The Middle East - The Solution!

Great Debates
1

The whole problem started when the British created Israel. After they created Israel they just fucked off and left the Israelis to it.

Immediately after its creation, Israel was attacked silmultaneously by five countries but they managed to fight them all off.

The situation now is that everybody agrees that there should be a Jewish homeland (even the Arabs, mostly), and likewise, everybody agrees that the Palestinians have a point (even the Jews, mostly).

The problem is that the two peoples are right next to each other. They are constantly at each other.

The Palestinians are subject to the vaguaries of whatever government the Israelis happen to elect. For example, currently we have a right-wing government under Sharon. Sharon is all for hitting the Palestinians hard and supporting the new Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas.

The Solution

We establish a buffer zone between the two peoples

This buffer zone would be policed by the British not the Americans. The Americans are seen by the Arabs as too biased towards Israel

The British created the problem (inadvertently, it must be said) and so they should be the ones to go back in. They would of course require US and Arab support for doing this. And, of course, Israeli and Palastinian support.

The job of the British Army would be:

  • To keep the two peoples apart for a period of say 10 years while a solution is worked out.

  • To prevent the Israelis from building any more settlements.

  • To treat both sides equally, discriminating in favour of neither.

This would work because IMO the Palestians would be less likely to shoot at the British than they are to shoot at the Israelis.

The whole thing is self perpetuating - the Israelis shoot a few Palestinians so the Palestinians plant a bomb so the Israelis shoot a few Palestinians so the Palestinians plant a bomb so the…etc

We need to break the cycle.

And the British would be the best people to do it. This is because:

  • They played a large part in the creation of the problem

  • They have the military capability to do it

  • They are considered, by the Arab world, to be more neutral than America is. The Arabs see Israel and America as the same thing. They have somewhat more respect for the independence of the British.

I think the Palestinians would welcome this plan - they’d rather deal with the British army than with the Israeli army. If Israel is reluctant to go along with it, then they should be persuaded to by the US (co-erced, if necessary).

And those Jewish settlements are going to have to go.

2

But what happens when some Islamic fundamentalist Palestinian who has declared jihad against the West bombs a bunch of British soldiers?

And the British retaliate?

Wouldn’t we be looking at the same situation we have now?

3

The whole reason for the jihad against the west is the Israeli/Palestinian problem. If we solve that then there will be no jihad.

There doesn’t have to be a jihad going on all the time.

If we solved the cause of the jihad then there wouldn’t be one.

And, no, the British wouldn’t retaliate in the same way the Israelis do. In Ireland the British don’t try to eliminate terrorism by shooting up the entire local community.

Anyway, as I stated, the British would only be prepared to do this if they thought they had the support of all those in the area, even the extremist Islamic organisations. So there wouldn’t be any problems if it all goes to plan.

4

It’s not the whole reason – it’s a popular beef with Islamic fundamentalists, but it’s far from the only one. Others include the sanctions against Iraq and American troops in Saudi Arabia.

In any event, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: turn the whole thing over to Disney and let them run it as a theme park (think Disneyworld on steroids). Anyone who pays can get in, and anyone who misbehaves gets bounced by Mickey and Goofy. :smiley:

5

Who gets Jerusalem?

6

Ooo! Ooo! Me! Me!!

I wonder, if Jerusalem were utterly destroyed by some horrible nuke attack, would everyone just sort of disperse and cease fighting over the Holy Land? Seriously, if there was no Holy Land to lay claim to, would Israel be just as happy occupying some territory somewhere else?

7

love the way your mind works
if only more people were as practical;)

8

The idea of a buffer zone is good, but has been tried before…

The UN formed a buffer zone between North and South Cyprus in the seventies to stop the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots from trying do drive the other off the island following the Turkish invasion of the 60s. Both sides claim that the island was rightfully theirs before British colonisation.

Almost 30 years after the buffer zone was formed so that the two sides would talk rather than kill each other, the problem still remains: neither side concedes any ground and terrorist attacks from each side continue.

9

No, then they would fight over the “Holy Glass.”

10

Not to mention that the Gaza strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights (?) were meant to be buffer zones along Israel’s southern, eastern, and northern borders, respectively. Those buffer areas haven’t done much to curb Israeli-Palestinian tensions.

11

i say, good man, why not just pop round about tea-time and run this little plan by the brits and see what they think? mind, have a care, they might just tell you to piss off!

12

But so are the British, albeit to a lesser degree. Exchanging one superpower for another will IMO only encourage the radicals to renew their hatred of Britain.

13

Please, I hope you don’t really buy that line, and if you do, don’t try to peddle it here.

How about the war between Iran and Iraq? Support for either side meant contempt from the other.

How About India and Pakistan? Unrest here, between two Nuclear powers. Try to keep that from becoming Ugly.

How about it?

What about Lybia? Is their beef with the U.S. over Israel too?

How about you wise up a bit?

If you think a buffer zone would help, take a look - I think it exists. It did not help because many Palestinians had jobs in Israeli towns, granted that the settlements did not help either.

If you think the British (or another third party) should go and Police the area, I may agree with you only for the purpose of saving lives right now - you are right that Palestinian militants would be more hesitant to shoot at U.N. troops, for example, since they would like to get favorable World opinion for their cause. But ttthen again, maybe not.

Both peoples have a right to a State, but the questions of where and how are very difficult to agree on.

I’d say give one group part of Idaho and the Other part of Mississipi - that should keep 'em seperated. I hear also that Canada has some open space…

14

The establishment of a Palestinian middle class. This is the only way to deradicalize the Palestinians. Some Israeli PM suggested this many years ago. Of course, this cannot be done overnight, or without help from Israel and the rest of the world, particlularly the Arab nations. The present military posture over there makes this less and less likely.

As for a Palestinian state, why must Israel cough up ALL the land. If one looks at a map for a minute or so, it becomes obvious they are the nation least able to afford land. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, and Sudan seem good candidates to me. Or, is the Palestinian state idea really just a pretext to get rid of Israel? After the last year or so I am skeptical that many Arabs think Israel has a right to exist. Of course Israelis often seem to deny the basic humanity of the Palestinians also. Maybe some “X” and a big group hug. Or a Palestinian middle class, one of those.

sirjamesp has hit on an instructive example which, I think, shows that separation is only a temporary “fix,” if that. Greeks and Turks, whew, that one is old. They have a natural buffer zone of water, yet periodically, boom. Unless there are social and economic connections established, warring people will stay at odds with one another. Even when established, as in Yugoslavia, religion or ethnicity can drive a, or be exploited to drive a, wedge into a perfectly good civil society.

15

Firstly, the UN buffer zone in Cyprus actually does quite a good job of keeping the Greeks and the Turks apart. Such violence as occurs is at a very low level and only very occasional. If we could have a similar level of violence between Israel and the Palestinians then I think we could call that a success.

Secondly, its true that the Gaza strip etc were meant to be buffer zones but the problem is that these buffer zones are policed by the Israelis. They are the last people who should be in charge. We need a more neutral country to do it.

Thirdly, andros. The official British position is neutral between the Arabs and the Jews, unlike the Americans who unambiguously support Israel. Britain does support Israel, its true, but only because they need help. Officially, Britain is neutral. And, as I said, we would need to ask the Islamic groups whether they approved of the plan before we did it, even the extreme Islamic groups - Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc. I think they would agree to it.

Fourthly, tradesilicon. I am aware that there are other problems in the world but lets try and solve them one at a time. The Palestinian problem is the main sticking point. This is the cause celebre of the Islamic groups. It is the biggest problem and the one that infuriates even moderate muslims.

To take your examples:

Iran/Iraq - Im not aware of any war currently being fought between these two states.

Kashmir - This is another problem that needs solving but its not one that angers and unites the entire muslim world in the same way the Palestinian conflict does. This could partly be because it does not involve America. Although the British helped to create this problem too so maybe they could also have a role in resolving it, if asked by both parties.

Libya - I think a major part of Libya’s beef with the US is down to the Palestinian problem. But this doesn’t just apply to Libya, it applies to all the Arab countries and all the muslim countries.

rjung’s examples:

Sanctions on Iraq - Half a million children have died since sanctions were imposed but this is more due to Saddam than the sanctions themselves. I think that somewhere down the line, we’re going to have to take out Saddam too.

US troops in Saudi - Saudi is Islam’s most holy country, the land which contains Mecca. Extremist muslims believe Americans are befouling the land by being there since they are non-muslims (infidels). Maybe something could be done to reduce the US presence in Saudi but, in any case, its only the extreme muslims that are really all that bothered about this. This issue does not have anywhere near the same importance as the Palestinian problem.

In conclusion, the Palestinian problem is the main one. This is the one that angers ALL muslims, moderate or otherwise.

If there was no Palestinian problem, there would be no Bin Laden because he wouldn’t have the support of so many ordinary muslims. If there was no Bin Laden, the WTC would still be standing and we wouldn’t all be shitting ourselves waiting for a nuclear bomb to go off in LA (or wherever).

Finally, beagle.

There’s bound to be problems, of course. And what you say about the creation of a Palestinian middle class could be a good long term solution. But I think that my solution is better than any other ones currently being touted. Its certainly better than the situation we’ve got now.

And I stress that ALL parties would have to agree to it before we did it. The British wouldn’t want to go there if they were going to be used as target practice.

What may make it work, in fact, is if the British make it clear that if people start shooting at them then they will back out immediately and let them sort it out for themselves. I think the Palestinians would welcome this idea, even the hardline Palestinians. And I think the Israelis would reluctantly go along with it (if pressured by the US).

Anyone got any more objections?

16

Er, how about the US Marines setting up a buffer to keep Israeli supported Lebanese Christians and Syrian supported Muslims apart in Beirut in 1983? Can anybody say bomb? Can anybody say PLO? Can anybody say 233 dead?

How about the UN buffer zone to keep the Syrian supported Hizbollah from attacking the Israeli north? How about when the UN videotaped Hizbollah kidnapping and perhaps killing 3 Israeli soldiers from Israel? How about when they refused to admit that they even had the videotape for about a year?

I’m sorry if I am cynical. The geography of the region will not lend itself to a buffer. Beit Jalla and Gilo are 100 meters apart. The Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron lies in the middle of the West Bank. Bethlehem is in the middle of the West Bank and somebody has to guarantee safety for Christian holy sites and pilgrims (and judging from history, unfortunately the Palestinians have a poor record). The biggest sticking point of all is the holiest site in Judaism, the Western Wall, which directly abuts Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif) which houses three mosques.

What is needed is peaceful coexistance. For that, there needs to be a few things IMHO in no particular order:

  1. A long period of complete quiet which allows the Israeli government to feel secure enough to open its borders and resume trade.
  2. Establishment of a rule of law in the Palestinian territories, with arrest of militants.
  3. Establishment of a Palestinian moderate opposition, perhaps with a middle class.
  4. A Palestinian government less concerned with making a state borne of fire and one borne of negotiation.
  5. A return to normalcy in the territories with improvement of the infrastructure, including power and schools.

For the record, I would just like to say that the best way to begin this is a complete sealing of the borders with retraction of all settlements and annexation of Jerusalem and a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood by the Israelis. This will take most of the incentive for violent protests (except Jerusalem and the refugees).

17

You are absolutely right… although if we can somehow contain the radioactivity there they wouldn’t be able to fight over the glass for many years …

… at least not there. I guess they’d fight over who gets it after the radiation subsides.

18

Too right they’d accept it! The hardliners want to get across the buffer zone to attack the Israelis on the other side. The Brits say, “If you shoot at us, we’re out of here!”. So, the hardliners shoot at a few Brits, and bingo, the buffer zone has gone - back to muerderous business as usual. (The same applies to Israeli hardliners, of course).

If you set up a buffer zone, you have to accept that you have set up camp in between two hostile groups who will stop at nothing to get at the other side. Admittedly, buffer zones around the world reduce the violence short term, but they have been shown to do nothing to work on the cause of the conflict. The result is that the violence ends up being more drawn out.

Besides, soldiers don’t generally like being sat in crossfire.

SIDE NOTE: xanakis is right about the Gaza Strip etc not being a buffer zone; it kind of goes against the idea of a “buffer zone” when it is created and policed by one of the warring parties…

19

I agree entirely, except that I think that the only way the issue of sovereignty over the Temple Mount can be resolved is by internationalising it, and placing it in the hands of the UN.

20

Xanakis,

You seem to be under some impression that the British Army could somehow remain impartial.
I respectfully disagree, given their history in my country.