steissd wrote:CdK, majority of Israelis accept diversity. For example, no one can recall a single instance of gay-bashing in Israel, even the ultra-Orthodox Jews restrict themselves to avoiding any contacts with people they consider being irreversibly spoiled.
A majority of Israelis polled think that the "solution" of transfer is a good one. In some polls at the height of this intifada almost 70% agreed with "transfer"(if my memory serves me).
steissd wrote:But when the "diversity" bursts explosives in the buses and shopping malls, it cannot be tolerated.
"Diversity" should not be tolerated if it blows stuff up. It's a good thing "diversity" has never once blown up a bus. What shouldn't be tolerated are ethnocentric bigots. Especially those who resort to violence.
steissd wrote:If our neighbors were Czechs or Slovaks, separation of two would occur without any complications and zero violence (just like Czechs and Slovaks separated one from another after the Communist rule ceased its existence).
Bull. And stop trying to make this your sounding board for your distain for Muslims and Arabs. If the Czechs and Slovaks were in the same conditions they might resort to the same tactics. Or they might not. Just because you discriminate less against those ethnicities than you do against Arabs does not mean that those conditions would not produce the same results.
steissd wrote:If the conflict bore exclusively a character of territorial dispute, it would be solved in 1948 by means of negotiations between the Jewish and Arab communities. I do not think that even the holy sites of Jerusalem would be a problem: the dominating politicians on the early stage of establishment of Israel were militantly anti-religious.
BULL! In 1948 the dispute was whether there should be a territorial partition at all. It is not unreasonable that persons who did not previously ahve to give up their homes rejected the idea of dividing up what had been up to that point theirs.
Now that Isreal exists the question is about how much land they should get. Initially it was a question of why they were getting any land at all in the Arab minds.
In their perspective it was "we give up 50% and they gain 50%". They rejected taht deal at that point. If I were to suggest that we divide your money 50 50 you would balk.
But many are over that. I think the way Palestine was partitioned was fraught with error but now think they should get over the territorial dispute and your efforts to characterize this as an ethnic problem of the Arabs is ludicrous. On both sides there are greedy idiots who want 100%. Isreal already has far more than 50% and many of their zealots try every day to get more.
You saying it's a matter of who is in the dispute is a lie. The same silly allegation could be said by the Arabs ïf it were Malaysians we were dealing with we'd have no territorial dispute".
steissd wrote:It is a conflict caused by the Arabs' reluctance to accept diversity; they did not want a modern democratic state to appear in close proximity to their obsolete regimes.
No, they did not want to give up their land and their homes. They rejected the notion of an Israeli state long before it became apparent that it would be a democratic one.
No you don't sound "politically incorrect" you sound as ethnocentric as ever and you throw in "factually incorrect" to boot.
