Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
OOC Ideas; Regarding Sinai and Israel
Topic Started: Mar 27 2006, 09:35 PM (630 Views)
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

I was thinking about a trilateral treaty between TC, USOI and RD regarding a new land share.

Starting with the recent agreement:

Posted Image

TC would trade Sinai to RD in exchange for half of Central Israel from USOI.

USOI would trade half of Central Israel to TC in exchange for Northern Israel from RD.

RD would trade Northern Israel to USOI in exchange for Sinai from TC.


I think everyone can agree on this. TC would get rid of Sinai and get half of Israel. The other half would be owned by USOI. RD would get a strategic location just next to the Suez canal.

It's a win-win situation IMO.

What do you think?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Oh, good Lord!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Don't invoke your gods here, they can't help you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Take it IC or don't bother :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
United State of Israel
Member Avatar
A Light to the Gentiles
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Basically, it's the same idea as this one:
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6824/mk3ri.gif

Only that the RD would get the Sinai.
Both OOC and IC I'll have to reject this proposal.
OOC, I'll be losing way too much land, and IC, we finally reached an acceptable agreement in the Sinai, and I wouldn't like to ruin it by continuing negotiations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

United State of Israel
Mar 28 2006, 05:21 AM
Basically, it's the same idea as this one:
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6824/mk3ri.gif

Only that the RD would get the Sinai.
Both OOC and IC I'll have to reject this proposal.
OOC, I'll be losing way too much land, and IC, we finally reached an acceptable agreement in the Sinai, and I wouldn't like to ruin it by continuing negotiations.

You would gain more than you lose in fact...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lilgrexicano
Member Avatar
Hermit
 *  *  *  *  *
This is a map proposed by Ammochostos as to the divisions in the regions. We are against any proposals that would allow for an NE share in Israel, as they are in defiance of the UN, which rightfully lays claim to Central Israel. Also, each of the three parties involved (RD, TC, and USOI) are to posess a border with the UN Zone surrounding Jerusalem and Bethlehem (since they are both of religious importance in the region). The striped regions are lands that would be forfeited by RD and TC to be incorporated into USOI, and the grey line indicates the current boundary as defined by RD, TC, and the UN Zone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
lilgrexicano
 
This is a map proposed by Ammochostos as to the divisions in the regions.  We are against any proposals that would allow for an NE share in Israel, as they are in defiance of the UN, which rightfully lays claim to Central Israel.  Also, each of the three parties involved (RD, TC, and USOI) are to posess a border with the UN Zone surrounding Jerusalem and Bethlehem (since they are both of religious importance in the region).  The striped regions are lands that would be forfeited by RD and TC to be incorporated into USOI, and the grey line indicates the current boundary as defined by RD, TC, and the UN Zone.


OOC

This does not seem to be a well informed proposal. It is an impossible proposal for me, as it goes against everything that the TC has been arguing for in the Sinai Conference. The TC disagrees with Ammochostos' opinion about Nag Ehgoeg, and the TC also disagrees with USOI getting so much land. Check the Sinai Conference thread for the TC's stance and explanations on all the issues.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

OOC:

Before looking at any new land proposals, can we wait until the Sinai Conference results are confirmed?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

This is the land swap that the Trilateral Commission proposed to me by private message:

Quote:
 
To: Emperor Constantine of the RD
From: The Trilateral Commission

The TC is interested in acquiring northern Israel. Would the Resplendent Dawn be interested in a land trade with these borders?:

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

This kind of proposal makes administratively no sense. It is just like if Switzerland would move to Alsace, and original swiss territory would switch to France.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Yeah but I like my countries to be ridiculous. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

What do oil production capabilities in this region look like? ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
The prospects are excellent, USOI told me Sinai has production of 500,000 barrels of oil per day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

And you're willing to hand that over to OPEMEC?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Yes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
:o

Give them even more of a stranglehold.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
United State of Israel
Member Avatar
A Light to the Gentiles
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Gentlemen - we've been having these negotiations for almost two weeks now, with zero results.
We are in a tough position here. We think that the more we present more and more proposals, the farther we get from really doing something and solving this matter.

Examine the facts - USOI exists - in the north. We've been officially given the option by the RD to take over this territory. Seeing the negotiations in the Sinai going badly, with chances of war which as of now has been delayed, we took this option and declared our independence.

What we really should be discussing now is the future of the UN mandate area. The UN has shown its willingness to cede the control of this territory to the USOI. However, in reality this area is no longer controled by the UN, it is controled by Nag Ehgoeg and its ally the TC, whether officially or not.
Certain nations in UN expressed their interest to solve this issue by the use of power, to drive NE and the TC out of the UN mandate. This option is the least favorable by us. We believe that through negotiations we could reach a satisfying compromise.

We remind everybody that the key issue in this conflict was always Jerusalem. Nag Ehgoeg controls the city and would risk itself in a war to make sure it will stay that way. The territory surrounding Jerusalem, aka the UN Mandate, is only there so serve as a buffer zone to make sure the city is safe. And we ask you now - since this agreement means that Jerusalem will be safe, and under NE's control, in one way or another, doesn't this mean that the UN mandate area except Jerusalem has now no value as for the protection of the city? especially when given to a non partisan nation?

We've been delaying this matter for too long. It is in the interest of some nations, of course, but certainly not in the interest of peace.

To maintain stability in the land, we must make sure that it will be governed by two equal sides. Any other way is a sure path to instability. If you examine the map, you'll see that the area under the TC's control, the Negev, is right about the same size of the UN mandate and northern Israel combined. We urge all sides to endorse an agreement that will split the land 50/50. The USOI will control the north and the centre, and the TC will remain in its place. It is also the physically most convenient way. Since we have no interest in Jerusalem, we are willing to leave the determination of its status in the hands of the involved nations. Since it also seems that NE insists on having a coastal access in the land, we invite them to take control of the Gaza Strip.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

I disagree; there have not been zero results. The Sinai Accords were agreed upon, and are currently pending approval in the United Nations, and I think, in the Baghdad Pact thread. Those borders will be established. Remember that while we wanted to give Northern Isreal to the USOI, the TC required a stipulation against this. Thus, the agreed proposal does not allow USOI in northern Isreal.

The proposals discussed in this thread were supposed to be for after the Sinai Accords were approved. The Sinai Accords are pending approval, independent of any other further arrangements made here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
United State of Israel
Member Avatar
A Light to the Gentiles
 *  *  *  *  *  *
The current resolution in the UN, #591, has not been approved by me.
I will approve it only with condition that the USOI will later on be given either the Negev or the North. It is obvious that the USOI's final boundaries could not be as small as they currently are. Israel in entirety is small as it is - and the UN sector is much smaller. I am more than willing to reach a compromise that will leave the USOI with about half of the land, but I won't agree to get a miniature, useless piece of land.

I am discussing with the TC as for how we should devide the land after the approval of the UN resolution. All I can do is hope we could agree over a sensible partition of the land. But again, the current UN resolution can't possibly determine the final status of Israel, and I think we should all agree to this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rhadamanthus
Member Avatar
Legitimist

Indeed. In that case, there is still work to be done. I suppose this couldn't really be that easy, could it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Catholic Europe
Mar 31 2006, 05:05 AM
:o

Give them even more of a stranglehold.

Oil is overrated, switch to nuclear! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
IC

"It appears that Resolution 591 will soon be ratified by a majority vote in the General Assembly. Even if USOI does not approve of it, the UN will unilaterally define Central Israel as USOI, and unilaterally adopt the Terms, including forbidding USOI from annexing North Israel.

The TC is however open to further negotiations to improve upon Resolution 591. We invite all interested nations to Sharm el Sheikh for another conference that should permanently resolve the situation."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

I still believe my current proposal (the one in this topic) is the fairest for all parties.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Catholic Europe
Member Avatar
Spammer
Trilateral Commission
Mar 31 2006, 11:46 AM
Catholic Europe
Mar 31 2006, 05:05 AM
:o

Give them even more of a stranglehold.

Oil is overrated, switch to nuclear! :D

Nuclear is against Church teaching lol!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Middle East · Next Topic »
Add Reply