Andrew Sullivan: US should institute a 2 state solution by force

[jimmy olsen]

It seems he sized you up pretty well - you alway striked me as the log cabin type. 

I am touched that the guy who favors genocide finds me conservative.

And yea, he did refer to me specifically:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/confusing-speech-and-action.html

I agree with him.

Our opposing views on the issues of speech are becoming a trend.

[Faeelin]

I agree with him.

Our opposing views on the issues of speech are becoming a trend.

Eh. I think free speech is a red herring. The Dean stated he wouldn't hire an outspoken racist or anti-semite. Sp ,u beef was equality of treatment, not anti-semitism.

I do hope that as a teacher you tell students that that they convert to find happiness.

[jimmy olsen]

I agree with him.

Our opposing views on the issues of speech are becoming a trend.

Eh. I think free speech is a red herring. The Dean stated he wouldn't hire an outspoken racist or anti-semite. Sp ,u beef was equality of treatment, not anti-semitism.

I do hope that as a teacher you tell students that that they convert to find happiness.

Totally different issue.

Also, you didn't respond to my last post in that thread.

[Faeelin]

Totally different issue.

How is it a different issue? I think it's unprofessional for a reporter to declare religions are wrong. You apparently don't.

[jimmy olsen]

Totally different issue.

How is it a different issue? I think it's unprofessional for a reporter to declare religions are wrong. You apparently don't.

I hardly consider folks on cable "news" programs like that legitimate reporters. It's just infotainment for the masses.

[Faeelin]

I hardly consider folks on cable "news" programs like that legitimate reporters. It's just infotainment for the masses.

Eh. That's fine, but then I think it's wrong to portray yourself as anything else, as Hume does. And I wuv when you act all elitist.

[jimmy olsen]

I hardly consider folks on cable "news" programs like that legitimate reporters. It's just infotainment for the masses.

Eh. That's fine, but then I think it's wrong to portray yourself as anything else, as Hume does. And I wuv when you act all elitist.

By the way I answered yes to the last question you posed in that other thread.

[Faeelin]

I hardly consider folks on cable "news" programs like that legitimate reporters. It's just infotainment for the masses.

Eh. That's fine, but then I think it's wrong to portray yourself as anything else, as Hume does. And I wuv when you act all elitist.

By the way I answered yes to the last question you posed in that other thread.

Yes, you said so two times now in this thread.

[jimmy olsen]

  No I didn't.

I agree with him.

Our opposing views on the issues of speech are becoming a trend.

Totally different issue.

Also, you didn't respond to my last post in that thread.

Neither address the specifics of my last post in that thread.

EDIT: Anyways it's almost 3am, going to bed.

[Malthus]

I won't use the word "hysterical", because as he pointed out, it is too often used on gays for...questionable reasons.

I'm a victim of this too.

I see where Sullivan's coming from (generally I like him) not least because this issue is more like a civil war than a normal war.

Personally, I am all in favour of outsiders forcibly solving *all* complex world problems, particularly ones that annoy me when reading the morning paper.

There is absolutely nothing that could go wrong with this plan.

[Ed Anger]

I favor a two state solution, with Andrew Sullivan kicked back to England.

[Sheilbh]

Personally, I am all in favour of outsiders forcibly solving *all* complex world problems, particularly ones that annoy me when reading the morning paper.

There is absolutely nothing that could go wrong with this plan.

Well the problem is that in a normal two-state problem they self regulate because both have militaries that will guard against breaking treaty commitments within a peace and generally the international community will care.  I think Israel and Palestine is closer to a civil war because both sides don't or won't have a military to watch, small things can cause a drift from crisis to conflict, there's a number of non-state actors in the region that can precipitate further violence or are trying to bounce the two leaderships and despite international involvement (and meddling) a collapse into violence is largely seen as 'man bites dog'.  Peace treaties are based on trust.  With two states you basically each other acting as a guarantee; in civil wars, and I believe in Israel-Palestine, there's no such guarantee which is why it's easy to fall back into conflict without some form of international intervention.

But, you're right, intervening in situations like this to keep two sides apart and within their commitments is always incredibly difficult and not always the right thing to do.  I don't see Israel-Palestine as any more of a complex world problem than the former Yugoslavia, or Lebanon, for example.  We don't intervene in all complex world problems and lots can go wrong, but we do intervene in some and I don't think this one should be seen as wholly separate and different.

[DGuller]

A little genocide never hurt anyone.

[The Minsky Moment]

We already have a two-state solution.

Actually it is a three state solution, with Israel, Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Fatah).

Careful what you wish for . . .

[Malthus]

Personally, I am all in favour of outsiders forcibly solving *all* complex world problems, particularly ones that annoy me when reading the morning paper.

There is absolutely nothing that could go wrong with this plan.

Well the problem is that in a normal two-state problem they self regulate because both have militaries that will guard against breaking treaty commitments within a peace and generally the international community will care.  I think Israel and Palestine is closer to a civil war because both sides don't or won't have a military to watch, small things can cause a drift from crisis to conflict, there's a number of non-state actors in the region that can precipitate further violence or are trying to bounce the two leaderships and despite international involvement (and meddling) a collapse into violence is largely seen as 'man bites dog'.  Peace treaties are based on trust.  With two states you basically each other acting as a guarantee; in civil wars, and I believe in Israel-Palestine, there's no such guarantee which is why it's easy to fall back into conflict without some form of international intervention.

But, you're right, intervening in situations like this to keep two sides apart and within their commitments is always incredibly difficult and not always the right thing to do.  I don't see Israel-Palestine as any more of a complex world problem than the former Yugoslavia, or Lebanon, for example.  We don't intervene in all complex world problems and lots can go wrong, but we do intervene in some and I don't think this one should be seen as wholly separate and different.

My plan is to sit back, buy popcorn, and giggle like an idiot when the US/UK/Euro troops start dealing with Hamas in Gaza. 

This isn't even remotely like a "civil war". There is no conflict within Israel; Israel in no way resembles Lebanon or former Yugoslavia. What this is, is Israel occupying bits of other countries (Gaza=Egypt; the WB=Jordan) that contain populations so fractious and ungovernable that their former owners don't want them back.

Having UN, UK, Euro, US soldiers (take yer pic) patroling Gaza will do exactly nothing to create "trust" and "compliance" by Hamas, and why should it? What exactly will the UK, US or UN  do if Hamas does what it always does? Threaten to root them out with massive force? I doubt it.