No one in this thread has said the Palestinians do not need resources.
You have said that the resources where they live are spoken for.
That was the subject Greenwyvern’s cite.
I said that the state of Israel cannot survive without the resources of the West Bank.
Okay, let’s play.
GIven the premise, I think how I’d solve the problem is just set the end of the story really far in the future, and then copy and then expand trends until the Middle East is solved.
Figure that over the past 200 years, much of the world has seen gigantic increases in:
Wealth, including per capita, productivity, and energy usage.
Social Development (Human rights are globally applicable, extreme poverty has gone from omnipresent to margins)
Religious Tolerance
Technology (200 years ago, the world was beginning to use steam, steel and rail).
Applying this package to the Middle East and then fast forwarding to 2220 AD probably counts as solving it. It’s a little generic, but the question doesn’t seem to impose hard limits regarding timetables. Consider that in 1820, the wealthiest nation in the world had a GDP per Capita of around $2,000. Today, this is around $100,000. Projecting that 200 years into the future gives a value of around $5 Million.
Of course that’s not an average, but taking the idea that the average person has a net worth of $1 Million in today’s dollars doesn’t seem totally out of line. 200 years in the future, experimental technologies are tired, foundational and omnipresent. This also probably does massive cultural shifts, again, not trying to be magical.
Humanity is never going to be free of some kind of social pressure or tension, but it’s not hard to imagine that the Middle East may well catch a break and not be the focus of it. Something like genetic engineering allowing humanity to surpass its limits and become a gigantic source of tension, but the middle east has been very conservative in regards to this practice and becomes increasingly unified as a result.
200 years is just a long time.
Actually, that’s nonsense:
By 2014, Israel’s desalination programs provided roughly 35% of Israel’s drinking water and it is expected to supply 40% by 2015 and 70% by 2050.[18] In recent years, Israel’s annual use of water from the Sea of Galilee has shrunk from 513 million cubic meters (in 2001-2) to just 25 million cubic meters (2018–19) as desalinated water has taken its place.[19]
From here. Not to mention that there are no real water resources in the West Bank or in the Golan; the latter’s value was in that it controls the sources of the Jordan river in military terms, by sitting above them.
Anyway, your entire premise is wrong. There are no resources in the West Bank, and Israel sees no economic benefit from it. AConsidering the amount of money it spends to hold the Territories, the occupation operates at a net loss.
In fact, if and when the Palestinians achieve independence, they’ll be probably dependent on Israel for water, and not the other way around. Just another item in the long, long things the two sides have to hash out.
Israel is a leader in desalination, but what’s your point? Most of that water goes to people and industry not agriculture. Which leads to the second need - arable land. Israel cannot feed itself without the West Bank.
‘Palestinian’ independence vanished long ago. Israel is stuck with dissidents that, like it or not, are part of the general population. The solution will be decided by Israeli intellectuals, not by some man with a plan from DC. Israel is essentially Socialist, so the solution will be driven from the top down. If apartheid is in the best interest of Israel, that’s how it will be.
Dude, I’m Israeli. So trust me that I know this stuff.
That is utterly and entirely wrong. Look at a map - the West bank is a massively overpopulated region with a relatively small amount of mediocre farmland. It doesn’t produce enough to support its own population, let alone Israel’s. It’ll have to import food to survive. As for Israel itself, I don’t know if it has food independence, but so what? Half the countries in the world import food. This isn’t the middle ages, you know.
I know that you on the Right think that way, but I still think that there’s still a chance for peace.
It’ll be decided by Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Probably not the current ones, but there’s always hope for change.
Israel is no more Socialist than the UK. To conservatives like you, that may seem like communism, but let me assure you that Israel is essentially a capitalist liberal democracy, with a somewhat fraying social safety net.
Yeah, it isn’t. And it’s not what Israel has, and it’s not what it’s going to have.
Frankly, I don’t have time for the anti-peace camp. You people think you’ve won, but you haven’t. Not yet.
Alessan,
Thanks for the response.
I said Israel is essentially socialist, which it is. Israeli companies put the interests of Israel ahead of their own. That seems to have served the country well.
How do you believe Israel will ultimately deal with the Palestinian population?
First of all, they don’t. Second of all, even if they did, caring about your country is not the same as socialism. I think everyone outside the Libertarian fringe would agree with that.
I believe there will be a two-state solution, with major concessions on both sides, and a partial (but not complete) withdrawal of Israeli civilians from the West Bank. I just hope it will happen in my lifetime.
Is that a popular view in Israel?
Desalination is an option (and one that we will likely need to make more and more use of worldwide).
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Israeli POLITICIANS have often placed their own interests above the national interests. I assure you, our titans of industry are just as selfish as anyone else’s.
Nothing else is really even remotely realistic. This is the way.
I believe they equate the national interest with their own to a greater degree than is true of the US. Socialism isn’t binary. It is a demographic gradient. Israel’s history, land ownership policy and public programs are socialist.
Does the popular view in Israel favor a two state solution?
Do you think you could remind Arnon Mozes that this is how he’s meant to behave next time you see him?
Depends on how the question is phrased on the poll, but generally, yes.
Do you believe Israel is working toward this goal by actively developing the Palestinian economy to be self sustaining?
I do not, and that’s my biggest problem with the Netanyahu admin. Unfortunately he is a very skilled politician (and has many powerful allies in the private sector - see Arnon Mozes…) so he has not yet been ousted. But it looks like he’ll have another chance to fall in the neat future.
Eta: not wanting to actually develop Palestine into a real country is also the issue I have with Palestinian leadership, as it happens.
Unfortunately there are many interests that are best served by the ME problem not being solved. And, that was my point. The problem will be solved when it is in the best interest of those involved to do so.
Thing is, Israel has a lot more influence over the situation than the Palestinians do.
Right now, life in the Territories is pretty shitty, and the Palestinian leadership has done a ‘great’ job convincing the Palestinian people that this is all Israel’s fault.
We can argue all day about whose fault it actually is (and I think much of the blame has to fall at the feet of the Palestinian leadership no matter which way you slice it), but that’s really not the point. What matters when determining how people will act is what people believe.
We will have peace in the Middle East when Israel manages to convince the Palestinians that their troubles are not all Israel’s fault.
One way to do that is to remove the settlements from the Territories. Look, I get the argument- “if a two state solution happens, and Muslims will live in Israel, why shouldn’t Jews live in Palestine?” And in principle, that’s fair. Maybe one day, decades from now, when Israel and Palestine have existed as two independent states for years and have developed their relationship with each other, that will be a reality. But right now, that’s not why the settlers are there. They are there because they want to force Israel to annex the land. Israel shouldn’t let them dictate her foreign policy. Settlements have been bulldozed by the IDF before, as part of negotiations, and Netanyahu’s policy seems to be one of treating the settlements as a negotiating chip - “I won’t control them until you come to the table”. But there are 2 issues with this:
-
the more established these places become, the tougher it will be to remove them, both because settlements will grow and people will put down roots, and because the political reality will shift, and if most of the electorate is used to them “always” having been there, convincing the public it is time to remove them will be a harder battle
-
the current strategy is clearly not bringing anyone to the table. There is nothing wrong with being the adult in the room and taking the first step towards peace, and this would be a show of good faith. And if the Palestinians turn down this show of good faith, it will paint Israel in a much more positive light internationally.
From there, what Israel needs to do is improve the lives of Palestinians by allowing the Palestinian economy to grow. As Alessan noted, the Territories are overcrowded and have relatively few useful natural resources, so the Palestinian economy will not be a self sufficient one. That’s not just OK, that’s fantastic. Very few small countries are entirely self sufficient (certainly not Israel), so this isn’t a worry. And if the Palestinian economy is forced by necessity to closely integrate with the Israeli one (since neither Jordan nor Egypt are eager to thaw relations with the Palestinians, supposed Arab solidarity aside) then all the better for peace! There is nothing like economic interdependence to enforce peaceful relations.