The international community (the UN must be good for something ) establishes a nice big annual incentive fund; $6 billion per annum sounds good. For Israel to recieve it's share, it must systematically dismantle the settlements. Also, for each Palestinian killed, the pot is reduced by...what sounds good... 5 or 10 million $? Palestine is established. Their share of the pot is reduced by a similar amount when an Israeli is killed by suicide bomber or other violence. Finally, establish economic goals for each Country. If the Country does not attain their economic goals, the other one gets penalized financially. (I thought of giving the other country the funds that are forfeited, but that could encourage gaming or worse, put their goals at odds when they need motivation to work together) Any other ideas?
Bribery is never a good long term solution. Also, other countries should not have to foot this bill for all enternity for there to be peace there. Still, an interesting idea
Interestingly, I wrote something similar to this idea in a paper for school last week. I didn't include the penalties for economic goals though - I instead suggested forcing the economics to be linked much more aggressively in the hopes that it would serve as a way to get the people of both countries to trust and interact with each other more. I think I like your setup better, though. I definitely agree on the financial incentives. If you get get 5 or 6 years worth of peace at a cost of $30 billion or so, I think its worth it. After that, you could gradually reduce the fund as the parties learn to like peace instead of being bribed into it.
Orthodox Jews and Conservative Christians want to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. For this to happen, the third holiest site in Islam, the Al Aqsa Mosque, must be razed. How can this problem be solved? For some Jews and Christians, the Messiah won't come (or return) until the temple is rebuilt. If the Temple is rebuilt, a billion Muslims will go to war. My solution- ban organized religion. Short of that, expect the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to never end.
While nice in theory, you can look at the recent issues dealing with Turkey, the Kurds, and the Iraqis where we were dropping $30 billion on them and they were so concerned about secondary political issues that they didn't go for it, and were in fact offended by the implication that the US could throw money at them and they'd simply roll over. I think that any real solution, as was the case with Egypt & Israel, you are going to need two leaders like Sadat and Begin who are willing to stick out their necks (in Satat's case litteraly) to achieve a difficult goal, and a determined third party peacemaker like Jimmy Carter was to bring it together. In other words, the situation will only be solved by a configuration of leaders that are all determined to reach a solution, willing to give. Frankly, I can't see it happening with any of the three current leaders being involved. Finally, keep in mind that the US has given as much as $91 billion to Israel since the end of WWII, with only $3 billion of that prior to 1972.
In our war budget, there's going to be 8 billion in funds that are earmarked to Israel, and I'm not sure if that's included with the annual aid we give them. The bribery incentive might not work for them since Israel and Egypt have been bribed billions by America since the peace created in 1979. My idea of an answer is to send or threaten troops in the region and shove peace in their faces (and actually do it). Bush has already called for (tacked on) some Palestinian peace process to go in stages that will presumably happen after the Iraqi War. Without a legitimate Palestinian body, we've left the fate of the Palestinians to the Israeli electorate, and that electorate has been proven too moderate and slow-acting to produce an answer that will satisfy the Palestinians. All the while, the Palestinian people are condoning terrorism more and more, and the terrorism resulted in further entrenchment of the Israeli electorate. Plus the whole settlement issue has created more Israeli interest groups that affect the government's policies. As we threaten peace through action (sounds oxymoronic at a glance), we would give an oppportunity for the two sides to find a common agreement like the Oslo Accords. We could impose a deadline upon the Israelis to find a credible answer of their own, but whatever action they pass would be enforced by the UN. The UN would not draw up the peace process; they would only enforce it. The Palestinian Authority would have to be forced to impose some democratic process (similar to what Bush proposed) before negotiations would begin. Elections would have to be checked and enforced by UN peacekeepers and observers. The UN has been on for this region for a long time, so they should join in quickly. If we were to spearhead the international movement and put pressure on the Israelis, then they would be confined and have lost their strongest defender in the process. There would be a mixed measure of defiance, but if the message for lasting peace is constantly reminded and handled properly, then there should be a comfortable majority. The extremists will constantly remind the people that "the will of the people should come from within" and that the Americans are being imperialists again, but a successful American post-war policy on Iraq would come a long way to persuade the people that our intentions are for peace. An action like this will enrage the Israelis and even some officials in the Defense Department who feel like they're betraying a key ally. The Israelis feel a need for a larger buffer given their constant fears of annihilation. And maybe this will be a show of weakness to some of them because they were forced into it. Some Israelis would feel a sense of betrayal by the Americans. There would be a strong resistance to this because of the way it was brought upon and the original fears of bringing peace. Out of all those concerns, Israel has territory that does not belong to them, but could belong to the Paletinians with UN approval. We already give them billions in aid and defense, and reassurances towards continuing our partnership should be constantly reminded. There have already been Israeli proposals and concession in previous talks, but this new accord would be followed through by threat of force. There are other concerns such as terrorist groups that will modify and change their core beliefs into the sole destruction of Israel even after the creation of a Palestinian state. And the idea of a Palestinian state will only succeed with a peacekeeping and rebuilding force just like a country that has fallen through war. If there are enough peacekeepers, terrorism should be decreased significantly. If not, casualties from the peacekeepers should rally international opinion against the terrorist groups, and hopefully spread anti-terrorist sentiment among the Arab public. Talk of peace by the Europeans is cheap and their reactions for this are still undetermined, but given the right incentive and reminding them that peace in the region is as vital to their interest as it is to our should get them on board. Plus there are countries with their own agendas like the French that would attempt to influence their way instead of American leadership. But a right mixture of force and diplomatic coaxing should iron out the major problems. Despite 50 years of bloody war, we still have the means and influence to force the both of them to blink. The initial phases will be the most brutal since war was the status quo. So the presence of peacekeepers would have to last at least through 2 or 3 American Administrations. Whether we and our allies have the resolve to keep that promise is unknown. But the end goal is to rebuild a Palestinian society for them to have something to work for. In Northern Ireland, the IRA waned as the Irish increased in prosperity. Terrorism became less and less accepted when they had an economic incentive to strive for and also began to recognize their increased legitimate influence. There's no indication that the Palestinians would follow the same path, but they would be under the auspices of the UN's humanitarian wing and for the first time, they can focus on their land instead of the Israelis.
I like it as long as there is some proviso that other countries won't make up the difference in lost funds. In other words the U.S. can't raise the amount it gives to make up for money lost in penalties. If all the nations were tied to this kind of deal, I think it would be a great idea to try.
I'm all for it. Religion, besides being the "opiate of the masses" causes people to hate and kill, all in the name of "God". I've seen my own father grow more atheist in his beliefs as he's gotten older for this very reason, and I am currently struggling with my own beliefs. Maybe one day this will happen. Good one, johnheath.
This assumes that Orthodox Jews and Conservative Christians either 1. have complete power re. Israel/Palestine or 2. are willing to go to war if negotiations don't go their way. Also, I think many Israelis and Palestinians would accept a satisfactory settlement. I don't believe that the Mosque/Temple issue is the main cause of the underlying tensions, I believe that it's land. I do expect some Orthodox and maybe Conservative Jews to take up arms if Israel abandons the settlements. They consider the land 'gifted' by God. If the land was gifted, I could just as readily believe tha God is sending a clear message to share . As for the Mosque, it stays. If the temple must be rebuilt, I imagine an earthquake or lightning will be required to level the Mosque, and it would still be an 'issue' after that. I don't feel comfortable discussing the wild speculation of the destruction of someone's religious icon.
I agree about the 3 strong leaders and have mentioned that many times also, but we don't have that now or for the foreseeable future. So we must take some 'action'. We get crticized for doing nothing except financially supporting one side to a large degree and the other side to a small degree. The Turkey money was for the gov. to take action against the will of over 90% of the population. With the parties here, most of the populations want peace and without the prerequisite leaders and short of external force, economic incentives is about the only decent option. There are many instances where economic incentives have succeeded, particularly when the underlying goal is morally defensible. If it does not provide a full-soltuion, maybe it can save some lives , dminish the economic pressures on the peoples, grow trust, maybe paving the way for peace. (And I'm not certain what you mean by mentioning the Israeli support, but I don't believe any of that was tied to any type of 'performance' at the peace table)
Originally posted by Invisible Fan In our war budget, there's going to be 8 billion in funds that are earmarked to Israel, and I'm not sure if that's included with the annual aid we give them. The bribery incentive might not work for them since Israel and Egypt have been bribed billions by America since the peace created in 1979.[/i] I would not categorize all of that as bribes. I think many in Congress understand how economic stability can help stabilize a country (Egypt). Re. Israel, I don't see how much of any of that was bribes. The only thing that comes to mind is technology and China, but we wouldn't be paying money like that to them for that reason. I think the US Congress is committed to Israel; it's not bribery. My idea of an answer is to send or threaten troops in the region and shove peace in their faces (and actually do it). Bush has already called for (tacked on) some Palestinian peace process to go in stages that will presumably happen after the Iraqi War. I mentioned in a thread that we should take this opportunity to get Isarel to stop the settlements. I sent the White House an e-mail (WTH, I added a tick-mark on a stat sheet somewhere). I guess they had already figured it out, since they had a press release a couple of days later re. the settlments. Force will not work, just like it has not worked yet. I would liken force more to the bribery we attempted with Turkey more than an attempt to fuse these peoples' economies. Without the 3 strong leaders req'd for peace, we must find a way to put these people in the same 'boat'. To show each that their hope for the future rests in how well they can work with the other (that's the truth anyway). The economic incentive plan provides a tool for bulding a working rapport and trust between the parties. Without a legitimate Palestinian body, we've left the fate of the Palestinians to the Israeli electorate, and that electorate has been proven too moderate and slow-acting to produce an answer that will satisfy the Palestinians. All the while, the Palestinian people are condoning terrorism more and more, and the terrorism resulted in further entrenchment of the Israeli electorate. Plus the whole settlement issue has created more Israeli interest groups that affect the government's policies. As we threaten peace through action (sounds oxymoronic at a glance), we would give an oppportunity for the two sides to find a common agreement like the Oslo Accords. We could impose a deadline upon the Israelis to find a credible answer of their own, but whatever action they pass would be enforced by the UN. The UN would not draw up the peace process; they would only enforce it. The Palestinian Authority would have to be forced to impose some democratic process (similar to what Bush proposed) before negotiations would begin. Elections would have to be checked and enforced by UN peacekeepers and observers. The UN has been on for this region for a long time, so they should join in quickly. If we were to spearhead the international movement and put pressure on the Israelis, then they would be confined and have lost their strongest defender in the process. There would be a mixed measure of defiance, but if the message for lasting peace is constantly reminded and handled properly, then there should be a comfortable majority. The extremists will constantly remind the people that "the will of the people should come from within" and that the Americans are being imperialists again, but a successful American post-war policy on Iraq would come a long way to persuade the people that our intentions are for peace. ... Without the 3 strong leader solution espoused by Ottomaton, I would like to see a process that builds trust between the parties. A process that also ostracizes the radicals on each side (from that same side's moderates, that is). I don't see force as viable. Force cannot stop the terrorists, but will be effective at stopping responses to them. Ultimately, terrorists will get their hands on WMD. They must understand that they are giving up a prosperous life for their families and community to go the path of violence. Right now, they believe that they give up nothing. I understand how some Israelis may feel even under my Financial Incentive Plan approach, but the parties involved in this struggle will never totally accept any solution w/o concerns and fear. That is why it is so difficult to find a viable solution, and why the strong leaders would be helpful. The goal of this is to provide peace and prosperity for both parties. Indidividual fears must be dealth with. Talk of peace by the Europeans is cheap and their reactions for this are still undetermined, but given the right incentive and reminding them that peace in the region is as vital to their interest as it is to our should get them on board. Plus there are countries with their own agendas like the French that would attempt to influence their way instead of American leadership. But a right mixture of force and diplomatic coaxing should iron out the major problems. I think the Europeans are starved for American action on this issue. France...is not a nec. party in this and can be ignored. ...But the end goal is to rebuild a Palestinian society for them to have something to work for. In Northern Ireland, the IRA waned as the Irish increased in prosperity. Terrorism became less and less accepted when they had an economic incentive to strive for and also began to recognize their increased legitimate influence. ... Hence, my Financial Incentive Plan! Thank you!
That's sad. One should draw a distinction between what man does with religion vs. God's wishes. IMHO.
Good point. The solution can phase-in punitive actions such as embargos against the failing party, and/or against thrid parties who do not abide by the 'solution'.
As long as the Palestanians don't have an open society, how do you know that Arafat or someone else isn't putting all the money in their Swiss accounts? And how can you gauge economic growth without free media and independent academics? The Isrealis are too brutalized and the Palestinians are plain nuts. There won't be a solution in the next two decades. However, if the rest of the ME can move on to modernize their soicety after the Iraq war, things might change.
Not really bribery (Something serving to influence or persuade) The goal is not to influence or persuade, but to create a vehicle for peace. Not to change minds directly with $$$, but create an environment where that change may blossom. In this instance, we are: 1) Motivating the peoples to work together; 2) Giving the peoples something big to lose; 3) Setup a scenario to ostracize radicals from their own people (ultimately, the only way to control them). A similar (but unrealistic) approach would be to threaten both people with mutual, immediate destruction. A third party (not of this earth, obviously) threatens to attack and destroy both Israel and Palestine. It is not bribery, but shared goals. You would see these peoples suddenly recall their shared heritage and wonder why the land issues were such a big deal.
Of course, I am joking. Religion can't be banned, but the solution for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will never be found until we realize that the Palestinians don't want peace. The majority of them want to push the Jews into the sea. Also Cohen, I do believe that the Dome of the Rock issue is much bigger than anybody wants to believe. I am a huge fan of W., but I fear that some Conservative Christians now have his ear, and the return of some Messiah will change our entire foreign policy. In my opinion, organized religion is the biggest threat to civilization.
Originally posted by Major Interestingly, I wrote something similar to this idea in a paper for school last week. I didn't include the penalties for economic goals though - I instead suggested forcing the economics to be linked much more aggressively in the hopes that it would serve as a way to get the people of both countries to trust and interact with each other more. ... Exactly. Giving the Palestinians something to lose will put pressure on the terrorist factions. It doesn't address all of the issues, but I think it would seriously improve the dynamics and pave the way to resolve remaining issues.
Originally posted by johnheath Of course, I am joking. Religion can't be banned, but the solution for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will never be found until we realize that the Palestinians don't want peace. The majority of them want to push the Jews into the sea. I disgaree. I think that opinion worsened over time as the Palestinians situation worsened. I think most will change their minds if their prosperity is tied to the prosperity of Israel. Also Cohen, I do believe that the Dome of the Rock issue is much bigger than anybody wants to believe. I am a huge fan of W., but I fear that some Conservative Christians now have his ear, and the return of some Messiah will change our entire foreign policy. I hope not. Regardless, it may not be an issue in 2 more years, 6 on the outside. In my opinion, organized religion is the biggest threat to civilization. That is probably accurrate, unfortunately.
