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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (326890)	2/22/2007 2:47:45 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576825

Sure its possible, lots of things are possible. But it seems extremely unlikely. And if they can trust each other and treat each other well enough to live in a unified country without a lot of strife they should be able to live with much less strife without a unified country. A country with a solid foundation acceptable to most people is more likely to succeed over the long term than the current situation. IMO you're never going to get Muslims to agree that non-Muslims should have authority over multi-religious, multi-cultural Jerusalem. So the current path = war for another couple of centuries. On the other hand, you may be able to get all parties to agree that Pasreal consists of people of numerous ethnicities and religions, and should be a secular nation blind to ethnicity and religion. I don't KNOW that the Muslims would accept that, but it seems the best shot, in my opinion. Any Muslim that makes the case that Pasreal must be an "Islamic nation" can easily get denounced as an unacceptable racist extremist against peace. Unfortunately, the Israelis who now cry out that Israel must be a "Jewish nation" are that same racist extremist against peace, when looked at objectively, IMO. It seems like it would have been a better option in 1948 for the UN to choose united Pasreal, rather the partition option, although the resources available at that time were probably a lot less since WW2 had barely ended. Also, it could be the first step in encouraging/forcing the Muslims worldwide to accept the separation of church and state as multi-ultural and partially Islamic Pasreal, Lebanon, and Kurdistan become the new "crescent", rather than this Shia crescent that people talk about. There may be nothing inherent in the people that causes the hate and distrust, but that doesn't make the hate and distrust any less real. Pakistan and India don't like each other much but I wager they trust each other more than the Israelis and Palestinians do. Would you also call for them (and Bangladesh) to unify as one country? Of course not. The main issue with Pakistan and India, as far as I know, is one disputed Islamic province of India called Kajmir. There is no reason to unite three countries to clear up the dispute over Kajmir. That's like uniting Canada, USA and Mexico because the Mexicans want to have El Paso. It's not even very similar to the Israeli-Pal situation. As for what to do about Kajmir, I don't really have any strong opinion.