[PAX] Working toward a two-state solution?

bamf

bamf

Is Watching You
Retired Staff
MBTI
Meh
Enneagram
Meh
So this is just an imagination exercise (because I doubt if we can actually come up with an acceptable solution from both sides), but I
 
The land that Palestinians own is wasteland. The land that the Israelis have is irrigated and green. It is common for new land acquired by palestinians to have irrigation channels destroyed, and farm infrastructure demolished (by palestinians), out of spite. Do you honestly think that with this kind of mindset being held by "Palestinians" that it is responsible to give them their own country?

The best solution is for all persons, regardless of race or religion, to stop killing one another, get an education (or lacking that a job), and integrate peacefully into the established system. Israelis are far from cruel to nonjews living in Israel and afford them the same rights as any democratic republic in the West.

In fact, Israel treats the "palestinians" in their midst with far more equality than they would be accorded in surrounding Islamic countries. Those most capable and willing to help the land flourish already have control, why ruin a good thing and end up with another Sharia state?
 
Last edited:
I think it's time for Israel to have their ass handed to them and learn to be humble, frankly.
They need to learn how to be a good puppet state.
 
ENTroP said:
The land that Palestinians own is wasteland. The land that the Israelis have is irrigated and green. It is common for new land acquired by palestinians to have irrigation channels destroyed, and farm infrastructure demolished (by palestinians), out of spite. Do you honestly think that with this kind of mindset being held by "Palestinians" that it is responsible to give them their own country?
Click to expand...
This statement shows neglect for the entire history of the region/conflict, and is obviously biased.

I'd like to avoid such things in this thread and actually work on possible two-state solutions. If you feel like contributing something worthwhile to what my intent for this thread is, you're free to do so. If you don't want to discuss a two state solution, make your own thread.

This isn't meant to be a debate of who's right and who's wrong.
 
I agree with your hypothesis as to how the conflict may be resolved and with respect to the water availability issues, the construction of desalination plants at the shores near the Mediterranean Sea may be a solution worth examining.
 
On my own path said:
I agree with your hypothesis as to how the conflict may be resolved and with respect to the water availability issues, the construction of desalination plants at the shores near the Mediterranean Sea may be a solution worth examining.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting option. Do you see it as a solution for Israel or Palestine? If it's for Palestine, how would you recommend getting the water safely to Palestine?
 
ENTroP said:
The best solution is for all persons, regardless of race or religion, to stop killing one another, get an education (or lacking that a job), and integrate peacefully into the established system. Israelis are far from cruel to nonjews living in Israel and afford them the same rights as any democratic republic in the West.

In fact, Israel treats the "palestinians" in their midst with far more equality than they would be accorded in surrounding Islamic countries. Those most capable and willing to help the land flourish already have control, why ruin a good thing and end up with another Sharia state?
Click to expand...

I would hardly call the treatment of people in the West Bank as fair or democratic. Road blocks, movement restrictions, walls and fences, illegal settlements, segregation, checkpoints, unequal access to food and water, unequal access to judicial system, human shields, excessive use of force against civilians, walls separating Palestinians from their jobs/families, administrative detention, and countless more incidents documented by Amnesty International, the UN, South Africa's Human Sciences Research Council, and other organizations hardly qualify as 'far from cruel' in my book.

That's not to say that the Palestinians haven't had more than their fair share of violations as well. The thing is neither side is blameless. It isn't about who's right and who's wrong, it's about finding a mutual solution. Israel doesn't want the Palestinians, and Palestine doesn't want the Israelis.

I don't believe a single state would work. Assimilation of the Palestinians would be near impossible into Israel's culture. They're an ethnic and political minority, that doesn't want, and isn't wanted in the country.
 
Both Palestine and Israel can benefit, be constructing the plant on the shores bordering the Mediterranean Sea, pumping the water (through underground pipelines) into a plant ,to be chlorinated, within a Jerusalem with extended borders and then divert to water to Israel and Palestine.
 
On my own path said:
Both Palestine and Israel can benefit, be constructing the plant on the shores bordering the Mediterranean Sea, pumping the water (through underground pipelines) into a plant ,to be chlorinated, within a Jerusalem with extended borders and then divert to water to Israel and Palestine.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting idea that I'd like to explore a bit more.

Is there any specific way you'd propose keeping the system secure? I guess what I'd be afraid of is someone (a politically radical group) contaminating, or destroying the pipeline in order to hurt Palestine. Israel could still access water from the Sea of Galilee, even if the pipeline was destroyed. If however there was sufficient security for your pipeline, it could be a worthwhile solution. Any ideas pertaining to security?
 
Well there would be multiple desalination plants at multiple locations, by placing video cameras around the pipelines and sensors in the pipelines themselves, should one be attacked troops may be sent to guard the others.There should also be multiple plants to chlorinate the water Analogously, multiple pipelines should be directed to Palestine and Israel, with similar security measures as the pipelines to the plants. The multitude of pipes should also be linked to hubs in the countries themselves, where tests are carried out to ensure the integrity of the water prior to distribution (by even more pipelines)

I also believe that there should be decoy pipelines, through which water may flow at random days during the year and that during those days several pipelines, also randomly chosen should be deactivated.
 
Last edited:
On my own path said:
Well there would be multiple desalination plants at multiple locations, by placing video cameras around the pipelines and sensors in the pipelines themselves, should one be attacked troops may be sent to guard the others.There should also be multiple plants to chlorinate the water Analogously, multiple pipelines should be directed to Palestine and Israel, with similar security measures as the pipelines to the plants. The multitude of pipes should also be linked to hubs in the countries themselves, where tests are carried out to ensure the integrity of the water prior to distribution (by even more pipelines)

I also believe that there should be decoy pipelines, through which water may flow at random days during the year and that during those days several pipelines, also randomly chosen should be deactivated.
Click to expand...
I like this, it's a creative and interesting solution. Definitely something to consider.

I guess my next question would be funding: international funding, Israeli/Palestinian funding, or a mix of them all?
 
Thank you for your comments


With respect to the funding it should be a mixture,as it would benefit both Palestine and Israel and it would mitigate the possibility of a war. Imagine that without a solution to the water problem, no peace treaty can be upheld and the violence escalates to the extent that Israel obliterates Palestine, for various reasons Iran may attack Israel and thus by virtue of a chain of political reactions a massive war may begin.Thus for nations other than Israel and Palestine, it may be an investment for future peace
 
Last edited:
On my own path said:
I agree with your hypothesis as to how the conflict may be resolved and with respect to the water availability issues, the construction of desalination plants at the shores near the Mediterranean Sea may be a solution worth examining.
Click to expand...

Desalination is a good idea, except it is expensive and nobody will do it unless they basically have to (is my guess).

BenW said:
I think it's time for Israel to have their ass handed to them and learn to be humble, frankly.
They need to learn how to be a good puppet state.
Click to expand...

Israel doesn't regard itself as a puppet state, and the War of 1967demonstrates that. I don't think that Israel is a puppet of the U.S.- They would do what they had to do if we cut off funding (and a large part of the funding would get there privately anyway).

ENTroP said:
The land that Palestinians own is wasteland. The land that the Israelis have is irrigated and green. It is common for new land acquired by palestinians to have irrigation channels destroyed, and farm infrastructure demolished (by palestinians), out of spite. Do you honestly think that with this kind of mindset being held by "Palestinians" that it is responsible to give them their own country?

The best solution is for all persons, regardless of race or religion, to stop killing one another, get an education (or lacking that a job), and integrate peacefully into the established system. Israelis are far from cruel to nonjews living in Israel and afford them the same rights as any democratic republic in the West.

In fact, Israel treats the "palestinians" in their midst with far more equality than they would be accorded in surrounding Islamic countries. Those most capable and willing to help the land flourish already have control, why ruin a good thing and end up with another Sharia state?
Click to expand...

An argument by used by the Israelis is that they "made the desert bloom". This kind of justification is very much in bias of Western practices. I would not say that the Palestinians don't have the right to live in a desert that is relatively uncultivated if they so desire. Not everyone wants to be Western.
 
Thanks for the input, Dragon. I'll try and get a detailed response to it sometime tomorrow.

Until then, I guess if one was to use the 'solution' I outlined (don't think I'm trying to negate your points, I just haven't been able to get to them yet), what would you recommend doing with Gaza? I think Palestine should have the option in including it in their state, but what would happen to Gaza if Palestine didn't want it?
 
Dragon said:
1. The Israelis offered the Palestinians 97.5% of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the Oslo II Accords in a land-for-peace agreement that would lead to sovereignty. The Labor Party and Fatah were the leaders of the agreement, but Arafat didn't represent all the Palestinians and Rabin definitely didn't represent all the Israelis, which is why he was assassinated by the young settler law student. Before any peace can be reached, the solution must be acceptable to the extremists: Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa martyrs, Hamas, the revisionist Jews, settlers, conservatives (such as followers of Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu of the Likud Party or whatever they're calling it now).

2. Your Gaza solution would cause a hell of a lot of suicide bombings and rocket attacks as well as another really really nasty intifada. The Gaza strip is basically run by Hamas while the West Bank is basically run by Fatah (and the Israelis). Gaza has one of the highest birthrates of anywhere in the world, and Hamas is Iran backed. Trying to deport all the settlers would probably lead to retaliation not just from Palestinians, but from the governments in Iran and probably Syria as well. The surrounding governments have already abused the settler problem to the n-th degree, and they would continue to abuse them in order to put pressure on Israel whom they want wiped off the map (Iran wants it wiped off the map). I don't see how the Israelis could move the people out of Gaza without it being an atrocitie (think Trail of Tears/genocide, especially of anyone like Sharon or Netanyahu does it). It is unlikely that any new Palestinian government is going to be able to control the Gaza strip. Arafat couldn't, and I don't think Mahmoud Abbas can now. The authority of the PA has been rejected, and it is not unlikely that Hamas could take over the PA in the elections, in which many of those in the West Bank would be extremely unhappy. Palestinian-Palestinian violence is very brutal.

3. Israel wont give up the Golan Heights for defense regions, and Syria wont stop hating Israel, which is why Syria has been funding Hizbullah to launch rockets into Israel. Lebanon is not helpful either, and the influence of Shiite Muslims in Lebanon is growing, hence their civil war.

4. When it comes to the refugees, you haven't taken into account the surrounding states. Palestinian refugees, of which there are over 2.6 million, are not going to be able to easily return, both infra-structurally, but also because surrounding governments like to use the refugees to their political advantage. Conditions in the area are already dire. As far as I know, the PA has not pressed for the return of the refugees or Israel is absolutely against their return. It is one of the most difficult issues.

5. The settlements would not be an easy issue. You know the controversy of Ariel Sharon giving up the Gaza Strip? It'd be about 20 times worse if they tried to give up the West Bank, and 50 times worse if they tried to give up Jerusalem. Any Israeli PM who tries to give up any part of Eretz Yisrael will be killed, I am sure. Even if they did try it, the settlers would have to be forcefully removed, and there would be riots and such in places like Tel Aviv (Jerusalem would be a hell-hole probably).

6. National Defence, Terrorism, and Politics- There is no way to gain enough control over extremists to prevent attacks. Any money given to Palestine (or Israel, really) for national defense will be used against the other party. Hamas isn't going to stop its suicide bombings- they really want Israel wiped off the map. Iran would probably have to be neutralized before a solution could be reached. Even if they were, it is still not unlikely that Hamas is able to take control of the PA from Fatah. I don't have much faith in Jewish politics either, and I don't see why the Israelis would be dumb enough to agree to a UN peacekeeping force in their country given their history of being attacked by the Arabs.

The U.S. would not be able to "keep Israel" accountable by withdrawing funding. Any politician who would support that though would be on AIPACs hit-list AT THE VERY LEAST. Also, it is unlikely that the U.S. is going to give up its interests in the region for peace. Just because we elected Obama doesn't mean that we are immune to swinging back into post 9/11 mode, complete with a new version of 9/11 and a new version of the Patriot Act. Osama and other radicals are smart enough to exploit that opportunity if we give it to them.

7. There was some recognition during the Oslo process (particularly Oslo II), but recognition is a good way to cause wars and get leaders assassinated. You would have to work out a solution with all the surrounding states as well in order to get this to work.

8. International city Jerusalem was proposed in UN Resolution 181 IIRC. I don't see either side agreeing to that now though, especially not the hard-line Israelis. The fact that al-Aqsa Mosque is there, which is the 3rd most holy site in Islam (the place where the Prophet Mohammad, PBUH, ascended to Heaven). The al-Aqsa Intifida began when Sharon took a walk around the Mosque (as well as a mass of rioting). That is how unwilling people are to share the city.

9. I don't know much about the water (or the conflict, really), but I do know that aquifers are currently being depleted and the river Jordan has been diverted as a political weapon at some points. I really have no clue what could be done about water in the region though.



I honestly don't see any solution to this problem in the near future. Any solution would require the extremists to agree to peace, which would be very difficult to impossible. Also, all surrounding states would need to be okay with the situation as well, or else they'd continue funding Hizbullah, starting another Feyadeen, or otherwise fighting with Israel.
Click to expand...

I agree, I really don't see a solution in the near future, and everything I outlined was very basic, and ignored many of the political posturing that has happened in the region. A true solution would take a lot more than what I outlined, and my arguement didn't even account for consequences. I really can't say much because everything you're saying is true, and needs to be considered.

I also don't think that any solution would really prevent the surrounding nations from funding anti-Israel groups. I don't see any solution possible if the surrounding nation's interests are to be taken into account.

As impossible as the situation seems, a solution is needed, and it's needed soon. People often times seem to ignore (not saying you do) that humans are on the ground in the region, and are directly affected by any action or inaction.

The only way I see Israel and Palestine coming to an agreement on their own is if both sides put aside their posturing, and approached the conflict united. This however, is unlikely. That's why I'm beginning to toy with the idea of a UN enforced resolution, and that would be no easy task. I'm extremely weary of nation building, and even more so of a universal government. I'm not sold on a UN forced peace, but I'm starting to think about it more and more. It's definitely a stick situation, but we can't just give up because of how monumental of a task it is.

I respect your post, and appreciate it. My question for you then is what do you think could be done to start working on peace?
 
mf said:
Thanks for the input, Dragon. I'll try and get a detailed response to it sometime tomorrow.

Until then, I guess if one was to use the 'solution' I outlined (don't think I'm trying to negate your points, I just haven't been able to get to them yet), what would you recommend doing with Gaza? I think Palestine should have the option in including it in their state, but what would happen to Gaza if Palestine didn't want it?
Click to expand...

Gaza could theoretically become its own state if Palestine didn't want it, but the problem is the economic condition of it and Iranian backed Hamas. Of course, if its economic condition improved, it would probably reject radical Islam and the people in the West Bank would get along better with Gaza. I can't say the West Bank is much better though.

To improve its condition, a solution involving Hamas, the Israelis, of course the PA, the WTO/World Bank, and probably Iran and/or Egypt as well would have to be negotiated. Currently, most of the people in Gaza believe that the Israeli's withdrew their settlements as a result of terror attacks against the Israels when in reality is was only Ariel Sharon's decision that did it.

The desparity between the Israel-Gaza border is one of the highest in the world, perhaps the highest (the others are U.S.-Mexico and Spain-Morocco).
 
Dragon said:
Israel doesn't regard itself as a puppet state, and the War of 1967demonstrates that. I don't think that Israel is a puppet of the U.S.- They would do what they had to do if we cut off funding (and a large part of the funding would get there privately anyway).
Click to expand...
They can regard themselves as whatever they want, the annual 15 billion they get speaks for itself.

Israel would be terrorfied to lose that money.
Luckily for them, they're not going to lose it, as no American president/administration has ever stood up to Israel.
 
BenW said:
They can regard themselves as whatever they want, the annual 15 billion they get speaks for itself.

Israel would be terrorfied to lose that money.
Luckily for them, they're not going to lose it, as no American president/administration has ever stood up to Israel.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that their national defense is comprised of mostly American made arms. The money and the arms could easily be held over Israel's head to make them behave the way is wanted (in my case, peace discussions). But yeah, people here would hoot and holler.
 
BenW said:
They can regard themselves as whatever they want, the annual 15 billion they get speaks for itself.

Israel would be terrorfied to lose that money.
Luckily for them, they're not going to lose it, as no American president/administration has ever stood up to Israel.
Click to expand...

mf said:
Not to mention that their national defense is comprised of mostly American made arms. The money and the arms could easily be held over Israel's head to make them behave the way is wanted (in my case, peace discussions). But yeah, people here would hoot and holler.
Click to expand...

Israel receives about 3 billion annually. If you're going to say it is such an outrageous sum as 15 billion, we need a reliable source source.

Jimmy Carter stood up to the Israelis during the Camp David Accords with PM Begin and President Sadat; he did threaten to withdraw all aid.

There are a few things that should be known about the aid. The first is that Israel isn't going to do whatever the U.S. says to get the aid. They definitely want it, but if they were to lose it, they would do what it takes to get by without it. AIPAC is one of the most powerful PACs in the country, but they aren't any more powerful than any other interest group.

Also, even if the direct aid did get cut for whatever reason, it is likely that private aid would drastically increase in an attempt to make up for most of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top