is there any solution to the tension in the middle east? can peace ever be found?

Question

isreal is there, not going anywhere, no one in the area wants it there.

Answer 1

The best answer I can think of is to get all the people in the Middle-East to stop judging people by their religion.

Think about it. They are not fighting over oil. They are not fighting over fishing rights or water rights or pollution.

They are fighting because "My God is better that your God" and everything that is related to MGIBTYG.

What a bunch of nudniks. All of their religions are an off-shoot of something that began as much as 5 or 6 thousand years ago.
They all believe in the same GOD who goes by a different name for each of them.

Somebody, maybe the UNITED NatNats should get them together and say, "Look guys, you're all brothers, why are you fighting?"

Answer 2

No, If the US backs out Isreal will be gone in six months. So no, Isreal was forced down right in the middle of a group of muslims who also have claim to that land.

Answer 3

Probably not.

It's a shame that intelligient beings can't figure out a way of solving problems without killing each other.

You might notice I didn't specify one side or the other.

Answer 4

Probably the ultimate solution will require an independent palestinian state in gaza and the west bank.

The violence there is certainly tragic.

Answer 5

no justice, no peace

justice is no overpay, no underpay

justice is the nonnegotiable price of peace

if a govt committed the injustice of taking 90% of income permanently off 90% of the people and giving it to 1%, everyone knows that would cause unending violence, as both sides tried to win, the 1% to keep, the 90% to get back, the money - and escalating endlessly as both sides tried bigger and bigger weaponry to win

therefore everyone knows that justice = peace

no justice, no peace

1% get 90% of world income - US$70 trillion a year - $70,000 per family

= extinction

so we have to work at our ideas of justice - we have to find a notion of justice that most will agree with

justice is equal pay for equal work

should one person be paid for having natural gifts of brains, talents, etc? - these are gifts - why pay for gifts? - the person loses nothing in using them - why should people with no gifts fund this extra pay for natural gifts? - there is no reason

should a person be paid more per hour for doing a more responsible job? - what does the greater responsibility of the job cost the person? - is the greater responsibility a natural gift? - does it cost the person anything to use his greater responsibility? - how do we meaure responsibility? - and if we find a way to measure resp. how do we determine how much to pay the person for a unit of responsibility? - who will determine whether the person is doing the responsible job responsibly?

what we do know is that the person being responsible, or doing a job higher up the hierarchy, is not apparently suffering more loss by doing a responsible job than a less responsible job

we are a long way from, and may never reach, the point where we can measure responsibility in units and work out what a unit of responsibility should be paid, if anything


so we do not know whether people are being paid for resp. or not - we assume that more resp. jobs are paid more, but we have no measure of resp. and so no way of knowing the degree of correlation between resp. and higher hourly payrate - are there some people doing resp. jobs who are not paid much? - are there people doing jobs irresponsibly who are being paid much? - we dont know - how responsible is an airtraffic controller? an automechanic, a busdriver? - we merely assume that because these jobs are not paid highly that they are not very responsible

so the best we can do is ignore responsibility as a reason to pay people more, until we can find a reason to pay them more, can measure resp. and can determine how much each unit of resp. is generally agreed to be worth - our notion of resp. must meet general consensus or else there will be a sense of injustice - people are going to have to sacrifice to pay for resp. and they need a good reason to do it

for what else would we in justice pay for higher than average hourly pay?

business risk - but it seems we cannot, ought not and do not pay for business risk - risk means risk of losing money - can we pay for risk of losing money? - should people sacrifice to pay people for taking business risk? - business risk is investing a sprat to catch a mackerel - it seems to be the person's own concern, own decision - the community is not liable for business risk -

if we pay for business risk, it alters [reduces] the risk, altering the payment appropriate - it is impossible -

do we want to pay for risk? - should we pay every fisherman for taking a risk, every goldprospector for taking a risk - when the prospector comes home, should we have some money ready for him, whether he finds gold or not?

and again we have the problem of the impossibility of knowing how much to pay per unit of risk, and how to measure quantity of risk

therefore it seems that the only thing to pay for is what is sacrificed, and that is time

[the range of energy content of work is small, and the difference is dealt with with a few teaspoons of glucose, so i think it can be disregarded as a factor]

the person working in one job cannot work at other jobs - even if the person has nothing or little to do in the job, the job prevents them from earning money elsewhere, and so it is time that must be in justice paid for -

if it is not so clear [because of lack of faith in reason, or failure of reason to impress itself on people] that people should not be paid for resp., business risk, and natural gifts, it is clearer that there is no reason other people should subsidise and fund the higher hourly pay for these things

then there is skill and experience - the person with more skill and experience is more productive - but are they working harder? - no - skill and experience tends to make the job easier - and the skill and experience are natural consequences of doing the job - they cost the person nothing to acquire

and again how would one quantify skill and experience, and how would one set a just payment for a unit of skill and experience? - and again, why should a person be paid for something that is no sacrifice to them to have? and again, why should others be penalised to fund this payment?

so i think that justice says that payment shall be for hours of work, and nothing else

and people who cannot see reason can make no claim to see injustice

justice is essential for peace, pursuit of peace is essential to being good, so good people will pursue reason, justice and thus peace

so i think it follows that, since no one can work more than twice as hard as the average person, who works over 50 hours a week [housewives 70-90, - poor people work longer hours than average], that in justice no one should have an income more than twice the average income

and if this is true, then no one will have an income much below the average, people will be treated as equal and with respect and dignity, no one will be being pressed down into misery and anger, no one will be being raised up to overpower, tyranny, moneypowermania and corruption, and justice and peace will be possible

thus, it seems that good people will aim for a cap on incomes at twice the average, and this will be vastly more just, and the world vastly more at peace and in happiness and quietness

we can easily go a little further, and say that it is not good nor necessary, for a person to work more than 50 hours a week, which overwork would be a theft from self, family and community, and say no one shall have pay above the average - this will discourage overwork and underplay, which deprives community and family and self of the benefits of leisure and relaxation and community responsibilities

and it will further limit the range of overpay and underpay and further increase social harmony and peace

i do not think that if this were instituted there would be many who would be very angry - i think this idea of justice would satisfy most people very well - any sense of injustice would be very small, far below the level of bombs and bullets

therefore i think it behooves all people who delight in goodness, peace, reason and justice to pursue the universal acceptance of this quantification of pay justice

even if this notion were very unjust, i think most would agree it would lead to peace and quietness

it would destroy tyrannous and violent overpower, and angry and violent underpower

even if this notion of justice were unjust, i think it would enormously decrease the violence, and we should therefore go there immediately, in the urgent danger we are in, and then from there look about for a position closer to justice

if we are so sure that nuclear weapons will not be used, why are we worried about more countries acquiring them?

a notion of justice that most will accept and therefore will generate peace, can also be reached via this consideration:

the maximum just fortune is equal to the amount of wealth [goods and services] an individual can acquire in a state of nature [with an equal share in the natural resources] multiplied by the factor of efficiency of specialisation in tasks [which benefit belongs to all equally]

we cant quantify the factor of efficiency of specialisation in tasks, but that doesnt matter

we can still conclude that the just range of fortunes in society, should be no more than the range of fortunes in nature, ie, with everyone doing all their own tasks and not exchanging at all

from this it can be seen that the just range of fortunes is small

obviously the pooling of products of work necessitated by specialisation of tasks has led to people raking from the pool far more than they could have earned in nature, times the factor of efficiency of specialisation

we can see this also by considering whether the products that the highest pay buys could have been made by the individual in the time to get the high pay - the highest pay is US$10 million an hour [1998 dollars] - no one could make any choice of US$10 million of goods and services in one hour - in fact US$10 million of goods can be made in about a million hours

[world average pay, paying 2 billion homemakers and tertiary students too, 1998 dollars, US$10 - 2006 dollars: US$15]

if a cap is put on fortunes at US$2 million and the overfortunes are spread equally, electronically, directly, fully, to every person on earth [everyone to open accounts of course, one receiving account per person of course, everyone to receive money to save the enormous bureaucracy of deciding who gets money, and 99% are underpaid anyway, and the overpaid will be being whittled anyway, every man woman and child receiving another US$20,000 a year] we will have infinitely greater justice, instant peace and deceleration from extinction

no justice, no peace

no peace, no survival

the work is spread, the money/power must be spread

irrational rejection of this rational option on the irrational grounds of novelty and unusualness will kill us