Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Trump says Civil War could have been avoided through “negotiation”.

Good grief! I’d like to hear how this could have been ”negotiated”. Seems to forget that this tactic was tried for 70 years prior.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Bumbles · 51-55, M
He’s clearly a great student of the Missouri Compromise and Bloody Kansas.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@Bumbles Not to mention Lincoln's attempts to negotiate. Seventy years of trying to reach compromise, and the Confederates open fire on Ft. Sumter. His solution is further efforts to negotiate? Sixty odd years of Palestinians being treating like second-class states, their lands being occupied and built upon, the Gaza strip being continually blockaded, and all negotiations (including his and son-in-law Kushner's) failing, his solution is what?
JollyRoger · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue I'm not going to argue what you just said.... Being bullied often results in an over-reaction when the 'come-uppance' arrives. Hamas certainly did over-react and suicidally so. However, Isreal has never really had 'peace' since they were granted their real-estate. AND... I'm not saying that they didn't deserve a nation, but certainly the British turned their backs on the mess they put the Israelis into back in 1948 - suddenly naming a piece of the choicest land in the midst of a desert "Israel" and putting people on it doesn't sit well in the Arabic neighborhood all around it. Every Arabic nation has had a 'swing' at knocking the Israelis out of there... if it weren't for the USA, there would have been a second holocaust years ago.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@JollyRoger I think we are in agreement. The original UN one-state solution was unrealistic pie in the sky and a way for Britain to walk away from their mess. The Zionists, given cover by the proposal, used it to seize land by arms and to create a theocracy rather than a full-fledged democracy as intended.
JollyRoger · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue Yes, I think if they had 'shared' the Holy Land with the Muslims at first instance the animosity might have been reduced. It had been "sort of" traded back and forth for thousands of years before - but Hey.... if God gave you something and God is going to protect you (even if He wears red, white and blue),... then Go for Broke!
@dancingtongue Israel is not a theocracy. It's a secular government. 20% of Israeli citizens aren't even Jewish, and have the same rights that Israeli Jews have.

The only true theocracy is Iran, defined as the religious authority having the supreme secular authority. There is no Jewish representation in the Iranian government, because there are only 8,500 Jews in the entire country, since most Iranian Jews were ethnically cleansed decades ago. Jewish schools are allowed to operate, but must be open on the Jewish sabbath, and the top leadership must be Muslim. If you think some Jewish Sanhedrin controls Israel on that level, you're either a raving antisemite or too ignorant to comment on this.

That doesn't mean Jews don't have greater influence in Israel, just as Christians have greater influence in the US than Jews or Muslims, because there are proportionally more of them. But the US isn't a Christian theocracy either.
@JollyRoger They'd had a shared "Holy Land" up to 1948. The reason for the partition was that it was obvious the two groups couldn't coexist. If you recall, as soon as the British withdrew, the surrounding Arab countries attacked, with the surprising result that Israel not only survived, but captured more land.