Achieving Peace in the Middle East

I think this thread deserves some uppers, given the events of the past week-end. is it me, or does the future of the Middle East look bleaker with time ?

 

I think that things are going to get worse before there is any chance of things getting better.

 

Thanks E_S

Well, I don't think that things are improving. Last week's ambush was certainly no help.

I just hope Netanyahu doesn't win the prime ministers' spot. As bad as Sharon is, he would be even worse....

Peace,

V-03

 

I just hope Netanyahu doesn't win the prime ministers' spot. As bad as Sharon is, he would be even worse....

In the long run this may not be as bad people think. If Netanyahu wins and expels Arafat and destroys the Palestinian Authority completely it will end the pathetic notion that there is any kind of peace process. If attacks against Israel still continue then there will be no PA to blame and the Israeli people may come to realise that in the long run only negotiations and compromises can secure peace, the palestinians need to realoise this as well. This will open the way for an Israeli PM who believes in peace, to be elected. I know that this might be clutching a straws but the situation has reached an impass and eventually something is going to change.

 

Interesting points, DarthKarrde.

I'm all for a Palestinian state, but I firmly believe that the violence on both sides must stop first. For Israel, this means not bulldozing houses and rocketing buildings in response to terrorism; for the palestinians, this means not going into Israel proper and homicide-bombing every time the Israelis withdraw. Withdrawal is not equal to a free terrorism pass. Every times this happens, they attack. Then Israel, fearing to look weak, responds. It's a terrible cycle.

I for one wish the UN could be more involved here. Unfortunately, the UN seems to have an anti-Israel bias, which means Israel will not accept the authority of peacekeepers unless they are primarily, say, american. If that happens, the arabs will cry foul.

No easy solution here. Thoughts?

Peace,

V-03

 

The way things are going now, I think we need to do something drastic. Countless Palestian children are dying because of the foolishness of suicide bombers and the Israeli inability to deal with them.

I think a state of chaos needs to be proclaimed, with the (at least) temporary removal of the Israeli government in favor of a peacekeeping government that will stay in power until the two sides can form a joint agreement settling every issue.

If we let the Israelis keep going as they are, bombers won't be stopped, and Palestinians will be dying in the streets.

 

He say's he will expell Arafat. He has also vowed there will never be a Palestinian State within Israel.

And....he will do what he says.

Go Netanyahu! If I were Israeli, I would vote for him.

 

TripleB, yeah you're so right. Expelling Arafat and dismantling the PA will end the notion of a "Palestine". After all, the Palestinians aren't angry about their status, nor that the British gave their land away. And, as history as shown us, people who are consistently marginalised NEVER resort to violence to be heard.

You really need to brush up on your non-Americanised Middle Eastern news. Reading the US press will give you the pro-Israeli perspective. Try a shade of grey.

V-03 - You're welcome. You'd think people would have learnt after 2,000 odd years and one Holocaust that anti-Semitism is idiotic and pointless. I can't stand this asinine "Jews are elitist" crap.

E_S

 

If we let the Israelis keep going as they are, bombers won't be stopped, and Palestinians will be dying in the streets.

Let's keep in mind that until these last two attacks, Israel did not respond to the bombings that happened before that, and that more Israelis have been 'dying in the streets' lately than Palestinians.

I also disagree with the notion of "countless Palestinain children" dying. The vast majority of Palestinians that have died thus far have been young men, armed combatants. If you study the deaths on each side, far more 'innocents' per head have died on the Israeli side than Palestinian. I simply don't agree that a death is a death is a death. An armed and shooting 20 year old actively resisting the IDF when they attempt to round up suspects gets far less compassion from me than a 6-year old sent out to throw rocks at tanks and get caught in crossfire in the process (sometimes shot by their OWN side). People who CARE about their children would keep them away from such danger, you'd think.

EDIT: I disagree that US news is entirely pro-Israel biased as well. NBC is currently on my bad side for some very misleading and 'Israel is the bad guy' biased reporting I saw last week.

 

TeeBee, I think it's in this thread or in the former that there's a link to a site giving the names and ages of all non-adults who died in this conflict. You will notice that there are hundreds of them on the Palestinian side of the line.

 

And the circle of madness continues....

round and round we go....

 

Lordban, I didn't mean to imply that no Palestinian children have died. What I'm saying is that when you look at the overall deathtoll for both sides, although the numbers on the Palestinian side are higher, the percentage of noncombatants is about the same as for Israeli noncombatants. Here is part of a report I saved:

Since the outbreak of the Palestinian intifadah (uprising) in September 2000, as many as 1,551 Palestinians and 578 Israelis have been killed -- roughly three times as many Palestinians as Israelis - but Israeli researchers say those numbers present a distorted picture of reality.

A study released by a counter-terrorism group said the "fatality scorecard" is much more complicated than the raw numbers indicate.

According to research done by the International Policy Institute on Counter-Terrorism, the Palestinian death toll of 1,551 includes suicide bombers who have killed themselves in the process of killing Israelis; and it also includes Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. Those collaborators have been killed by their own people, the report said.

"Correcting for such distortions, we can arrive at a figure of 579 Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel, compared to 433 Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians [as of the end of June 2002]," it concludes.

No, this study does not give the breakdown for how many noncombatants were minor children, but is tells me when people get up in arms about "countless Palestinian children" dying, then the same should be remembered about the Israelis. And, I did see that list, and it ALSO, if unintentionally, distorted facts. Although it tried to state the way the each child died, just putting "shot by Israeli soldier" is not keeping things in context, not seeing the 'shades of grey' that ES is so fond of. In it's trying to be unbiased, it came across to me as misleading. We need to keep in mind that suicide bombers and snipers (like the one that shot two children in their bed (!) last week) targeted the children they killed, whereas it is untrue that IDF specifically targets children when they shoot their weapons. Children in the fray of crossfire and children terrorists knowingly hide among cannot be tallied up as intentional slaughter the way Israeli children are. Allowing your child to ride a bus to the mall or accompany you to a Passover seder is patently NOT the same as allowing your child to throw stones at soldiers, being out among the fighting during searches for suspects, and encouraging them to martyr themselves.

The one that infuriated me the most was that they continue to list Mohammed Al Dura as having been shot by the IDF, when there have been numerous studies concluding that it is all but impossible to make such an assumption, based on the positioning of the combatants on both sides and the direction from which the bullets that struck the wall directly behind him were coming from. The evidence shows that it is HIGHLY likely that he was killed by Palestinian fire, not Israeli. Yet he is still heralded as the poster child for 'Israeli aggression against defenseless children'. Magazines that had those pictures splashed all over them have yet to run a retraction that the incident is not what it appeared to be.

 

I believe This is the article/study in question.

 

I am not going to deny it, that I am 100% pro Israel in this situation and as such, that is my mind, mindset and how I align myself. In truth, if a Palestinian State can be set up that does not compromise Israel's security, I am good with that.

 

Thanks, Red-Seven. That's a better incarnation of it than I read, goes into much more detail.

I agree with a Palestinian state as well, as long as there is no loss of security for Israel. That's the big gamble they have to take, and under the circumstances of the past couple years, I can't blame them for feeling ambiguous about creating one. I think if there is one, it will necessitate having a fenced and militarized border for a very long time.

 

What I was talking about in regards to the Palestinian children was the lockdown the Israelis have placed in order to stop the suicide bombers.

These lockdowns have stopped virtually all movement and economic activity in Palestinian areas. This has caused many to be malnurshed. In fact, I heard on NPR yesterday that the hunger problem was as bad as some third-world countries such as Sudan and Ethopia and that the effect of the Israeli lockdown on the Palestinians is comparable to a natural disaster in its effects on the population.

 

What I was talking about in regards to the Palestinian children was the lockdown the Israelis have placed in order to stop the suicide bombers.

Ok, I understand where you're coming from Jediflyer. But:

-With lockdown: some Palestinian children could die.
-Without lockdown: some Israeli children will die.

Not a quandry I'd like to be put in.

 

Actually, its a lot of children.

I realize that both sides are at fault and that is why I propose removing both sides from power, with a neutral controlling authority governing until the two sides can settle on an agreement.

 

I realize that both sides are at fault and that is why I propose removing both sides from power, with a neutral controlling authority governing until the two sides can settle on an agreement.

An idealistic resolution to be sure, especially when suggested by an outside party. However, this would not stop the fighting. If anything, it may trigger even greater resentment toward one another, resulting more political and combative salvos.

Isrealis and Palestinians (not just their governing bodies) need to want peace. In that peace, they must learn compromise and the concept of symbiosis; specifically, they must learn that they can and MUST live together on the same planet, if not necessarily on the same parcel of land.

Palestinians do exist, and I think they have a right to their own state.

However the Isrealis also exist, and are empowered by the same right.

The true problem is, where can these people agree to live, and can they live there in peace?

 

The answer might reside in the use of a simple mechanism : when you oppress a lot two peoples, they'll at least temporarily unite to face the greater foe. If the greater foe stays for too long, the bonds between the two former enemies will have to stengthen, and eventually if put under pressure long enough they'll have to put aside their differences and unite. That's when you start to release pressure, let a few victories to the two enemies, test their new friendship by striking a little harder and then orchestrate a victory of their side if they actually got through their "darkest hour" together. They'll have too many shared memories to simply resume their feuds once they're free at last.

But of course that's merely theory, and would require utter mastery and the willingness to sacrifice a lot of its global popularity from the side that would force Israelis and Palestinians to unite or perish...

 

I am not going to deny it, that I am 100% pro Israel in this situation and as such, that is my mind, mindset and how I align myself. In truth, if a Palestinian State can be set up that does not compromise Israel's security, I am good with that.

Well, where would a Palestinian state be created?

Exactly where the Palestinians are now.

The Israelis would have to forfeit land in order to facilitate the creation of such a state.

But it'll never be agreed on the boundaries of either state.

Maybe that entire area of land should be in the hands of no single state, but united under a neutral Government, with Israelis/Palestinians allowed to move wherever they'd like within that state. Ownership would belong to both and neither.

- SCarlet.

 

See: Lebanon, 1980's. That experiment didn't work out so well.

 

In truth, if a Palestinian State can be set up that does not compromise Israel's security, I am good with that.

And yet we were also good with an Israeli state that completely compromised the security of the existing Palestinian state. Your attitude and proposal simply won't work. They require Palestinians to sacrifice everything but Israel to sacrifice nothing. BOTH sides have to give something up to gain something.

E_S

 

I am not going to deny it, that I am 100% pro Israel in this situation and as such, that is my mind, mindset and how I align myself. In truth, if a Palestinian State can be set up that does not compromise Israel's security, I am good with that.

It's this kind of attitude that garuntees that there will never be peace in the middle east. Peace can only achieved by sacrifices and compromises on both sides. To start things off an end to palestinian terrorism and Israeli state terrorism is needed.

 

IMO one step would be to dismantle the terrorist group Islamic Jihad. They dont want peace in the Middle East, they want to drive all the Jews into the sea. They have also vowed to kill Arafat if he ever makes a deal that doesnt turn control of Israel Proper over to Palestine.

Then the party of Sharon is pretty much the same, just on the opposite end of the stick. We seen what happened to the Israeli Prime Minister Rabin was killed in 1995 for striving for peace. Then things went to hell in a handbasket, and here we are.

Some of the hangups in the middle east include letting 4 million Palestinian refugees return to Israel proper as citizens. Israel doesn't want this, they have a population of 6 million, this would jeopardize the security and future of the Jewish state of Israel.

On the other end, Palestine wants Israel to withdrawel Jewish settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Some in Israel agree, some most notably the party in power disagrees.

The biggest hang up is Jerusalem. Israel uses it as their capital, Palestine wants East Jerusalem to be used as the capital of their nation state if that is achieved. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity look at Jerusalem as a holy city, Palestine and Israel dont want the other to have it. I think the PA would be satisfied if they can just have East Jerusalem, at least for a while.

A smaller issue is a defense force for Palestine. To deny a nation a defense force is compromising its very security. As it stands Israel has one of the finest militaries, especially with the Air Force, in the world. Its doubtful Palestine could ever match Israel in a million years.

Israel and Palestine are like two children having temper tantrums. The war is very much like the American Revolution, both sides are playing tit for tat. You did this to us, so were going to do it to you, a very antiquated style of warfare. If someone stands up for Palestine the Israelis call them Nazi's, if someone stands up for Israel the Palestinians call them infidels. They have a George W. Bush mentality; youre either with us or against us, which makes it hard for any government or world body to help make a peace there.

My solutions to the mess, not like it matters but, I'll say them anyway. Israel should withdrawal its settlements from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Relocate them anywhere in Israel. Palestine proper should accept its own refugees, a UN aid package can help build permanent residence for the refugees in West Bank towns like Ramallah, and Jericho, as well as Hebron and Nabulus, and the city of Gaza in the Gaza strip.

Secondly: Jerusalem is to be a neutral city. Palestine nor Israel has jurisdiction of the city. Jerusalem will become a UN mandate, both Palestinians and Israeli's can live there, elect a local government, and become a city nation more than less, but under the control of the UN. Palestine can use the old capital of Judea, Hebron, as its capital; and Israel can use Tel Aviv.

Give Palestine a defense force. No Palestine doesn't need a million man army, neither does Israel. Since Israel has an established military, Palestine can and should be allowed one too. What if Egypt or Jordan invades? 30,000 soldiers in the West Bank and 10,000 in the Gaza Strip would be more than enough of a defense force. An Air Defense Force should be allowed as well. Two fighter squadrons, each made of 12 fighters, a squadron for the West Bank and a Squadron for the Gaza Strip. I dont think Israel has much to be worried about with Cargo Planes go. Palestine can buy a few C-130's and not be a threat to their neighbors. (Im not talking about an AC-130)

In this Israel forfeits all claims to Palestine, and Palestine forfeits all claims to Israel.

Will this solve the problems? Yes and no. Yes it will probably make alot of people content, and they'll go on with their everyday happy lives. No, there are radicals on both sides who seemingly live for war. This peace plan could work, but there will likely be bombings from both sides, and continued heated tensions. The only possible solution