Israel and Palestine - Roadmap

[petertdavis]

Getting back on the topic a bit.. . I think the wall will be somewhat successful in the short term (from the Israeli perspective), but in the long-run it's not going to stop the people who want to destroy Israel from eventually having their way.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by brucegdc

You can reverse the words Palestine and Israel and say the same thing. Looking at the statistics, Palestine is getting the short end of it about 5:1 on deaths, and about the same in injuries. Property damage is much heavier on the Palestinians - the Israeli army has flattened a LOT. Of course, that is probably due to some degree to the fact that Palestine doesn't have an army & tanks - tends to make things easier if you've got the weaponry.

i don't think this is at all helpful. yes, there are some right maniacs in the israeli political establishment (leiberman springs to mind) and a worrying number of people who now think that only "transfer" (in other words, forcing the palestinians to flee to other arab countries) will ever solve the problem. this is, of course, unacceptable. and there are, unfortunately, a lot of people that maintain that any form of palestinian self-determination in a state called "palestine" is unacceptable to them - and they're going to be disappointed, because history has already passed them by.

what there is *not*, however, is even a sizeable minority in israel that thinks that the sort of tactics that hamas and islamic jihad engage in are acceptable, let alone, G!D forbid, praiseworthy. i don't think playing with numbers helps, unless the numbers are to your advantage. personally, i believe every human life is sacred and i cannot condone a point of view which reduces this to statistical games.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i don't think this is at all helpful. yes, there are some right maniacs in the israeli political establishment (leiberman springs to mind) and a worrying number of people who now think that only "transfer" (in other words, forcing the palestinians to flee to other arab countries) will ever solve the problem. this is, of course, unacceptable. and there are, unfortunately, a lot of people that maintain that any form of palestinian self-determination in a state called "palestine" is unacceptable to them - and they're going to be disappointed, because history has already passed them by.

what there is *not*, however, is even a sizeable minority in israel that thinks that the sort of tactics that hamas and islamic jihad engage in are acceptable, let alone, G!D forbid, praiseworthy. i don't think playing with numbers helps, unless the numbers are to your advantage. personally, i believe every human life is sacred and i cannot condone a point of view which reduces this to statistical games.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Hardly statistical games. Pointing out that the Israelis have done more killing and more damage than the Palestinians, yet the post to which it was a response portrayed only one side of the equation. Both sides are embroiled in an automatic response situation and behaving poorly. The question you raise is perhaps better phrased:

1) What % of the Israeli people (arabs, jews & others) approve of the tactics of the army in the West Bank and Gaza?

2) What % of the Palestinians support Hammas and Islamic Jihad's tactics in both the West Bank/Gaza and in Israel?

3) Reverse the players & see what happens.

Both sides are bloody. One side is not only better funded, but better armed, and is killing more - not only "combatants" (hard to tell with no organized government what a combatant is), but non-combatants.

Neither is in the right.

B'shalom to you as well

[I, Brian]

What is more tragic is the simple lack of will to enforce peace, on both sides of the divide.

The fact that Ariel Sharon's government thought a terrorist ceasefire worthless was an incredible position to make. It makes Sharon live up to his warmonger image. Targeting Hamas after the ceasfire was an incredible provocation, and one that plainly invited the Jerusalem bus bombing. It seems that Ariel Sharon is simply content to throw bricks into wasps nest every time Israel is stung - further precipitating more stings.

Yasser Arafat has also lived up to his image of thriving on conflict - it is what maintains his political position. That's an old accusation, and a precise reason why the Bush government would not work with him - yet here Arafat is, straining the peace process, allowing Abu Mazen to go, all on the grounds that Arafat much prefers to hold onto power. And he can only do that while Israel throws bricks into wasp nests...

The behaviour of the two leaderships is quite astonishing. I find it incredible that anyone allows themselves to be so easily wrapped up in their own game of demagoguery. Then again, I suppose neither side has created much of anything else to look forward to.

What astonishes me is how far it has all fallen since Yitzhak Rabin - after being so close it took just one Jewish extremist to destroy the best peace prospect in the Middle East.

[brucegdc]

Part of the problem is that Sharon came to power and maintains power by maintaining the violence. His actions precipitated the breakdown, which caused the moderates to lose power & him to get elected. The war is good for him personally.

Arafat, similarly - his power depends on a level of conflict being there so he can say "I told you so".

The personal aspirations of both are supported by continuing the cycle. Neither has a personal incentive to stop it.

You'd think that the people would realize this, and throw both out of office, but both populations are scared, and believe the promises of their leaders that they can make them safe by eliminating the other side - at least enough to keep re-electing them.

[I, Brian]

I know - that's the mad thing about it all. At least while the USA kept it's interest fixed on the issue then Sharon could be held back a little - and at least threaten a breaking of the retaliation cycle.

I guess the whole situation now is moving towards a head - attacking the spiritual leader of Hamas may make for a tactical military target, but it also opens the promise of more savage violence.

I was quite hopeful before, but Sharon and Arafat now seem in the way of peaceful progress, rather than able helmsmen to steer it through.

I guess the sides involved are more used to such let downs, though. Shame they don't seem to count the cost of the loss of every opportunity.

[Baud]

I think one of the major problems of the conflict at this stage is that the Palestinian Authority has only limited control over the Palestinian terrorists, organized or not. When terrorist attacks occur, they only condemn them, but know fairly well they cannot do much about it, and would look "bad" towards their population if they would actively crack down on terrorists (that a number of people see as heroes).

Israel is obviously forced to take offensive measures against the terrorists, because the Palestinian Authority cannot and/or would not, and because the Israeli government - both Likud and Labor - has very regulary said they would not negotiate with terrorists, and would appear weak towards their constituants if they would not retaliate.

Obviously, retaliation makes more Palestinians angry, etc. In the end, it's fairly simple...

Contrarily to what petertdavis said, I don't think that religion plays an important role in the conflict. Its root cause is ownership of the land. Following the wars in the region, the Palestinian people is poor, lives for a part in refugee camps, has limited access to water, roads and work, and obviously hates Israel for this. It is true that some of them would do anything to see Israel off the map, but would not necessarily want to see the Jews dissapear. If all the Jews were elsewhere, the Palestinians would most probably not give a damn about them.

The same is true of Osama Bin Laden. His main claims against the West is the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the support of the West for the "corrupt" governments of the Gulf area, and the involvement of the West in the affairs of the region (e.g. in Iraq). This is obviously presnted under color of religion ("the new crusade of the infidels and the jews"), but the root causes are mostly geoplitical and social.

If the negative spiral of violence in Israel/Palestine is easy to explain, the biggest problem is to find a solution. We've had long discussions on the subject with fellow students when I was studying international politics, but no one was able to come-up with a solution that was workable and realistic.

Not very useful, I know...

Baud

[wil]

A lot has happened in the past two years since the last post here.

How do you make peace with people who have no other goal than your total destruction?

And while this is a valid point...it actually points at all of us and in both directions. The world wants the oil, the various sects have various claims to the religious sites...

I see someday the universal church as discussed on another thread becoming a reality in Jerusalem, a new walled international city similar to the vatican except Jews, Muslims, Christians, and all religions have places to worship while they come and visit the amazing historical and religious sites.

Outside the walls will probably emerge amusement parks and casinos funded by Disney and Vegas which will give rides through the belly of the fish, while helping to bring tourists and fund the historical renovations in the old city...

It'll be the day when all war stops due to the growth of Amway and other network marketing companies....as no one will want to kill their downline.

[Samuel Linton Boot]

Please don't get upset but I'm not sure about the two state solution. Mandella rejected the two or three state solution for South Africa, not that I'm making a comparison between the two situations, and he seems to know whats best. I think ultimately both sides will have to accept a secular state with equal rights for everyone and a right of return for refugees. Perhaps it could be called Israelestine or the Republic of Israel and Palestine, or R.I.P. for short and then hopefully everyone can rest in peace instead of in pieces.

[I am free]

That was a nice post Samuel & I agree with you.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Samuel Linton Boot

Please don't get upset but I'm not sure about the two state solution. Mandella rejected the two or three state solution for South Africa, not that I'm making a comparison between the two situations, and he seems to know whats best. I think ultimately both sides will have to accept a secular state with equal rights for everyone and a right of return for refugees. Perhaps it could be called Israelestine or the Republic of Israel and Palestine, or R.I.P. for short and then hopefully everyone can rest in peace instead of in pieces.

RIP is that yours?? that is quite interesting..

[Samuel Linton Boot]

I am Free - thanks. Its a very emotive issue and I was worried my post might add fuel to the fire.

Wil - I thought of the The Peoples Republic of Israel and Palestine then noticed the RIP acronym. I think your right in your previous post, religious leaders and persons will have to lead the way, by promoting Unity and condemning sectarianism.