Possible "soloution" to conflict?

Question

IM not presenting this as an out right "soloution" hence the quotation marks. But i beleive it will do alot of good.

I think three major things need to be addressed, in no particular order.

1) Hamas: Hamas is spreading hate however they can and dividing the palestinians polically as they are already divided geographically. Also you can't call shooting q'assam rockets into israel productive and all it serves to do is break Israeli families and break palestinian families by extension. Also with ever rocket fired into israel Palestinian life becomes more difficult.

2) Settlements: Although the goal in my opinion is to one day restore palestine to pre'67 borders. I will address the problem's of settlement's in the westbank as the ones in the gaza strip have already been removed or are in the process of it. Since im talking about Gaza ill tell you about a settlement that isn't there anymore. It had a population of 5000 settlers and to keep it safe it need 30'000 soldiers to protect

ok sorry i couldn't fit all of it in one post i will finish the 3'rd point here.

Also i forgot to say it but this is in response to tabatha's question on more diolouge and constructive idea's.

3) Israeli soldier's: Now im not gonna bash IDF soldiers. Certainly some of them do bad thing's but i hope they are in the minotrity of IDF soldiers and the rest do their job well and don't indiscrimately kill.
At some point i think in the 70's or 80's you had the UN buffering the Lebanon/Israel border. This certainly stoped alot of the border violence like Hezbollah rocket's.

Now if we could only apply the same thing to palestine (once the settlements are removed) we could stop alot of the of the sucide bombers/rockets from going into israel. That will give israel's military a break atleast over there. the palestinians will have less spite to the Israeli soldiers who lets face it have become the face of oppresion as well as someof the archetecture meant to protect israeli's.

After that i hope Hamas will lose lot's of their support as one of the main drivers (the other being poverty) will lessen or cease to be present which is the IDF,Checkpoint's and walls to protect the settlements themselves.

If anyone feel's i have been favouring one group over onother please let me know.

I have done my best to be impartial and use as less rhetoric as possible.

Gratvol: Its pretty obvious they don't want to be part of a palestinian state,. They live for the most part sepearted from palestinians and bring wit them walls/check points which seem to keep the communities segregated and cause the palestinians countless inconveniences.

If the israeli's settlers want to stay in the westbank then there habitation shouldnt be a hinderance to the lives of palestinians.

Right now the presence of israeli settlers and consequently IDF soldiers is a huge hinderance for palestinians to live a normal life.

One example of how the communities are segregated is roads. The israeli's get there own roads and the roads that the palestinians are allowed to travel through are fraught with checkpoints anyway.

What can be done?

Answer 1

Well this is more or less the escence of the Arab Peace Initiative. But you forgot to talk about a few controversial issues:

1- the Status of East Jerusalem. Where Arabs insist on having that part of the city as the capital of any future Palestinian state.
2- The issue of Palestinian refugees who deserve a fair solution to their ordeals (Right of return or compensation from the occupier)
3- The annexed Golan Heights, since any solution that doesn't include all parties will be a partial one and will not necessarily bring on peace.

Edit to gratvol: If Jewish settlers want to live in the newly formed Palestinian state, I don't think there would be any objections from the Palestinian side, But they should live there as Palestinian citizens not as Israelis.

Edit to Londoner in Israel: If you think that the Israeli government duped the settlers, don't you think that the Israeli government should be held responsible for this and not any future Palestinian state? Don't you think that consequently the Israeli government should redress the wrong it did by offering more incentives for those settlers who would wish to leave? and maybe compensate them.... I guess this would be a legitimate way of spending the US aid to Israel... The US paid most of the bill to evacuate Gaza... and I think they will be more than happy to provide more funds for the west bank... I wouldn't object to that myself.

And by the way I don't think the settlers are the main obstacle, I think the settlers were put there just to be used as a justification to refuse full withdrawal from the West Bank, the main reasons being economic in the first place targeting the water resources in the west bank and agricultural lands. The same applies to the Golan Heights.

Answer 2

Nice work EuCitizen, I agree with the basis of everything you write. But I do feel that some flexibility is needed regarding the 1967 line, to adjust for some of the settlements which are now facts on the ground.

I understand that you might feel that it is only right that people who settled on occupied land should have to pack up and leave, but the fact is that a large number of them moved there not out of Zionist fundamentalism but to take advantage of economic incentives offered at the time by previous Israeli governments to encourage them to do so. My view is that such people were effectively duped, and I am not sure that they should have to pay the price purely on principle. Given that they now live there, I would recommend that settlements which lie close to the 1967 line and could be included as part of the contiguous Israeli state should ideally be kept, if the Palestinians would be satisfied to receive other bits of land in compensation. The fewer people who have to abandon their homes, the easier it will be to get such a deal approved.

Mark - Israel does not hate the UN, but we are unwilling to entrust it with our national security. In an ideal world Jews and Palestinians would live together in harmony, but this is not an ideal world. In the real world such states tend to end in conflict - look at the situation in Lebanon and Iraq currently, or at what happened to Yugoslavia.

Answer 3

Without the UN there would be no Israel. The Israelis hate the UN because the UN created both Israel and Palestine in the same resolution. Israel is the last colonial country in the world and peace is the missing link in the country due to the continuing denial policy of the right of the native people of the country. It took White South Africa 300 years to recognize the right of the native people of South Africa. So, I say one state for all is the only logical solution and the 2 state solution is a temporary one anyway. We must prepare our kids to live to gather in one state for all.

Dear Londoner In Israel you sited examples of country that have civil wars like Iraq, Lebanon and the rest. But you dismissed many successful examples like India, South Africa or UK and USA and many nations around the world. A written constitution's made it possible for many nations to succeed the holy land is too small to be divided. Unity is the key to peace in any country.

Answer 4

Why would your goal be to give the land back to the people who started a conflict in which they lost that land. This would be the British government asking for the USA back because "they didn't really mean it and it was a British territory and they want it back". The Arab states started a war. Israel won (against all odds) we took control of lands we won in that war. How dare the Arabs now scream they want it back . Jewish blood was shed for that land and has soaked into it. They get no land in my opinion and why in the world would we work with governments who have stated openly that their goal is the destruction of Israel?
The world expected Israel to work with Yasser Arafat (who was involved in the Olympic massacre) and he spewed hatred everywhere he want.
Besides, the bottom line is not so called "Palestinian land" (no such thing) it is Jerusalem and how controls it. Arafat would not sign peace treaties because he demanded control of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a Jewish city and would have stayed neutral territory if the Arab states had not attacked and the Jews took Jerusalem. Even though we control Jerusalem have tried to have respect for Muslim shrines etc.
We would allow a Muslim down near the wall but they do not allow us (and we accept that) up near the Al-Alqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. When Jordan ran Jerusalem we were not allowed to even enter the old city. Muslim children spit and throw things on the Jewish worshippers praying at the wall and their "parents" allow this.
In 1967 we took Jerusalem. It is my opinion that the first thing we should have done was razed both the Dome and the Mosque. Razed them to the ground. Then the "claim" they think they have would be gone.
The bottom line is you cannot have peace with a group of people who have the ultimate goal as your destruction. It is not going to happen and for that I feel sorry for us all.

Answer 5

So let me get this straight, you would expel 250,000 people from the west bank because they live on the "wrong" side of the line -even if they live 10 feet from it?

What if they want to say and be part of a new Palestine state?

Is it that they cannot be because they are Jews and not Arabs?

I am sorry but you are basically demanding ethnic cleansing, which is not surprising considering your European.

I have never understood why it is fine for Palestinians to live in a Jewish state but it is wrong for Jews to live in a Palestinian state.

when someone can explain this to me logically I will listen.

Answer 6

A UN buffer force is a bad idea. For starters, the UN is inneffective; in the early 80's Israel had to invade southern Lebanon to ensure its own safety, no thanks to the UN. In 1967 the UN very quickly packed up its bags and left as soon as Egypt asked them to, leaving Israel's border undefended. The UN is a joke. Israel is the only one who can protect itself, and they are doing a good job.

Answer 7

Hmmm... Why not give us a Final Solution, you European?
This conflict is all Europe's fault anyway.

Edit: I agree with Michael J, the UN= useless nobodies

Answer 8

have u checked my question buddy