My solution for the Israeli-Palestinian solution

[M.Dancer]

Nice try but that's your intepretation. Corporations are governed by their charters, these charters should be granted by the authorities that actually live in the region a corporation operates.

That is authoritarianism. Corporate governance is best and properly left to those whose money is invested in the company, not some daft hairbrained hippies who haven't a clue.

What's more, charters are no longer given by the crown, corporations are registered, and thankfully without your marxist caveats that would give authority and power to people who have no vested interest in the company. And please spare me the whine about the people who live where a corporation operating should have some say. Most corporation operate nationally if not globally.....this is just another one of your not well thought out ridiculous ideas which at the core is ultimately authoritarian and fascist.

[eyeball]

Yes you did. You commented on it and pooh poohed it called it a smear becuase Time had the audacity to report uembarrassing facts about your beloved fascist hero

Here is the article

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...promoid=googlep

here is your comment on it.

No, this was my comment.

Hey Morris, I find it particularly interesting your Time magazine smear of Mohammed Mossadegh occured two days before the CIA overthrew him.

QUOTE(M.Dancer @ Feb 5 2008, 12:22 PM)

Yeah ...go figure, a newsmagazine reporting news....must be a zionist plot eh|?

No, just the usual suspects.

Britain, motivated by its desire to control Iranian oil fields, contributed to funding for the widespread bribery of Iranian officials, news media and others.

Operation Ajax

[M.Dancer]

You mean a price of your liking. Its a terrible practice. I understand corporations like Walmart and Monsanto force their suppliers to do this all the time.

So in your communist world no one can haggle? Let me know when Walmart actually forces some one to sell to them. Unlike your plan with oil, suppliers have a choice, hence your plan is authoritarian and dictatorial.

I don't expect some distant shareholder or board of director to concern themselves with this which is why having board members from the local population is a good thing.

They do concern themselves and to be sure, most dismiss it out of hand mainly because, board members are selected for their field of expertize and how the corporation can profit by it, not for their dream catcher collection and their ability to wax idiotic .

It goes without saying this practice has a negative impact on both human communities and the environment.

Best you let it go without saying or otherwise someone might ask for some imperical proof.

[eyeball]

That is authoritarianism.

No you're just paranoid is all.

Corporate governance is best and properly left to those whose money is invested in the company, not some daft hairbrained hippies who haven't a clue.

Governance of the local environment, is best and properly left to those whose lives depend on it, not some greedy bastard on the other side of the globe who doesn't give a shit.

[M.Dancer]

Governance of the local environment, is best and properly left to those whose lives depend on it, not some greedy bastard on the other side of the globe who doesn't give a shit.

It already is. It's called your local and provincial governments and those greedy bastards aren't making the laws....

Thanks for coming, you've been swell.

[eyeball]

Governance of the local environment, is best and properly left to those whose lives depend on it, not some greedy bastard on the other side of the globe who doesn't give a shit.

It already is.

Not where I live.

It's called your local and provincial governments and those greedy bastards aren't making the laws....

Right...

The local government where I live questioned the provincial logging guidelines that allowed a multi-national corporation to virtually destroy a very productive salmon bearing stream with their logging practices. We finally convinced DFO to come out and as they watched one tree after another being hauled right through the stream channel they declared everything was just fine.

There are no salmon left in that stream, there are no fishermen left either and our local government is just as powerless as it ever was. We did manage to build a hatchery and produce millions of fish but the feds shut it down and said "sorry but you can't be allowed to play God with your native salmon stocks". Then the province subsidized a multi-national fish farming company and invited them to introduce an invasive species into our area. DFO approved of course.

You haven't got the first clue about how things in your own country work do you Morris?

Yet this is the sort of Balck Shirt Democracy you feel the need to defend.

Edited May 14, 2008 by eyeball

[M.Dancer]

You haven't got the first clue about how things in your own country work do you Morris?

Apparently the ones not having a clue are the ones who can't get their government to work for them.

We did manage to build a hatchery and produce millions of fish but the feds shut it down and said "sorry but you can't be allowed to play God with your native salmon stocks"

Good call.

Then the province subsidized a multi-national fish farming company and invited them to introduce an invasive species into our area. DFO approved of course.

Then the province subsidized a multi-national fish farming company and invited them to introduce an invasive species into our area. DFO approved of course.

Perhaps if you got DFO approval first...but I suspect they know more about whether the fish are invasive than you.

[Remiel]

So, Argus, if you were a citizen born in one of the Muslim countries you so heartily despise, and you were trying to postulate a solution to the problem that takes into account the immutable realities on the ground (namely, that you live in a Muslim country and not a non-Muslim country waiting to happen), what would you propose?

[Oleg Bach]

What evolution? There is no Muslim democracy, and what's worse, little enthusiasm for democracy in most Muslim states. Every poll shows Muslims want theocracies with Sharia law. Even in the UK, home to arguably the best educated and sophisticated Muslims around, 40% said they wanted Sharia law.

The totals are quite a bit higher in places like Pakistan and Palestine.

You have got that right - democracy is a state where you have two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper. There is a huge difference between Christian doctrine and Mohamids doctrines - Musslims are utlitarians..who bow like insects in a corporate unison..where the individual is not respected and the mass collective rules like a bunch of east bowing fire ants...

Where as the ancient concepts provided by Jesus the Christ were more evolved and more brilliant - quote "I have not come to save the whole flock but to rescue the one lost sheep that has fallen into the pit." Translated - If the rights of the individual are thwarted then the rights of the whole collective are thwarted. This is that basis of real demoracy and we have forgotten where it came from...true and honest socialism where charity is given independently and privately and not force by the state..look at what Budism has created...look at the mess that is Israel - and then look at the great success that is the western world - the concepts of Christ created the empires of America - Britain and for a while India...I would say that Christian thought and logic are superiour..the proof is in the pudding - BUT our churches decay while Saudi Arabian money pours in to build more mosques and create more oppressive utlitarianism! RANT? Yes.....getting back to the real workable solution that is the Israeli-Palistinian problem - share the wealth for Gods sake - give Palistine aid and free them from slavery...brave words...? It's the truth - MONEY is the solution. To shared the wealth and not hord it!

[Rue]

Your name calling tells me where you are coming from. The rulers of Jordan have been Israel's best friends in the Arab World. They have absorbed much of your biggest problem at great cost. They have stood behind their word. They have tried to tell you what you simply will not hear. You have to trust somebody if you want peace.

Do you honestly think that you can have a monoideoligical state in a pluralistic world? Why can you not see that pluralism will be Israel's strength? Who else in the Middle East can offer this bridge between two worlds? How can you watch Israel do business with so many cultures all over the world and insist that it be monoideoligical itself?

Your great opportunity is slipping away. It is time you understood your true friends are not going to stand and tell you that your new clothes look so absolutely splendid.

First of all King Abdullah has no interest in dismantling Israel and absorbing it into Jordan. Secondly you might try explain to us all where you get off presuming to lecture Israelis and Palestinians they must all agree to live under the King. To start with Jordanian law has never allowed Jews the right of citizenship. Secondly Sharia law in Muslim nations including Jordan as you are bloody well aware does not afford Jews the exact same legal rights as Muslims. Thirdly, Palestinians tried to overthrow and murder King Hussein causing the Black Sabbath uprising and to this day a complete disconnect between Palestinians and Jordanians.

As you are also very well aware in 1988, the King of Jordan passed a new law saying any Palestinian born on the West Bank as of that time onwords, is not entitled to the law of return to Jordan.

As you are also aware since 1948 any Palestinian could return to Jordan and be granted automatic citizenship and the vast majority did not return believing BOTH Jordan and Israel should be disabanded.

You know full well King Abdullah and King Hussein have never had an interest in absorbing Israel or the West Bank or Gaza.

Do not presume to talk on behalf of the King and what is good for him and Israelis. Your idea is absurd and nothing more then a couched reference at wiping out Israel but playing a game about it. Your coyness I do not buy nor your trying to suggest because I think your idea is absurd to the point of stunned it means I hate King Abdullah or do not think he is a friend of Israel.

You are well aware King Abdullah lives in a world where his existence depends on a strong state of Israel to counter Muslim fundamentalists and the Syrians which would if given the opportunity and still might-try kill him and create a civil war in his nation. Unlike you King Abdullah has stated Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for Jews just as Muslims have their own states.

See some of us have actually been to Jordan. We know better. Save your shtick for your "fans" who haven't been there.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Rue

[Rue]

you know what HisSelf, I understand what you are saying - but I think first off we must work towards a two-state settlement. Mind you, I am ideologically a 'one stater' myself, but I also recognize that that will never occur given the current situation - perhaps after some time as two states, then the realisation that one state may be better for all involved (due to many reasons such as resources etc).

I must concur with Norman Finkelstein on this - every international body agrees on how to settle the two state situation - withdrawl from the occupied territories, a right of return for those who want it - otherwise reparations, and of course reparations for those whose lands and ownings were pilfered. Complete control over their own borders, recognition granted to the new state - no matter what government they people elect democratically - as Israel may not like it too much (tough titties for them - shoulda dealt with the PA when they had the chance).

Easy.

But again, Israel is NOT interested in peace - just pieces.

Thanks for the Editorial. The fact you agree with Norman Finklestein also seals the deal. Is it the same Norman Finklestein I know. The Norm I know is a bookie. Looks like a balding Frank Zappa.

Say not Buffy were you born yet when israel offered all of the above to Yasir Arafat and was told to fuck off and that he would only settle for all of Israel and Jordan? Say Buffy how about Hamas, and Islamic Jihad and the other 350 or so Palestinian terror cells that have stated the only solution is to take back Jordan and Israel and create a Muslim fundamentalist theocracy and kill or expel all Jews- did you speak to them Buffy and make sure they agere to this by any chance?

Israel is the reason for all the problems. Just Israel. Let's just ignore everything else and pretend it does not exist. Its simple really. Israel is poo.

Gee Buffy where have I heard that song before. Buffy the Zionist Slayer slays me again.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Rue

[HisSelf]

.... when israel offered all of the above to Yasir Arafat and was told to fuck off and that he would only settle for all of Israel and Jordan?

Yes well, Arafat is not here anymore is he? In any case, how is what you say Arafat wanted different from what the Settler Movement is trying to achieve?

I was serious when I suggested the merger. It would get the Arab world off of Israel's back. Somebody muttered something about Sharia law? Do we have that in Jordan now? I must have missed it.

It is amazing how much islolationism comes from the pro-Israel community. Well what has it gotten you so far? Do you have peace? Do you have security? Instead you have complete paranoia.

[Oleg Bach]

My solution is the merging of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan into a single democratic state. This state would have immense power - it would, after all, control the land corridor between Egypt and Lebanon/Syria. It would be a land bridge between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

It would guarantee democratic human rights for all within its borders and it would institute Abudllah II as a constitutional Monarch like the House of Windsor in Great Britain. It would guarantee the right of return for all Jews who migrate there up to a agreed upon cutoff date, and for all Arabs who lived within its borders up to the 1948 war, or who have been born there since.

It would have its capital in Jerusalem.

How do you know that the "House of Windsor in great Britain is NOT the constitutional monarch of Israel? After all the holy land was taken by the crusaders centuries ago and the land does offically belong to the queen..besides the lunitics all believe they are decendants of the king of Judea..that Jesus guy.

Seriously speaking...this is an age old real estate dispute.

Here is what happened. The royal family in Judea was taken away to Iraq..along with all the other leaders..it was the great captivity..they were held there for a couple of generations. NOW in the mean time the other shemites from up north moved into Judea and took over including the royal lands..well finally the royal Judean family is returned to it's hope and Jesus...seeing his family is broke works with dad as a carpenter.

When Christ said to the creeps that had taken over HIS property...eg - quote..."Those that call themselves Jews (Judeans) are not Jews but of the synagog (gathering) of Satan..their father the liar"..In other words the people who were persecuting him because they knew he was king were not from that area..so they demanded the execution of Jesus the Christ so they could lay claim to the royal land....Now that culprit Pontius Pilate put up a sign above the head of Christ --- stating "King of the Jews(Judeans) - the people who wanted Jesus dead were so embarrassed that they wanted Pilate to take the sign down....the fact that they killed a king..Pilate said - "I have written what I have written and refuse to compromise. Because he as a Roman occupier KNEW who Christ was that he was the legit king of the area.

Now to this day they are still aruging about who owns the holly kingdom of Judea and Israel...I would say it belongs to the King..and he's been dead for 2000 years and the curse and bikering continue to this day...Jesus believed in revenge and justice..and he got it in spades.

[buffycat]

Didn't that Jesus dude smash up a bunch of money lenders' stalls in his only violent act? Wasn't the usury banned in Christendom?

Man, religion is total whack.

[Oleg Bach]

Didn't that Jesus dude smash up a bunch of money lenders' stalls in his only violent act? Wasn't the usury banned in Christendom?

Man, religion is total whack.

Jesus was not religous..God or goodness and justice are one thing - and religion is a human construct..plus turning the other cheek was to force the man who just back handed you to come up with the palm of their striking hand..in other words to smack a man with the palm was a show of friendship - the back hand was contempt and hate..so turn the other cheek did not mean abuse me till I drop..people don't get it - this was a highly crafty and bright King who was in rebellion against the state..ROME...

Now when Jesus said "Give to God what is God's and to Rome what belongs to Rome" in regarding taxes...People thought that he was encouraging paying taxes...he did pay taxes to avoid harrassment.. IF - all belongs to God nothing belongs to Rome so what he was saying was give nothing to Rome..not to pay taxes to an oppressor.

[eyeball]

(buffycat @ May 15 2008, 04:47 PM)

Didn't that Jesus dude smash up a bunch of money lenders' stalls in his only violent act? Wasn't the usury banned in Christendom?

Man, religion is total whack.

Now when Jesus said... "Give to God what is God's and to Rome what belongs to Rome".... IF - all belongs to God nothing belongs to Rome so what he was saying was give nothing to Rome..not to pay taxes to an oppressor.

That's pretty much my read on it too. Religion is total whack alright, that's probably what Jesus thought when the money lenders set up their stalls in a church.

Power, wealth and religion...The Three Amigos...

Ol' Jesus sure knew where the Establishment's buttons were didn't he? Its no wonder they ordered the hit.

[M.Dancer]

Didn't that Jesus dude smash up a bunch of money lenders' stalls in his only violent act? Wasn't the usury banned in Christendom?

Man, religion is total whack.

They weren't "money lenders" dispite what ever translation you use. They were foriegn currency tradres as the only currencies that could be used as an offering in the temple had to be free of a graven image. The roman and greek coins in wide circulation had either the face of Caesar or a God on it and therefore had to be converted to Judean coin. Obvioulsy they didn't offer this as a public service and took a healthy profit.

[M.Dancer]

That's pretty much my read on it too. Religion is total whack alright, that's probably what Jesus thought when the money lenders set up their stalls in a church.

1) They weren't money lenders

2) They weren't in a church

3) They weren't even in the Temple, they were in the collonade.

[HisSelf]

How do you know that the "House of Windsor in great Britain is NOT the constitutional monarch of Israel? After all the holy land was taken by the crusaders centuries ago ...

Oh man. Are you behind the times.

[HisSelf]

That's pretty much my read on it too. Religion is total whack alright, that's probably what Jesus thought when the money lenders set up their stalls in a church.

Power, wealth and religion...The Three Amigos...

Ol' Jesus sure knew where the Establishment's buttons were didn't he? Its no wonder they ordered the hit.

[Argus]

I was serious when I suggested the merger. It would get the Arab world off of Israel's back. Somebody muttered something about Sharia law? Do we have that in Jordan now? I must have missed it.

Do we have democracy in Jordan? HisSelf would have missed that too. The idea of putting Israelis and Palestinians together in one state is so ludicrously stupid that it can only come from someone with an almost complete lack of knowledge about that part of the world, its history, and its people, and a world view so mindlessly naive it's almost impossible to do anything but laugh.