actually, the stakes are much higher today...so it's worse then square 1. How ironic is it - 40 years ago Israel was rejoicing and thinking of the possibilities, the dream of a greater Israel. Today, they must realize what a disaster it turned out to be. The greatest irony though is this: What they wanted in 1966 is more acheivable then ever before - if they were only to fully let go of what they "gained" in 1967.
It's a sad situation. Since neither sides can reach a compromise on the right of return issue, the conflict will just continue to escalate.
do you think appeasement would work? if israel gives back the land they took in the '50s, '60s, and '70s do you think the palestinians would agree to acknowledging israel as a nation? the suicide bombs will probably never stop due to the extremists, but would tensions ease if the land was given back, and the troops withdrew?
Creating Isreal without the consent of the people who were already living there was another really stupid move by the western power.
I think both of what you say is correct. I think there will always be extremists who will want to continue to attack Israel no matter what happens. I think the majority will see it as a major step in the right direction, and I think that a govt. supported by the majority will recognize Israel's right to exist, and hopefully that can lead to better relations. What really keeps the people of the two nations apart is ignorance and segregation. Of course that is necessary to help stop the violence. But without people really getting to see and experience each other, they will instead believe the propaganda put out by both sides. Each side will believe the worst dehumanizing spin, and twisted presentation of events about the other with little real interraction between the two to see that both sides are humans who want peace, security and a chance of prosperity for themselves and their families. So I believe the '67 borders will start by bringing more peace(but not total peace) which may eventually lessen restrictions separating the two peoples. That in turn will make the biggest change. I also believe that both sides shouldn't let the bombers and extremists control the policy. Collective punishment is a horrible and unsuccessful way to bring about peace.
No, I never said appeasement. I love how people throw these words around. Like appeasing hitler - it's actually not trying to understand what I write, but attack it in a subtle way. I think if you made a trade - a smart one. Israel wants peace, Muslims want land back. Ok - here's how you do it. Israel agrees through the U.N. to a full hand-over of occupied territory in 2037 to the Palestinians, in exchange for the Palestinians dropping the right of return and enforcing a lasting peace. This gives Israel 30 years to dismantle all settlements and relocate it's populations, or give them the choice to stay and become citizens of Palestines - "Palestinian Jews" so to speak. But as of 2037, they would be under the law of the Palestinian government. With 30 years of no violence as a condition to the hand-over, Palestinians would have an incentive not to launch suicide attacks. In fact, they will be able to claim victory. And after 30 years passes, a generation of Palestinians will grow up knowing peace. Knowing prosperity. And feel validated in their cause. Hamas will have no interest in stock piling weapons or training suicide bombers. The means of terrorism will die out and wounds will heal. Both sides get what they want. Neither side has given into appeasement. Peace is possible and attainable. It's right there. It's easier then people think. And the reality is - Israel has more ability to create the peace then anyone realizes.
The situation strikes me as a perfect application of The Prisoner's Dilemma. In order for peace to be benificial, both sides have to 'not defect' and commit to peace. The effect of commiting to peace when the other side doesn't is worse than 'defecting' to violence. Neither side trusts the other enough to believe that they 'won't defect'. Unfortunately, its pretty well accepted that the most benificial strategy in The Prisoner's Dilemma is to always 'defect'. As much as it seems like a peaceful situation is reasonably within reach of what is possible, I genuinely don't believe that it will happen without major changes to the equation. Unfortunately, I have no idea what those changes would legitimately be.
Why is it so hard for neighbors to live peacefully together? Innate prejudice of human? I think so. As long as there is prejudice, this situation has no solution. And there cant be a country in the region benifting at the expese of other countries. Nor could there be huge economic gap among countries in the region.
I don't see why this would apply to Israel. I don't see any benefit for Israel to continue in a state of war. But for the Palestinians, the difference is that a) many of their leadership believe elimination of Israel is the only solution and b) if they get rid of Israel they will actually have to address the poverty and violence in their own societies.
The issue is that the outcome for you is dependant on what the other side chooses. If Israel chooses peace and Palestine chooses war, Israel is in a worse position than if they both decided for war. A solution to the prisoner's dilemma for 'cooperation' (in this instance cooperation towards peace) requires being able to trust the other side. As neither side can trust the other side to operate for the greater good, it never makes sense to choose peace.
This is not an islamic issue although recently some groups have been trying to make it an islamic issue. The palestinians want nationhood and this should be seen as a nationalist struggle. There are many Palestinian christians who are politically active especially in Fatah.
But history has shown there are ways out of these complex situations. The British handing over of Hong Kong for instance insured a peaceful transition and created trust and better relations. There's no reason why a solution that keeps the incentives for neither side to defect can not be constructed. I outlined one case for you - I am sure there are even other ways.
I've seen it mentioned that the Israelis, flush with victory, thought it was a God given message to press on the war until the Arab states conceded Jerusalem. Those radical settlers on the West Bank also use religion to justify their occupation. Also, most of the right wing generally believe they need a buffer because they're hardened enough to think that peace is only a temporary solution.
Again, "Muslims" are not a country. Muslims = followers of Islam, which is a religious faith. Israel = nation-state, secular entity. The Caliphate has ceased to exist. Israel can not be compared to "Muslims", it's Arabs you're looking for, which includes Christians and Muslims whose forefathers inhabited those lands, many of whom still consider it 'home'. Semantics, I know, but a pretty important distinction given the discussion...
You're right, but we've already seen the entire Arab League not once but twice commit to peace with Israel if certain conditions were met. I think the will is there, but clearly the 'trust' isn't. Besides, I am not sure Israel is crazy about the idea of giving up its 'spoils of war' in exchange for peace and fully normalized relations with its neighboring Arab states. May be they did think it over and decided it wasn't worth doing? Peace isn't always a 'workable' solution...
