed rule of law which states the rights of the people being governed. Besides, the whole scenario is ridiculous to even consider since "Arab honor" (or even Jewish honor) would prevent such a concession. Sadly, the only resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict will be one that is imposed from outside of the participants involved in the conflict. It's going to require some kind of international "Wasta", most likely lead, and enforced, by the UNSC via a binding resolution. It should arrive at a decision which both sides find unfavorable, so that both sides can complain how they were "screwed" by the decision. The rationale being that if both sides are complaining, then at least they both have a basis for moving on and learning to live with one another. In the case of Palestine and Israel, I think it's going to require that Jerusalem be declared an international city, and the capitol of both Israel and Palestine. And that's going to require an international peace-keeping force, as well as probably forming an integrated Jewish-Palestinian police force to provide city security (and take the initial steps toward the long path of learning to get along and cooperate with one another). That's going to be the only way this is resolved, IMO. Arab and Jewish pride and honor have left them far too entrenched in their mutual hatred of one another. Someone has to step in and separate them. Hawk

To: Ichy Smith who wrote (200163)	8/30/2006 1:07:08 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Palestinians blame anyone but Palestinians for the conditions they live in." Not so. A Palestinian majority elected HAMAS just because they were tired of the corruption the PLO represented. They got rid of the rascals and then the west decided that that wasn't good enough. Mortal enemies, France and Germany signed the Steel and Coal Union in 1952 along with 4 other countries and formed the basis of the EU. That took around 40 years or 2 generations. Here are some quotes from that period. "4) Jean Monnet, memorandum to Robert Schuman and Georges Bidault (4th May, 1950) Wherever we look in the present world situation we see nothing but deadlock - whether it be the increasing acceptance of a war that is thought to be inevitable, the problem of Germany, the continuation of French recovery, the organisation of Europe, the very place of France in Europe and in the world. From such a situation there is only one way of escape: concrete action on a limited but decisive point, bringing about on this point a fundamental change and gradually modifying the very terms of all the problems. The continuation of France's recovery will be halted if the question of German industrial production and its competitive capacity is not rapidly solved. Already Germany is asking to increase her production from 11 to 14 million tons. We shall refuse, but the Americans will insist. Finally, we shall state our reservations but we shall give in. At the same time, French production is levelling off or even falling. Merely to state these facts makes it unnecessary to describe in great detail what the consequences will be: Germany expanding, German dumping on export markets; a call for the protection of French industries; the halting or camouflage of trade liberalisation; the reestablishment of prewar cartels; perhaps an orientation of German expansion towards the East, a prelude to political agreements; France fallen back into the rut of limited, protected production. The USA do not want things to take this course. They will accept an alternative solution if it is dynamic and constructive, especially if it is proposed by France. At the present moment, Europe can be brought to birth only by France. Only France can speak and act. But if France does not speak and act now, what will happen? A group will form around the United States, but in order to wage the Cold War with greater force. The obvious reason is that the countries of Europe are afraid and are seeking help. Britain will draw closer and closer to the United States; Germany will develop rapidly, and we shall not be able to prevent her being rearmed. France will be trapped again in her former Malthusianism, and this will lead inevitably to her being effaced. (5) Konrad Adenauer, Memoirs 1945-53 (12th July, 1952) Blankenhorn handed me the letters in the cabinet room. One was a handwritten, personal letter by Robert Schuman. The other was an official covering letter for the project laid down in a memorandum which later became known as the Schuman Plan. In essence Robert Schuman proposed to place the entire French and German production of coal and steel under a common High Authority within the framework of an organization that should be open to other European countries as well. Schuman explained that the pooling of coal and steel production would immediately provide for the first stage of a European federation, the immediate creation of a common basis for economic development, and for a comprehensive change in their development. The merger of the basic production of coal and steel and the establishment of an authority whose decisions would be binding for France, Germany, and the other member countries, would create the first firm foundations for the European federation which was indispensable for the preservation of peace. In his personal letter to me Schuman wrote that the purpose of his proposal was not economic, but eminently political. In France there was a fear that once Germany had recovered, she would attack France. He could imagine that the corresponding fears might be present in Germany. Rearmament always showed first in an increased production of coal, iron, and steel. If an organization such as he was proposing were to be set up, it would enable each country to detect the first signs of rearmament, and would have an extraordinarily calming effect in France. Schuman's plan corresponded entirely with the ideas I had been advocating for a long time concerning the integration of the key industries of Europe. I informed Robert Schuman at once that I accepted his proposal whole-heartedly. (6) Robert Schuman, declaration (9th May, 1950) World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it. The contribution which an organised and living Europe can bring to civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war. Europe will not be made all at once or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action which must be taken in the first place must concern these two countries. With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point. It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organisation open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims. The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification." spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk