Lets have a free for all on this one.
Personally, I do not think there is a solution. The state of Isreal is a catalyst. But both sides have SO much bad blood, I would think the Dems and Rep. would have a better chance at backing the same candidate for President.
What is the answer?
This’ll be in Great Debates pretty quickly.
Frankly, the only way to solve the problem is twofold:
Retire the current generation of leaders and make small steps to engender trust on both sides.
Promote development in the middle east like a madman. Build a solid middle class. People aren’t near as radical and argumentative when it might mean losing some comfort and wealth.
whoops, should’ve put it there, (i glitched, news got to me)
their leaders just don’t “retire” see Arafat.
Fanatasism runs rampant. (middle class will help though)
So you support (forcible) Mandatory Retirement for Arafat? 
(Yeah, I know y’all will be saying “Sharon too!”. OK. But it’s Arafat too, Sharon three :D)
Needs doing mostly on the Palestinian side. Israel definitely IS, on the whole, a middle-class society (and public willingness, in general, to go toward compromise reflects the fact)
While bizzwire’s solution is quite obviously fair to both sides, it is also unacceptable to each. That is what makes the problem so difficult; both sides have backed themselves into a corner in which they are trapped by their own rhetoric (even assuming the so-called leaders could accept them).
There is one more thing I would recommend: completely secular governments in both states. As for Jerusalem, the only thing needed would be to divide the city in two, leaving most of the old city (except for the street of David that goes to the wailing wall) to the Palestinians.
I won’t say never happen, but I will not live to see it.
Kill everybody.
Okay, not really an acceptable solution, but it seems to be the way things are going at the moment.
Ideally, of course, I like bizzwire’s ideas. But until everyone gets past this “he hit me first!” mentality and starts thinking constructively about the future, the bloodshed will continue.
Moved to Great Debates at the request of the OP.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
bizzwire’s solution is awfully similar to the Saudi peace proposal of last year that got nowhere.
There is only one solution, and nobody (including me) would really like it.
There hasn’t been peace in the region since Joshua led the Israelites across the river into the “Promised Land”, and there’s no real reason to think the situation is suddenly going to resolve itself now. The only way to have a lasting peace is to have a third party move in and seize control over the entire region, putting down any uprisings on either side by force. The Soviet Union was very successful in bringing “peace” to most of eastern Europe and western Asia using this very method.
Failing that, the only real hope I see for peace is if God himself descends to Earth in a fiery chariot and burns the national borders into the ground for all eternity.
Cynical? Yes.
Correct? Probably, unfortunately.
OK, here goes:
Funny Ha Ha, Dex.
Suburban Plankton…that didn’t work all that well for Rome, you know.
When I said ‘retire’ the current leadership I wasn’t thinking of the current attempts to move Arafat out I meant everyone. The entire politcal leadership on both sides are at an impasse that is, at least partially, due to ego. None of them are worthy (or capable) of leading the region to peace. Hence, none of them should remain in power if peace is the goal.
Sadly, it appears that peace isn’t the goal for either side.
In reality, I think there are too powerful factions on both sides who want access to all of the Israel/Palestine territory. I can’t see them solving this by themselves. IMO, a third party has to go in, but that will never happen, unless we see a huge increase in violence from both sides.
I like bizzwire’s suggestions, but I think Israel would insist on keeping some of the settlements located right next to the 1967-border. Water rights will have to be given back to the Palestinians, currently Israel is controlling the water resources in the occupied territories, routing most of it into Israel. The US can give their aid to whomever they want, the EU would probably support the Palestinians even if the US didn’t. Not so sure if Jerusalem could be the capitol of Israel, isn’t it inside the occupied territory?
However, the middle east is more than just Israel/Palestine. What about the occupation of the Golan Heights and Syria?
The first step, in my opinion, is to abandon the idea that America can be the arbiter of peace in the region.
It’s only been 55 years since the US went out on limb in international politics to support the creation of the state of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs who were living there. Much of that ousted generation is still alive. We were right to support Israel’s creation, but wrong to support its expansion into the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the West Bank.
Any Palestinian who wants to see our credentials in creating and abiding by treaties between an emergent government and an ethnically different people with prior claim to the land need only look at the history of the American Indian to know they can’t trust us any farther than they can throw us.
The summit must be this:
Israel on one side of the table, with the US holding our three billion in aid over their head to agree to a solution. Some larger mideast power with some vested interest in the outcome (one perhaps, being overrun with Palestinian refugees) sitting with Palestine on the other side. Some nation mutually acceptable to both sides acts as moderator, and no one gets out of the room until the situation is resolved. The US must make it clear to Israel that continued aid is contingent upon abiding by whatever treaty is hashed out by the Israelites and the Palestinians themselves.
It’s not impossible. The Oslo Accords worked for a time, until the fanatics felt the freedom to overturn the peace. We need to give Israel the impetus to make sanity rule this time.
I forgot to add, Arafat is the Palestinians’ democratically elected president, so ousted him from abroad will hardly be a good idea.
The problem with all of the “peace plans” introduced up until now is that none of them has been very specific, including the current road map. You can’t simply say that “Israel should begin dismantling settlements in 3 months”, you’ll have to say "Settlement X shall be dismantled no later than [date], etc.
But agreeing to such a peace plan would be political suicide in Israel. As long as these peace agreements are broadly defined, Isreal can continue to dismantle uninhabited, illegal or otherwise insignificant settlements, but keeping and even expanding the big settlements, and still claim they are in compliance with a peace plan.
The Palestinians on their part can enrol the militant activists as police officers. The only thing the Palestinians can’t do is arresting the leadership of Hamas and others, as this would lead to an outright civil war.
Violence has to be replaced with symbolic acts that can give the people of both countries a sense of hope that taking the path of non-retribution will get them jobs, money and prosperity.
As long as Hamas is more popular than Arafat it’s difficult to take out Hamas. Once upon a time (1993-95) Arafat had broad support, but after the Oslo Accords failed Hamas has become more popular for each year passing by. I read the other day that Abbas had an approval rating of 1.8% in the last days he was in office.
huh?
Most of the people in Truman’s state department were opposed to the UN resolution calling for the creation of Israel *and * Palestine, recognizing it for the potential can of worms it turned out to be. If any one state played a major role in the “creation” of Israel, that would have been Stalin’s USSR, not the US.
Are you talking of Palestinians who were ousted from what is now Israel, or the Jews who were ousted from the various Arabs countries (where they had lived for generations), when the resolution was passed?
.
The Israelis didn’t “expand” into the Golan for the sheer hell of it. Considering that the Syrians had a nasty habit of lobbing missiles into Israel from the heights, I don’t fault the Israelis for doing something about it.
Despite your somewhat jaundiced view, I think you make some good points.
Who cares if Hamas is popular ? The Nazis were pretty popular in Germany some decades ago.
My solution:
Israel steps up its liquidation process of terrorist leaders, while continuing to finish building the wall, inorder to keep out genocidal undesirables. There should be strikes every single day.
Kill Arafat. Get it over with. There will be a bunch of angry people, dancing in the streets, screaming for revenge. Pretty much the way the situation is today, whenever some lowlife terrorist bites the dust . Arafat is as helpful to the palestinians as Jim Jones was helpful to his followers. He is also taking them down the same path. Even with various prime ministers, Arafat is still the man in charge, as evidenced by the fiasco with the previous prime minister, abu mazan. So, quite simply, get rid of Arafat.
After the wall is finished, genocide bombers will find it harder to sneak into Israel, and the palestinians living behind the wall will have two choices.
(1) Get their act together, inorder to improve their situation.
(2) Continue with their current act and support for terrorists, which in turn will lead to a worse situation for them. Let them rot behind the wall, if they choose option #2.
Allow an international force to enter the palestinian areas, to keep peace/order, since the palestinians do not wish to keep peace or deal with criminals among them. Also, implement sterilization techniques and-or birth quotas for that impoverished society.
After a time of rotting behind the wall, in their selfmade poverty, perhaps some palestinians will want to seek out the peace option, instead of the terror option.
There wont be any peace as long as the majority supports murderous groups such as hamas, etc. Anybody who is a member of hamas should not feel safe. A re-education of that whole, violent society is in order, if they are to change their barbaric ways.
Also, I see all out war as a viable option, as this would solve the problem, and that is what the majority of palestinians want anyhow, which is evidenced by their massive support for terror groups.
Israel has flourished for decades, despite thousands of attacks and countless wars. Meanwhile the situation for the palestinians has gotten worse and worse, and will continue to do so, unless they get some non violent peace movements started.
Well, I think something like what ** C K Dexter Haven ** said is the only viable option; move everyone from one side to some other location. Any peace agreement is just going to be wrecked by suicide bombers, and the following relatory strikes.
Pack up Israel and relocate it in Wyoming.
Free high speed internet, cable TV, and unlimited porn. They’ll all be too busy playing with their incredible heat-seeking moisture missiles to be bothered with blowing each other up.
That, or terraform Mars and Venus, ship one group off to one planet, the other group off to the other one, and then quaranteen the two planets, not letting anyone come or go.