Israel and NATO

[Jens]

Absolutely NO. An Israely membership of NATO would make it impossible for EU and USA to participate in negociations as neutral parties. Israel has plenty of nucleur weponry to wipe out Iran in case of an Iranian attact and aggressive Israely actions in the occupied territories would put NATO in a quite unfortunate situation.

And a side note: Why should Israel recieve special treatment? 

[Jens]

Absolutely NO. An Israely membership of NATO would make it impossible for EU and USA to participate in negociations as neutral parties. Israel has plenty of nucleur weponry to wipe out Iran in case of an Iranian attact and aggressive Israely actions in the occupied territories would put NATO in a quite unfortunate situation.

And a side note: Why should Israel recieve special treatment? 

Because it and Turkey are the only Democracies in the Middle East.

Because it has a right to exist, which Iran is directly threatening

Because Europe has a historical obligation to protect Israel from harm

Why not include other democracies like South Africa, India, Georgia or Costa Rica, who also has been mistreated by Europe and USA and has a right to exist

[Jens]

The only reason isreal has problems is that they didn't do the merciful thing and immediantly boot out the palestinians in one fell swoop instead of let them remain on the land and slowly disposess them. The heartbreak woudl have been less over the long runsince there wouldn't be any palestinians in Isreal's borders so less long term hatred.

Go ahead, boot them out of their homes. I would actually like to see that. Seriously. Let's see the world reaction when 1.5 million refugees are robbed of their land so the Israelis can get their lebenstraum. What a field day that would be!!

"robbed of their land"? Don't talk like Hamas. I don't care if its true, it still sounds like their rhetoric

And Straha is right, if we could go back in time it would have been better for all the Palestinians (about 600,000 in 1948 not 1.5 Million) to have been moved into their own state, instead of staying in Israel. There will never be the right of return, so they are foolish to stay. What kind of morons stay in refugee camps for 55 YEARS! Normal people would have founded a country and moved on with their lives, but Palestinians love playing the victim card.

I'm pretty sure that if you and your family had been driven away from the land your family had been living on for several hundred years you wouldn't just "found a country and move on with their lives"

Second, there are diffent kinds of Palestinian refugees. Those that where driven from their homes in the 1948-49 war, those driven away in the 1967 war and the internally displaced on the West Bank and Gaza Strip caused by the settler policies of various Israeli governments.

After WWII millions of Germans, Poles, Ukrainian and other people were forcefully moved from their homes by Stalin and his friendly Red Army. To this day there still is trouble with Sudeter Germans wanting their old property returned and other similar problems. You don't just move people - that is the sign of a tyrannic society, not a democracy. Remember, Pym, that the Palestinians are humans.

[Jens]

Second, there are diffent kinds of Palestinian refugees. Those that where driven from their homes in the 1948-49 war, those driven away in the 1967 war

Which brings up an important point (and one that hardly gets raised by anyone)... no one should be leaving in in a refugee camp (or shanty town) of some kind half a century after their family became refugees. Personally I think that that, not the usual hackneyed debate about who's land it "really" is, is the real disgrace of what's happend in the Middle East over the past century or so; Arab government's have a hell of a lot to answer for IMO.

That is true, but I also understand the motives of the neighbouring governments. In Lebanon it would have tipped the delicate balance between Christians and Muslims (not that that happened anyway) and in Jordan it would have brought a whole new power into society (don't forget the Paletinians did try to coup the king).
If you again look at Germany the refugees and forcefully moved people seriously altered the cultural, political and social picture in many länder, fx Schleswig-Holstein where the population was nearly dobbled and the Danish and Frisian minorities were facing complete marginalisation. That didn't happen because of and agreement between the Danish and German governments, but it put serious pressure on no-german parts of the society in S-H

[Jens]

In Lebanon it would have tipped the delicate balance between Christians and Muslims (not that that didn't happened anyway)

Although it happend anyway o/c. And probably wouldn't have been so bad if they'd tried to integrate the refugees into society; besides it would have provided a lot of employment in construction and might have helped to stabilise the economy.

I forgot a "didn't" in that sentence

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is the reason why they didn't do it, but it's still a terrible thing to do (or not to do). And again, if integration had happend there would be less tension between the refugees (aren't they in a majority now?) and the Government.

True, but it is easy to understand the Jordanian government, and today it is to some extent too late. The Palestinian identity is firmly establised and it is going to take generations to integrate them into jordanian society

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yes, refugees do change things. A lot in some cases. Same with immigration in general. But it's still no excuse to not integrate refugees.

True, but is isn't easy which was my point, not to you, more to Pym et.al. who apparently think that you just move 600.000 living breathing individuals