Of course there was, all the more reason to not have created the state there. Furthermore, if you were going to do it, it needed to be a multi-cultural state in any case. These groups have been in conflict a long, long time. There is no ideal solution, but segregating out a slice of prime fought-for land for one particular religion's people in this case was sheer stupidity.

 

It is a multicultural state.

It is a multicultural state.

In the most literal sense, that there are other cultures who live there, sure. In the way its government is set up and the its make-up, not even close. And when I said multi-cultural state, I really mean in terms of how it is set up - either a government that is a coalition of sorts, or more ideally, a non-state state run by other international parties.

 

In the most literal sense, that there are other cultures who live there, sure. In the way its government is set up and the its make-up, not even close. And when I said multi-cultural state, I really mean in terms of how it is set up - either a government that is a coalition of sorts, or more ideally, a non-state state run by other international parties.

 

That is just crazy. No one is going to give up their state, especially someone with the history of the Israelis.

[/b]

 

That is just crazy. No one is going to give up their state, especially someone with the history of the Israelis.

I think there was a Tom Clancey book where it ended with the Swiss 'controlling' Jerusilim as some sort of compromise between Israel and the arabs. Not sure how that worked out.

Id be willing to allow an international body to control and protect Jerusalem. The Jews may have had first claim, but over time things have changed and there is more than just Jewish relics there.

 

As for Israel being run by an international coalition seems unnecessary, there is a compromise that can easily reached, both sides just need to accept a deal that they will consider bad.

both sides just need to accept a deal that they will consider bad.

And we all know that tax increases of any sort are impossible.

 

Wait, what deal were we talking about?

I know someone posted it but I can't find it again. The claim that NewsCorp got $4B+ in tax credits was wrong

I know someone posted it but I can't find it again. The claim that NewsCorp got $4B+ in tax credits was wrong

That was me, posted it in the Dem thread. Thanks for the correction.

[/b]

 

That is just crazy. No one is going to give up their state, especially someone with the history of the Israelis.

 

Of course they won't, because now they truly have one. Back then, they really didn't, not in the same sense. I was referring to that.

 

Neither party would want that now.

 

Id be willing to allow an international body to control and protect Jerusalem. The Jews may have had first claim, but over time things have changed and there is more than just Jewish relics there.

 

As for Israel being run by an international coalition seems unnecessary, there is a compromise that can easily reached, both sides just need to accept a deal that they will consider bad.

 

There are all sorts of compromises available, but as you said, neither side is willing to give anything up.

 

There are many on both sides who are willing to give something up, unfortunately the voice of the Israeli people, Netanyahu, has seemingly been opposed to peace since the beginning. Back in 1993 Rabin was furious with him, and it should always be noted that unlike Rabin, Netanyahu lived a considerable amount of time in the US.

 

If Rabin had not been murdered, I fully believe that there would be a Palestinian state and there would be some semblance of peace between Israel and the more moderate Arab nations. It may be 5 years it may be 100 years, but there will be another Rabin. Because at the end of the day, the treatment of Palestinians is incompatible with being Jewish. Some just choose to gloss over that fact.

 

 

There are many on both sides who are willing to give something up, unfortunately the voice of the Israeli people, Netanyahu, has seemingly been opposed to peace since the beginning. Back in 1993 Rabin was furious with him, and it should always be noted that unlike Rabin, Netanyahu lived a considerable amount of time in the US.

 

If Rabin had not been murdered, I fully believe that there would be a Palestinian state and there would be some semblance of peace between Israel and the more moderate Arab nations. It may be 5 years it may be 100 years, but there will be another Rabin. Because at the end of the day, the treatment of Palestinians is incompatible with being Jewish. Some just choose to gloss over that fact.

Let's also give credit where credit is due.

 

In 2000, Prime Minister Barak offered what will probably be the best deal the Palestinians will ever be offered. Based on the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps (the horror!).

 

That offer was turned down by one Yasser Arafat, who, as far as everyone can guess...simply decided in the end that he did not want to make peace, and so the most recent "Intifiada" was launched.

Let's also give credit where credit is due.

 

In 2000, Prime Minister Barak offered what will probably be the best deal the Palestinians will ever be offered. Based on the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps (the horror!).

 

That offer was turned down by one Yasser Arafat, who, as far as everyone can guess...simply decided in the end that he did not want to make peace, and so the most recent "Intifiada" was launched.

I was about 1 minute away from posting just what you did, with a lot more snark. Arafat probably decided he was getting rich off war, and in peace would just fall off the radar. He siphoned off tons of cash from all the stuff that was supposed to help his 'people'. They all do.

I was about 1 minute away from posting just what you did, with a lot more snark.

See? Sometimes I can be a wee bit impartial.

Im not sure Barak really had the political capital to deliver that offer, but it is true that others outside Rabin have wanted peace. I was more just pointing to the difference of philosophy. I also believe that between 1993- 2000 there were significant increases in Israeli settlements in West Bank etc, which meant that in 1993 Israel could have given up more land with less ramifications.

Gentlemen,

 

if the GOP signs a deal with Obama on the debt ceiling for anything less than 2.4 trillion in cuts (which is not enough, by the way) we need to vote them out.

 

tea party 2012

Gentlemen,

 

if the GOP signs a deal with Obama on the debt ceiling for anything less than 2.4 trillion in cuts (which is not enough, by the way) we need to vote them out.

 

tea party 2012

Obama is willing to go to $4T, if the GOP is willing to look at ending the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket.

 

Obama is willing to go to $4T, if the GOP is willing to look at ending the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket.

 

sign me up

Obama is willing to go to $4T, if the GOP is willing to look at ending the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket.

 

UNCONSCIONABLE! WHY WON'T OBAMA NEGOTIATE?!?!?!!!!!

 

Anyway over in the Dem thread I posted something indicating that a good portion of the new "tea party" caucus doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling for any reason at all.

Obama is willing to go to $4T, if the GOP is willing to look at ending the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket.

 

I'm sure taking a bunch of money out of the one sector of the economy that is actually hiring won't have any bad effect on things...

I'm sure taking a bunch of money out of the one sector of the economy that is actually hiring won't have any bad effect on things...

I don't hear you complaining about the end of unemployment benefits and the huge drag that's putting on the economy.

I don't hear you complaining about the end of unemployment benefits and the huge drag that's putting on the economy.

 

If the stimulus hadn't failed, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

If the stimulus hadn't failed, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

Wait, so over a trillion dollars in tax cuts over 3 years didn't stimulate the economy much, but I'm supposed to be scared about a couple hundred billion in tax increases over 10 years?

If the stimulus package of mostly tax cuts, state bailouts and safety net spending that a bunch of Keynesian people warned was going to fail hadn't failed, we wouldn't even be talking about it.

 

I'm sure taking a bunch of money out of the one sector of the economy that is actually hiring won't have any bad effect on things...

 

Do you have any evidence at all that this is true? I mean, certainly that bracket spends more, but its been pretty well debunked that few small businesses actually fall into this category. Further, even if it were true, there is nothing 100% about a relatively small raise in taxes on those few businesses would make a difference. Probably would for some.

 

Wait, so over a trillion dollars in tax cuts over 3 years didn't stimulate the economy much, but I'm supposed to be scared about a couple hundred billion in tax increases over 10 years?

 

Have to agree with Balta (which, on tax matters, is unusual), in that you cannot argue against reverting top bracket taxes to pre-Bush levels (still historically very low) would decimate the economy, but the large tax cuts that made up half the stimulus were a failure.

 

Wait, so over a trillion dollars in tax cuts over 3 years didn't stimulate the economy much, but I'm supposed to be scared about a couple hundred billion in tax increases over 10 years?

 

Trillions in spending once you factor in everything didn't do anything, and I am supposed to believe that trillions more will?