Let's end this one and for all ! The Last ME Thread. Permanent solutions only please!

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
And why is this society so backwards?

Firstly, it's not backward. Palestinian society is more sophisticated than that of most Arab countries. They have higher literacy rates, somewhat more civilized political discourse, and the Islamists are a tad less powerful. And it's largely because of Israel.

Could it be because of a 34 years long military occupation, in which normal politcal processes were crushed, in which politcal dissent was rooted out

Palestinians had more press freedom than most Arabs. Normal political proccesses continued with local elections, of the sort many Arab countries didn't have at the time.

in which few basic services were provided

Not true. Palestinian infant mortality went down under Israeli rule.

an occupation that allowed the camps, with population denstities twice that of manhattan islands, to remain in perpetuatiy because Israel forces these people to remain refugees from their own original homes, could it be a system that bases water usage not on the needs of inhabitants, but on the politiccal goals of Zionism?

Yes, it's the claustrophobia and the price of water which cause suicide bombings.

Who undermines the local economy by setting up a mercantalist system of trade that benefits irael only, to the detriment of Palestinian commerce?

What?

Who, with its closing policies, have driven unemployment among Palestinians above 20%? Who made sure that their only economic opportunities at home were working all the low wage jobs israeli Jews didn't wantt to partake in?

Um, what? First you claim that the closing policies make the Palestinians unemployed (The closures came because of terrorism) then you claim that Israel "forces" them to work in Israel - well which is it, is Israel impovershing them by making them work in Israel or by preventing them from doing so? And how has Israel forced them to work in Israel?

Which side has political parties in their legislature calling for ethinic cleansing?

The Palestinians. It's called Fatah.

Who allowed the groth of Islamic fundamentalim in the territories as a way to undermine the communist or liberal opposition? It was Israel. Likud allowed Islamic Jihad and Hamas to grow as fast as they did, just ebcause, much like Osma used to be, they were the enemies of the great enemy, the PLO and all its parts.

It was an inevitable outcome. Islamist groups have grown faster than secular ones in every Arab country.

Until Jews figure out that the hostility they recieve is based on thier chosen path of action, and that until that chosen path of actions changes, they should not even expect respect and peace, then true peace is not possible.

I'm hoping that the confusion between Jews and Israelis was an honest mistake on your part.

[CyberGnu]

Hey, Dalgetti, nice to be wanted

As far as I've understood it, the three major stumbling blocks are the Settlements, the Right of Return and Jerusalem.

Settlements: I'm under the impression that Israel will not agree to a dismantling of every single settlement, claiming that some of them are adjacent to Israeli territory ahyway, right?

Well, I think this is a morally corrupt claim that no Palestinian would accept...

the only way I can see to deal with this is basically market economy. If Israel really wants a particular area, make an offer. Most likely land somewhere else.

One of the problems with the Camp Dvid accords was that while Israel offered land equivalent in size to 95% of the 1967 borders, it was not quivalent in quality. Quite frankly, would you trade your lakeview property for a piece of land in the desert?

And who is capable of deciding what land is worth how much? no matter who makes that judgement, both sides will claim he/she is partial to the other side...

So let market economy rule.

Furthermore, let it be binding, with the U.S. pledging to enforce the deal. No nonsense about security concerns, or 'other deals weren't carried out like we'd want to'. From either side.

I think the jerusalem question is related to the settlements, right? Most of the settlements included in the landswap deal presented at Camp David were bordering on jerusalem, I think. I might be wrong here, so if anyone knows, please speak up. With the Camp David deal, most of jerusalem would have been de facto Israeli. This is another thing the Palestinians won't accept. Again, with market economy, no one is forced to sell. If Israel so badly want the whole of Jerusalem, they have to come up with an offer worth it... I'm not sure there can be such an offer, as there are religious issues involved...

A possible solution would be to divide jerusalem into three parts: One israeli, one Palestinian and one "Religious", sort of like the vatican. Hey, you could even have the Vatican administer it for the first few years. Not only would the religious part be free to all visitors, it would also be a buffer zone between the Israeli and Palestinian cities.

Finally the Right of Return. The real problem here is that no one wants these refugees. Israel doesn't want them because they would make muslims a majority in Israel. Palestine doesn't want them because they are very radical, even by palestinian standards. (And perhaps most importantly from the practical standpoint, Arafat doesn't want them cause they would threaten his power). The other arab states doesn't want them because they are refugees and palestinians (a little bit of racism there).

But they can't stay in the camps, so much is sure.

A possible solution would be for Israel to pledge to take responsibility for half of the refugess, while the U.S. and E.U. take responsibility for the other half. (In response to an earlier post, I do think E.U. and U.S. does have some responsibility... In order to feel better after WW2 the OK'd the creation of Israel, at the expense of the arabs. As such they do have a responsibility).

For the EU/US part, let economy rule. Make it an auction. Ask say, Syria, how much money would you require to take one refugee, and how many could you take? This would most likely be a sliding scale, with the price inreasing exponentially. Work out where it would be cheapest to send them. The possibility of price gouging is (hopefully) negated by market economy... If the asking price is too high, the EU/US might consider it cheaper to just accept the rfugess themselves.

For Israels part, they could of course do the same. Not having the monetrary resources of the EU/US, this is most likely not possible. Instead, slice off some Israeli land for the refugees to live on. My (incredibly rough) guess is that after this, the area of Israel would be close to the 1948 borders...

Of course, the allotment must be fair. the easiest way to deal with this would be population density. Let's call this new land RC, Refugee Country. Divide the number is Israelis with the area of Israel. Divide the area of RC with the number of refugees intended to live there. Make sure the ratios are the same.

There could be a combination of the two, of course. Pay for some of the refugees, and allot land to the rest. And as GePap suggested, if there are jewish claims for property lost, let that be counted to against the refugee payments.

I think that is the only fair way to deal with the refugees. I can't help it, but to me it feels like arguiing against it could only be spurred by greed... Possibly veiled in arguments like 'it isn't our fault, and thus not our problem.' Well, we will just have to acept that it IS a problem, and it will have to be dealt with.



Are there any other major issues involved?

Recognizing each others right to exist, for sure. (As GePap pointed out, this was done 15 years ago).

The water issue... again, market economy. If Israel wants access to water on palestinian land, make an offer.

Education. Lots of it. And textbooks approved by impartial observers, for both sides. As long as palestinian text books calls for jihad, and Israeli textbooks claims that palestinians aren't a people, the two sides will never get along.

I think it is naive to expect either side just to stop with the propaganda during an ongoing conflict. And it is just as naive to point towards the propaganda and claim 'see what they are asying about us? They are clearly bloodthirsty maniacs'. It's war. This is what happens in war. End the war, and the propaganda will end. Not the other way around...

And to this effect, maybe some sort of impartial control of the media. Not to see what is allowed to be printed, but to enforce corrections, with the rule that a correction must be displayed at the same page, with the same size as the original story.

So, if JP reports on it's frontpage that 'a palestinian terrorist was shot while trying to infilitrate border', and it turns out to be a regular palestinian our picking berries, this correction must be printed on the front page, leaving space blank if necessary to keep the size of the story intact. Likewise if a palestinan media reports palestinians killed by israeli troops, and it turns out to be car accidents...

This is not censorship... It is merely a requirement that a story has to be verified to be allowed to stand. (and on a personal note, I think ALL media in the world would benefit from this rule... )

Democratic elections... Palestinian airspace.

Propbly more issues, but nothing springs to mind...

Oh, and in the short term... Enough with the nonsense about not negotiating under fire. No Israeli incusrions during negotiations, EVEN WITH CAUSE. I don't care if Arafat himself assassinated Sharon on television. Israel does not have the right to assiante Arafat back. It can, of course, put the extradition of criminals as part of a negotiating deal. But as it is, we need to remove all possibilites for Sharon to disrupt the negotiations as he already did with the Saudi peace plan...

[Ramo]

Gotta go to class.

Eradicate all human life.

That's a fairly effective "final solution."

[Az]

CyberGnu: What ?! so let's say that the palestinians attack me . I have no right to strike back? who are you kidding ? that can and will be considered a declaration of war if such a thing happens.

The lakeside is a clear exageration, of course. we are talking rugged hills in one place to be replaced by rugged plains in another area. but hey , it is an ME thread so what the hell...

your plan is very nice and generous , of course , but I think I will decline .

. With the Camp David deal, most of jerusalem would have been de facto Israeli.

Jerusalem is defacto israeli anyway , considering population .

regarding the refugees:
I could might as well shove them in the negev, let them dry there. if we're speaking about quality territory (non-desert), we both know that the Israelis got the short end of the stick.

So let market economy rule.

*cough* no.

[CyberGnu]

Dalgetti, during the negotiations.

Look, it's not an ideological question.

One of the problems right now is that Sharon does not want peace. Do you really think that the worst Israeli attacks occured just days after the Saudi peace plan was presented?

The attacks are Sharons tool to prolong the war. In case the negotiations seemed to get somewhere, he would conventiantly invent 'an undisclosed informant', who claims they are building rockets in a camp, and then send in the tanks. the palestinians get pissed, they start bombing more, and the whole situation is back where we started. This scenario was described last autumn already in an editorial in the NYT, and it is pretty much exactly what occured in the last week...

But if you take away this tool, and there is a chance. By not allowing Israel to attack even with good cause, you eliminate the possibility for Sharon to invent reasons to attack to.


In the event of a deal, with a palestinian state in existance, let it be handled by impartial observers, backed up by the U.S.. This goes both ways, of course...


Was I right about the settlements in the landswap being part of jerusalem or not? You didn't mention that part. I think I am right though, while the land offered in the CD deal was all Negev desert.

We've also been through who got what land in the 1948 partition before. I don't agree with your assessment. But I was under the impression that we weren't going to argue whose fault what is, but instead look for a practical solution, yes?

so do you have a better suggestion to deal with the refugees? As I said, it is a problem, and must be dealt with in order to have a deal.

And as I also said, Arafat is not going to invite the refugees into palestine, while the palestinian people won't accept a solution not including a solution to the refugee problem.

If Jerusalem is Israeli, why is there a part called 'Arab East Jerusalem'? And why does Arafat want to have his capital there?

OK, you don't like the market approach. Care to tell me what is wrong with it? Care to devise a more fair system?

And remember, a compromise is a solution where both parties feel cheated... A 'business deal' is a solution where both parties feel they got the better part... Which one would you rather have?

[DinoDoc]

My minor contribution

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Was I right about the settlements in the landswap being part of jerusalem or not?

This is old PM from Natan should answer your questions:

At camp david, the following was offered:

92% of the west bank, all of Gaza, with an additional three percent or so of the west bank to be given over after ten years and areas of Israel equivalent to about three percent of the west bank to be ceded to the PA in the Halutza dunes region neighboring Gaza.
Palestinian control of the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem and the Muslim and Christian quarters of the old city.
"Divine" or "shared" soveriegnty of the temple mount/Haram Ash-Sharif.
Also, return of refugees to the west bank and/or Gaza.

[Sandman]

Raze Jerusalem

After evacuating the population obviously.

This city has been an unending source of conflict for thousands of years. Destroy it before it destroys another life.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Raze Jerusalem

Originally posted by Sandman
After evacuating the population obviously

Why?

These people have monopolised our TV coverage for long enough! If you leave them alive they'll still be doing interviews on how horrible it was to lose their home 25 years from now. If they're all dead then there's no story.

[Seeker]

Actually, think of how much simpler the situation would be if some uninvolved third party detonated a hydrogen bomb on the Temple Mount...

God didn't save it, so they'd all have start over from scratch...

[axi]

There is an old saying in Greece, used when one wants to end a discussion that is boring and leads nowhere: "We're not going to solve the Middle-East problem here!"

So this issue, however it ends, it will be remembered in eternity, through language.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Eli
What needs to be done to end this intifada is decision by Israel that it's time to stop "signaling the Palestinians to stop the violence", and to stop bombing empty buildings and roadblocks.
The goal of the campaign should be the killing of all weapon carrying personell in the territories, the destruction of the Palestinian authority and the blocking of all possible ways to bring more weapons. Even if it means razing half of Rafah in the south of the Gaza strip, to uncover the tunnels.

The current situation, when Jews are being killed every day and we do nothing to stop it, except preventing a teract here and there and making holes in buildings cannot continue. A decision mut be made. We need to decide whether we surrender, declare on the death of the Zionism and learn to swim preparing for the final Jihad, or whether we go on a real military solution, not the pathetic excuse we see now. We cannot stay in the middle, hoping to return to the negotiations table.

Wow, a very radical standpoint. Hm incl. killing of the Palestinian authority -> results in total anarchy in palastina
Killing all armed personell (u maybe can imagine some of them have weapons for selfdefence? armed personell includes also police man) results in all Palastins getting absolut radical against Israel.
Your next demand would than be killing all the rest (there is always a way to get your hands on weapons)?

Hm such a Israel politic would hopefully result in cutting of all support from Europe and US for Israel, Isolating such an agressiv country (maybe even forming a international alliance against them).

By the way your speech is easily comparable to racist speeches (as it would be needed to say )

Originally posted by Eli
We must understand that we will never get the support of Europe that is being flooded by Arab immigrants.

Well as I live in Holland, I live in one of the Countries that is "flooded" by Moslems, and ppl. of a lot of country origins, races, etc.
At the same time the Netherlands:
- are The freest country in the world.
- have nearly to none restrictive laws u could think of.
- have the lowest violence crimes rate in Europe not to speak of the US or Countrys in other parts of the world.
- have the highest rate on Tolerance I have seen in any Country.

Now explain why u consider a high rate of arab immigrants is bad?

Maybe a visit in some free countrys would help to open up your mind and your view of the world a bit...


Tom

[CyberGnu]

Dino, it answers some of the questions, but not all.

I confirms what I said about the palestinians getting desert in the trade.

But it doesn't mention where the 8% that is missing belongs.

The sentence 'arab parts of east jerusalem' is misleading, as it has been documented on numerous occaisons that Israel has confiscated arab land, particularly around jerusalem. (Confiscated meaning the multistep process of clearing land outside israeli settlements for 'security reasons', followed by a Israeli court declaring the buffer zone 'uninhabitated', folloed by expansion of the settlement, and repeat.). Amnesty, the red cross, the UN, even that Israeli human rights organization have documented this practice.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Tom201
Wow, a very radical standpoint. Hm incl. killing of the Palestinian authority -> results in total anarchy in palastina

There is anarchy in the Pal territories even today. Sometimes after speeches by Arafat people willingly decide to listen to him. But there are no other ways for the PA to control the people, mainly thanks to Israeli closures and blockades.

Killing all armed personell (u maybe can imagine some of them have weapons for selfdefence?

You are right.
Before we pass every street in search for weapons and men with weapons they will be given 10 minutes to get out and put their weapons on the road or whatever. Those who wont do it, will probably resist and get killed.

armed personell includes also police man)

Large parts of the Pal police is already involved in fighting with Israel, and their numbers grow by the day.
Besides, we gave them their weapons. Now we want them back.

results in all Palastins getting absolut radical against Israel.

And what? They will send 17 year old children to blow up in buses and discotecs? They will fire mortars and missiles on Israeli settlements? They will send gunmen to the Israeli cities to kill everyone in sight?

Your next demand would than be killing all the rest (there is always a way to get your hands on weapons)?

The only thing that prevents Israel from truly effective dealing with the arms smuggling problem is that in some spots the actions that need to be done will cause huge protests against Israel. During the war, it will not be important anymore.

As for "killing all the rest", that's an unsupported accusation.

Hm such a Israel politic would hopefully result in cutting of all support from Europe and US for Israel, Isolating such an agressiv country .

As long as there are chances for me to blow up in a bus, or to get killed by some gunman who wanted his 72 virgins while sitting in a restaurant I dont give a **** about their support.

(maybe even forming a international alliance against them)

Military alliance? And the goals will be what?

By the way your speech is easily comparable to racist speeches (as it would be needed to say )

I guess you're talking about the society part. Yes, you are right. It does looks racist. But there is a small problem, it's also correct.
Or are you claiming that the Pal society is an democratic technologically and morally advanced one, with the rule of law, freedom of speech, high life quality, no incitement of TVs, no suppression of true opposition.

Now explain why u consider a high rate of arab immigrants is bad?

Maybe a visit in some free countrys would help to open up your mind and your view of the world a bit...

1) See my reply to BFB in my previous post.
2) I live in a democratic free country. You dont need to tell me about it.

CyberGnu :

I confirms what I said about the palestinians getting desert in the trade.

If they had cared about their population, they would've jumped on the deal immediately. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densest areas in the world, and one of the poorest ones. Adding territory to it and using it properly will make life much easier for the 1 million Palestinians who live there.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Eli
And what? They will send 17 year old children to blow up in buses and discotecs? They will fire mortars and missiles on Israeli settlements? They will send gunmen to the Israeli cities to kill everyone in sight?

Well u maybe can imagine that the arab countrys surrounding Israel will be very upset about your politic. Turning ppl. that dislike Israel in ones that hate Israel. Ppl. that hate Israel turning into terrorists. I believe u would get a lot of atacks from the neighbouring countrys.
So what u wanna do? Atack every other country until u occupied all arab countrys?

Originally posted by Eli
As long as there are chances for me to blow up in a bus, or to get killed by some gunman who wanted his 72 virgins while sitting in a restaurant I dont give a **** about their support.

Would u say that chance decreased since hardliner Sharon is there? Or was it saver for u bevor the massiv atacks from Isreali Military?

Originally posted by Eli
Military alliance? And the goals will be what?

That one should be at the point when Israel freaks out. Sending troops to prevent Israel from crossing the border.

Originally posted by Eli
I guess you're talking about the society part. Yes, you are right. It does looks racist. But there is a small problem, it's also correct.
Or are you claiming that the Pal society is an democratic technologically and morally advanced one, with the rule of law, freedom of speech, high life quality, no incitement of TVs, no suppression of true opposition.

I dont claim that they are democrats but I doubt u can change that by show agression like Israel does.
Much of your points could be easy transferd to China. Do u also hate chinese ppl. (I dont mean criticise their regime, I mean do u hate them like u hate the Palestins)?

Originally posted by Eli
2) I live in a democratic free country. You dont need to tell me about it.

A free country has equal rights for everyone. Israel has rights for Jewish ppl. only. atm Israel is more some kind of a police state than a free country (I know all the military is there for some reason, but u maybe can imagine that in a free country it is not needed to have militar ppl. on every edge on the street).

[Eli]

Originally posted by Tom201
Well u maybe can imagine that the arab countrys surrounding Israel will be very upset about your politic. Turning ppl. that dislike Israel in ones that hate Israel. Ppl. that hate Israel turning into terrorists. I believe u would get a lot of atacks from the neighbouring countrys.
So what u wanna do? Atack every other country until u occupied all arab countrys?

I dont think that there will be anything more than couple of isolated attacks by single extremists.

Would u say that chance decreased since hardliner Sharon is there? Or was it saver for u bevor the massiv atacks from Isreali Military?

There were no massive attacks. Bombing empty buildings and pointless incursions do not count.
Sharon stayed in the middle just like Barak before him.
So Israeli retaliations became stronger, but he didnt offer a solution. At least Barak said he has a goal, and a way to end the violence. Sharon just retaliates in a stronger way to calm down the Israeli public.

But yes, my chances to die had increased under Sharon from two reasons :
1) The intifada "advanced" to a more lethal conflict.
2) The Israeli responses weren't preventive or offensive ones, but only a pressure tool. "we will bomb the police station in Rammalah to signal the PLO that it must prevent teracts"

That one should be at the point when Israel freaks out. Sending troops to prevent Israel from crossing the border.

I can reccomend you some good body bag manufacturers.

I dont claim that they are democrats but I doubt u can change that by show agression like Israel does.

I never said we should/will change it. The goal is to disarm them.

Much of your points could be easy transferd to China. Do u also hate chinese ppl. (I dont mean criticise their regime, I mean do u hate them like u hate the Palestins)?

When did I say I hate Palestinians as a nation?

My point when talking about their society was that there can be no true peace with them in the next 10-25 years. Not that I hate them.

A free country has equal rights for everyone. Israel has rights for Jewish ppl. only.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Absolutely, completely, 100% wrong.

atm Israel is more some kind of a police state than a free country (I know all the military is there for some reason, but u maybe can imagine that in a free country it is not needed to have militar ppl. on every edge on the street).

Ummm.
Are you aware that the police and the soldiers on every edge of the street are there to provide a fast response to shooting teracts, and to frighten potential terrorists from going to public places?

-------------------------

By not replying to some of my points, can I assume that you agreed to them?