posted
I couldn't dig out a coherent string of what your actual proposal was, in the other thread, regarding a peace solution for Israel. I'd like to see your actual belief on what could happen, now, to cause peace. Maybe all you posted on it was the simple "combine into one state," that I saw. But do you have anything else? Or is that your idea, and leave the details to others?
I'm sorry if this sounds offensive. I'm not trying to be, but its late, and I'm reading that and realizing it doesn't sound great.
So don't start an argument over my wording I'm really just curious about your thinking. The other thread has too much debate in it the last few pages to actually see a proposal.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* If you really don't want to get in a fight, that's cool, I have no problem explaining myself. I really don't feel like arguing this out again, I've been doing it for 3, maybe 4 days now and nothing ever goes anywhere. But it sounds like you've done your fair share of arguing about this too
I've come to realize I have a couple different solutions for different objectives. So I'll group them like by objective.
1) For the American nationalist in me (beginning of the other thread):
Cut off Israel, totally, from US aid and assistance. Cut off aid to Arab nations and remove troops from Saudi Arabia. It saves US money and drops us off about 75% of the fundamentalist hitlists and is the quickest, cheapest, and easiest way to improve American security in the short-term. However, it doesn't escape me that this is completely selfish and not necesarily good in the long-term. The rationale is that it's not our war and none of our vital interests are at stake.
2) For the idealist in me (end of last post):
One state solution. If this lends any creditibility to it, Ghadafi came up wuth the same idea. I know he's the looney Libyan but he's given up on fundamentalism as of late and I think the idea has merit. This basically means extending the Israeli parliamentary system across into Palestine and bringing Arabs into the government. A new constitution would need to be drawn up. I'd say the only truly necesary things in it would be equal treatment of religions and free travel to holy sites. In regards to land, anyone living on land now gets to keep it, right of return is guranteed for any unoccupied land. My thinking is that if enough of the moderate everyday Palestinians are sick of fighting return to Israel proper and start to partake of life there a bit, it will cut their sympathy for the radicals. After all, when your kid starts to go to the malls getting blown up, it kind of slackens your support for that kind of thing. Jerusalem, with the two rigths listed above in the constitution, should not be half the issue it is.
Edit to add: I'm going to finish this in another post, I just hit the post button by accident
posted
Obviously there are problems with this, as you can imagine. First, it assumes there is a majority of people on both sides who are sick of fighting and just want to get on with their lives. I can't tell if this is the case or not, it seems to change weekly and depends on who you're talking to. Second, this would not be a willing change at most stages. It would require a large outside influence, most likely military in nature, to get the ball rolling. Third, it would take generations to get people to stop hating one and other just out of spite. This is the hardest and longest method but it brings about the most stable peace I can see.
3)The realpolitik solution (not in other thread):
Two-state solution. Use financial aid as a choke leash. Cut aid to Israel to make concessions. Give aid to Palestine for doing good things. Apply and adjust as needed. It's probabaly the quickest way to make the sides compromise, but it makes no attempt at settling the underlying issues. Quick, dirty, unstable.
Those are my 3 main ones. If you want me to clear up something or answer a question (anyone, not just Goldner) feel free to. I just don't want an argument about it.
On Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told reporters in Washington that the United States had not yet made a decision about whether to reduce aid money to Israel if construction continues on sections of the barrier that are built beyond Israel's line with the West Bank.
"We have concerns about that fence," Powell said. "We have problems with it. We have expressed our concerns to the Israelis, and the Israelis are considering the problems that we have identified to them. We expect that dialogue to continue until we can find a solution." Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the first method would obviously work. I don't think its a good idea... because it doesn't really do anything about the problem, just gets us out of it.
The third might actually work a little bit, but on the other hand, we'd probably have instability in the region for generations to come. I don't think our problems in the middle east really stem from Israel existing. Rather, they come from the US "interfering." And this option would probably further exaccerbate the hatred towards this US, given that we'd, basically, be explicitly interfering.
Your second option is probably the only workable one, from a US perspective. But you're right, it would require liberal application of military force... and it would be almost entirely directed against the state of Israel. U.S backing of this plan would forever end our relationship with the jewish population in the middle east, and likely cause a severe backlash here in the US by the Jewish population. Here's why...
Israel, now, is a home for the Jewish people. For the previous 2000 years, there had not been a home, had not been a place Jews could feel safe. In every nation that we've lived in, other then the US, we've faced extreme anti-semitism at one point or another. In the US, its only been mild. Israel, on the other hand, has a Jewish majority. Its a nation where Jews can feel safe, and can be secure that the majority won't turn on them at some future date. For example, Jews remember that we were safe, and trusted, and protected, by the Christian majority in Spain... up until 1492. The fear that we have concerning a one state solution is that it would be an arab and muslim majority... fromt he start. The arab portion of the population has no reason to like Jews right now, and despite a constitution, or even a military presence, its unlikely that Jews would be safe in Israel for more then a generation after a one state solution is implemented.
The only hope I have for a peace that meets at least the important demands of all parties is a two state solution. A one state demand doesn't meet the important demands of the Jewish population in Israel, or, for that matter, of the Jewish population of the world.
But, the problem is, a two state solution is the most complex solution... which is why we've been stumbling along, not really getting anywhere, for years.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets see if I can throw my three cents in to destablize your plans.
1) Leaving the area alone, just cutting and running, has several draw backs. First, it means that he US will back down from terrorist threats. That means any person can get the US to do what it wants by murdering enought of our people. This is why we don't pay off kidnappers. Second, it would coust thousand or hundreds of thousands of lives. I am not meaning an open war would ensue. I mean the vast multitude in the poor arab countries that rely on US aid would die, either through malnutrition or disease or lack of medical care. Thirdly, we tried leaving chaotic countries to their own devices, hiding behind the safety of the oceans before. The results were not good. AlQueda went to the Taliban, and the Taliban took ruinous control of Afghanistan not because the US intervened in Afhghanistan, but because after the Soviets left, so did we, allowing for a reign of chaos and brute force.
2) That is a simple solution. Its like saying in the US that Illegal Immigration is the result of too many Mexicans in the US. Just have them leave. The problem is deeper than that (How do you get the Mexicans to leave? Who will do the work they do now?) In this case, if you are part of a majority in the Isreali government, why would you be willing to surrender power to a new group of people? The Isreali standard of living is much higher than the Palestinean. You would be forcing a bunch of richer more powerful folk to have to take care of, and be ruled by a majority of poorer people. Who is going to surrender their position, their power, or their wealth so easilly?
Further, both sides blame the other for the deaths of friends, family, lovers. Would you be so willing to have the people who killed your mother move next to you? to be your boss? to be your mayor?
Finally, the neighbors of Palestine use its problems to distract their people from their own problems. Many of the militant terrorist groups are backed not by Palestine, but by Iran or other countries. They would fight any such unification if it ever was attempted.
3) Using aid to force peace. I agree this is the best thing the US can do. Yet there are problems. Isreal has a counter weapon. If we cut off aid, they plead to their Jewish counterparts in the US to put political pressure on the government. The Islamic community in the US is newer, less well organized, and not as well financed.
There is also the conservative Christian fanatical wing that believes the state of Isreal must include Jerusalem, and will precede the second coming of Christ. ANy attempt to stop this from happening is wrong, and they will apply the full might of their political power to stop it.
I saw a sign outside a church last week that read, "The only peace in the mid-east started in a manger."
The only way to get this to work is to change the minds of Americans about both the Palestinian people and the Isreali people. We need to show that most are good people but some on both sides are fanatical in outlook and uncaring about damages done.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, what you say is very true about Prop. 2. I disagree with using most military force against Israel, I think both sides would need to be put down rather roughly.
I can't really speculate much as to whether Israel would be unsafe for Jews after a generation. You make a valid historical point about being a minority in other countries, but it doesn't take into account that Jews would make up a far larger minority in Israel (by percentage) than in any country previously. What effect this would have, I can't say.
[ponders] I wonder why Jews were so much better off in the US. Prosperity? Bill of Rights? Mix of people? Who knows...*shakes head in frustration* [/end pondering]
I get what you're saying Dan. They're just the only real proposals I can see being implemented (maybe not even that in the case of Proposal 2). All of them obviously have drawbacks and difficulties, if this were easy we'd wouldn't be dealing with this mess now.
Also, I know the problems addressed in prop. 2 are deeper than that. I'm not stupid. I'm just not going to bother sorting out the details because I'm sure all sorts of problems would come up while it was being implemented that we can't even imagine now. So, I guess it could be called more of a vision/framework than an actual proposal.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm really just curious about your thinking. The other thread has too much debate in it the last few pages to actually see a proposal.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
