This is the reason the Palestian-Israeli Conflict exists...

WW1, not WW2.

 

Hah !!

I was going to post the same thing....

DD

 

It's because of idiots like ahmadinejad and idiots in the likud party on the other side. both sides are extremists. for the mullah's an isrealie palestinian peace is the end of there islamic revolution ideals.. khomenie used to say, from Karbala we will march to ghods( jeruslam. ) until the mullahs in iran are in power,there will never be peace in the holly land.

 

And prior to the Roman Empire it was Scythian land so Scythian's should be able to claim it. This is the problem with historical claims because you can keep on finding interested parties. Anyway if you're drawing an argument that Instanbul should be returned to Christianity from Islam well officially its not Islamic since Turkey is a secular state.

 

"i was here first"


"no, i was here first"


"ive got yall all beat!"


"FREEDOM!!!"

 

Good point, therefore land that is in dispute should be dealt with the old fashioned way...by force. Therefore, we can stop griping about how the Israelis abuse Palenstinians.

 

OOhh I see, so if people have always had wars we should stop complaining about it and embrace war.

Some men use to, and still do, just grab women and take them away, can we still do that because there is a historical precedent for it.

What about the human sacrifice, plenty historical examples, we need to appease the gods I think.

 

well they obviously don't want to share. So just settle it schoolyard style.

well, going by this example then the ex boyfriends of the woman you're with has a legitimate claim on her as well. Of course women are slightly different since they can reject someone whereas a piece of land probably doesn't have the same ability.

The entire post and this one as well is sarcasm.

 

The Middle East is a crazy place.

 

The problem is that there are groups on both sides who don't want peace. The majority on both sides would like very much to be able to live peaceful lives, enjoy their families, work, earn livings, etc.

But there are groups on both sides who can sell themselves as the answer to problems as long as those problems exist. They will prey on the religiously zealous in an attempt to earn enough support, and maintain the problems.

Everyone else has allowed these groups to have all the power, and all the say about the peace process. Either side knows that anytime there is a peace process there several actions they can take and the whole process will be thrown off.

The finger pointing will continue, and bitterness, fear, propoganda, and animosity will increase. The groups that disrupt the process are the ones with all the power, but it is power that has been given them.

It is time to go after these people on both sides. Go after them while continuing with the peace process. Do not make the peace process contingent on no suicide bombings, or another illegal settlement, or protests that are brutally crushed.

Those things should all be halted and those responsible should be captured, killed, removed, etc.

But the preace process itself should not stop. The officials from each side still need to move forward towards a solution. Right now every time something bad happens the peace process is called off. I say take the power out of the hands of the zealots, and violence mongers. They should no longer be the ones to say "yes the peace process continues" or "no, the peace process ends now." In fact they should be the last people to have a say in the peace process.

 

The problem with that idea is it is based on an assumption of equal players. If this were a conventional war between evenly matched nations, your idea would make perfect sense. In that case, of course it would be better to move forward with the peace process despite continuing minor incidents of violence. The problem in this situation is that there is a vast disparity in both the capabilities and the goals of the parties involved. The Palestinians have everything to gain by moving forward with the peace process in the face of continuing violence. If they get land out of the deal while the get to continue sending suicide bombers against Israel, why wouldn't they do it? Isreal, on the other hand, is only getting a stop to the terrorist attacks out of the deal. There is a reason it is referred to as land for peace. If the terrorist attacks don't actually stop, they would be r****ded to make any concessions. Without the peace half of the equation, it would just be a big land givaway to someone who is a continuing enemy/threat. There is no free lunch.

 

But you neglect the portion where I advocate continuing to go after the groups that perpetrate the violence. It isn't as if anyone would be allowed to just keep blowing up other people without consequences. That wouldn't be wise, and it is contrary to what I am advocating. However, those that blow up people will no longer have the power to stop the whole peace process. Those actions would no longer work toward that end with what I propose.

Israel is continuing to build settlements. They get that out of the deal, plus the political parties that can promise things like security etc. to people get that out of the deal. Then there is economic gains that Israel gets out of the deal. With instructions to destroy and prevent Palestinian businesses that are able to compete with Israeli businesses they get those economics out of the deal.

Everyside gets stuff out of it which is why both sides have various parties respsonisble for keeping the violence going. It is time to stop letting those parties continue to have all of the power in the region.

 

I didn't ignore that at all. No one is "letting" them do it now, but they are doing it anyway. The stopping of terrorist attacks is the peace side of the land for peace deal. Without it, it is just a let's give away land to the enemy deal.

No they can't. Once there is a deal in place they will be less able to build settlements. Right now they can build settlements, claim that it is for security reasons, and get more land under Israeli control. Moving forward with the peace process gives them less land under Israeli control, the exact opposite of this.

If there is no stop to the violence, which was the given in this argument, then any promises of security are no more valid that they are now without moving the peace process forward, so this is also not something that Israel gets out of the deal.

Again, this is not an outcome of moving forward with peace, but rather a benefit to Israel to maintain the status quo.

As I have shown, every side does not get stuff out of moving forward without an end to the violence, only the Palestinians do. I don't really understand how anything you posted supports your position.

 

It doesn't work that way though. There is one entity that the Israelis negotiate with and they aren't Hamas or Islamic Jihad. The PLO is virtually no power anymore over terrorist groups and the government can't even afford to pay anyone, let alone government security forces. If the peace process keeps breaking down every time a terrorist attack occurs then you are legitimizing their actions. The stated goals of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is to shut down the peace process. It's way past the stage of holding the PLO accountable when there's no money and resources to even enforce the rule of law. Your argument would fly 15 years ago but today its meaningless.

This is a very oversimplistic statement. Israeli settlements have a lot of politics built into them. We talk about how the religious right hijacks politics in America but in Israel the religious right has unbelievable influence over government policy and the continued expansion of settlements has more to do with that than "security issues."

And on the flip side, there's no willingness on the part of the Palestinians to negotiate with Israel when they continue to hijack land like this. Settlements have continued to help **** things up, end of story. The Palestinians have screwed up plenty but Israeli settlements are one of the biggest hurdles. They're building worthless compounds so the Israeli religious right can live in virtually free housing.

Finally, your response is way too simplistic. Palestinian terrorism is officially out of control now. Fatah has lost all of its influence over Palestinian politics. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are now entirely funded from abroad and aren't subject to anything the Palestinian Authority dictates. You can't just say "stop terrorism" and we'll discuss anymore. Palestine is becoming more and more like Iraq. There's massive unemployment and no one knows who anyone is anymore. Fatah and Hamas are starting to fight more and more among one another to the detriment of any sort of stability. The Palestinian Authority can't even operate anymore. Furthermore, now that Hamas joined the government, the Israeli government cut off all funding and froze tariffs and export duties.

Literally, in order to get anything done, Israel would have to prop up Abbas and basically give democracy a heave ho. The present state of affairs mandates that Israel do something to negotiate and strengthen Abbas because at this rate he'll get voted out and Hamas will gain full control. It's in Israel's strategic interest to stop jerking around and wake up to the fact that Abbas is literally the last moderate element in the Palestinian leadership. Rabin understood this when he entered into a secret dialogue with the PLO even though it was contrary to Israel's official position.

Time is seriously running out before Palestine just falls apart.

 

Just want to point out that there is no economic benefit to either Palestinians or Israelis out of the current status quo. While Israeli businesses don't have to compete with Palestinians the Israeli businesses also are losing out on a market and available labor source from the Palestinians. At the same time the costs of maintaining security is a drag on Israeli productivity. Settlements are very expensive interms of building them getting infrastructure to them and providing security for them.

 

Land for Peace is one of the problems and not the solution. Peace is more likely with a neighbor that doesn't enforce apartheid on a people, that doesn't keep building illegal settlements on their land, keeps their agreements, allows economic prosperity among the inhabitants of a land rather than destroy it, etc.

That takes time. By doing that, Israel gains international support, a more just way of governing, and eventually a more stable and peaceful existence.

Israel can gain all of this by moving forward regardless of the attacks. Furthermore it takes power out of the hands of terrorists.

 

Just because an action would further the stated goals of the terrorists, that doesn't necessarily make it the wrong thing to do. Ask any American liberal (one of the stated goals of the terrorists in Iraq is to get the Americans out). The point is, without an end to the terrorism, there is no incentive to make a deal. If a bully is beating kids up for their lunch money, he has to stop when they give it to him, or they woun't give it to him next time.

I didn't say that the settlements were built for security issues, I said that as long as the conflict continues Israel can build settlements and throw out security issues as an excuse.

Now we are getting somewhere. Just as the Palestinians have no willingness to negotiate while Israel is building settlements, The Israelis have no willingness to negotiate while the Palestinians are attacking them. The problem for the Palestinians is that the Israelis benefit from the status quo, while the situation for the Palestinians is a downward spiral. That is why it would be in their best interest to stop the terrorism, but they are collectively idiots that support terrorism by a majority.

First, this is a message board; pretty much every response is going to be too simplistic. Unless the question is what is 2+2 or are boobs nice, it would take way to much time and effort for everyone to write posts that comprehensively cover topics being discussed, especially D&D topics. Second, your point seems to be about holding the PA responsible for stopping terrorism, while I am saying hold the Palestinian people responsible. Tell them publically that as long as there is terrorism coming out of their country, they aren't getting any deals for Israel. Then it is their choice to either keep on keeping on, or have a fundamental shift in their national character.

Forget the government of Palestine. It was **** under Fatah, and it is still **** under Hamas. Abbas couldn't even control the members of his own party, let alone the country as a whole. Dealing with the government as if whatever they say has any meaning is a waste of time. That would be like the Americans working out a peace settlement with the government of Iraq. We could do that today, but the facts on the ground would remain the same.

Agreed, but maybe that is inevitible, and not really such a bad thing. I have suggested before that Israel just annex everything inside their wall, deport the few people trapped on the wrong side (with fair compensation for their property), have Egypt claim Gaza and Jordan take the West Bank. Palestine is a failed policy sustained simply to distract the rest of the Arabs from all the crap going on in their own countries.

Land for Peace is the only motivating factor for Israel to change. They are already at peace with most of their neighbors. The only people they are having problems with are Palestinians, Iran, and perhaps Syria. Syria is a non-factor in their decision making as they are at most doing a tiny fraction of the same things as Iran. Iran has only shown a willingness to attack Israel by proxy, and has not shown an ability to hurt Israel too badly, nor any indication that making the changes you propose would change their stance. The Palestinians would certainly be happy to get tons of concessions from Israel, but they are likewise pretty powerless to hurt Israel badly. Israel would be worse off for every recommendation you make of them, and you want them to do them all with no return of their investment, only some hope that they will be more well regarded by the international community (guess what, they already have the favor of the biggest and best, they don't really need the rest). Your ideas are wonderful for the Palestinians, but not so much for the people you are asking to change.

 

Any benefit Israel gains from settlements is very suspect. As I noted it cost Israel a lot to build and maintain settlements. The fact that the Israeli government still supports building or expanding them is collective stupidity on their part.

The problem is that Israel has never let the PA develop enough to effectively govern. Israel's policy of collective punishment is akin to burning down the firehouse because they didn't stop fires fast enough.

Israel, Egypt and Jordan will never accept such a solution for a variety of reasons if the wall isn't built on the 1967 line. First off the Palestinians caught on the wrong side aren't going to leave quietly and since the wall includes East Jerusalem that would involve moving 100Ks of Palestinians. The image of Israeli soldiers herding Palestinians onto trains at bayonet point isn't going to be an image that most Israelis or the rest of the World is going to tolerate. Egypt wants no part of the Gaza nor Jordan the West Bank as both would prove very difficult to control and would likely destabilize both governments. The only workable solution that is acceptable to all but the radicals is a two state solution along the '67 borders.

 

Settlements are a de facto expansion of their borders. Israel can decide for themselves if the territory they gain is worth the cost. Since they continue building the settlements, it would appear that it is, in their estimation.

Not really, more like burning down the firehouse because the fire department didn't stop any fires at all, and were setting half of the fires themselves. The PA grew directly out of the PLO, and the PLO were terrorists attacking Israel.

The wall is already being built, and it isn't on the '67 line. In fact, there is no reason that it should be. The '67 borders are kind of an arbitrary point to go back to. There was a war, the Israelis won, and they gained territory as a result. Until people start to deal with the fact that some of the area outside the '67 borders is now part of Israel, there is not going to be any progress made. Egypt and Jordan have nothing to lose by accepting the current border anyway, as it doesn't cross into their territory. The only one's really concerned with the location of the wall are the Palestinians, who would not exist as a nation after the plan was implemented.

You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, and the only reasonable solution is to seperate these parties. Anyone that doesn't accept that is going to have to be forced to move.

Then they would be forced to state that to the rest of the world and the Palestinians would be left with their own country (hey, the two state solution everyone wants ) in Gaza and the reduced West Bank.

If that was an acceptable solution it would have happened a long time ago, unless by radicals you mean the majority of Palestinians and the majority or at least a sizable minority of Israelis.

 

The Palestinians have little to give up. I'm not suggesting Israel give up anything either other than what is just, in previous agreements, and in their best interest.

When people are freed from apartheid it is strange that you would expect those that were the victims of it to give up something. It is those that hold power and oppress that give up the most. It is only natural, fair, and the best way towards peace. It is also the best way to take power from the hands of terrorists.