What is your plan for peace between Israel and Palestine?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:17:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  What is your plan for peace between Israel and Palestine?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: What is your plan for peace between Israel and Palestine?  (Read 8087 times)
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 27, 2012, 10:04:57 AM »

This is not a general Israel-Palestine conflict thread -- oh, Hamas shot some rockets, oh, somebody was shot in the West Bank, oh, Zionist sharks are attacking the Sinai. This is a thread to hear your proposals for peace and the future boundaries in the West Bank. Try not to suggest something that neither side will propose. Try to stick to what you think might actually be the boundaries in the future.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2012, 10:50:53 AM »

Some rough points:

1.) Make Jerusalem and international city under UN supervision.

2.) Have the West Bank organized into a universally recognized state.

I would say more but I don't know what to do with Gaza. Hamas stands in the way of progress there and I would say Egypt should just annex it but I don't think they would want to honestly.

Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2012, 11:25:20 AM »

The only way I see to make peace last is to bring in a powerful and more importantly, respected, third party to keep a foot on the throat of Hamas (and the rest of the terrorists) for a decade or so while building up the economy of Gaza and the West Bank.  The world/UN can fit the bill in gold, but the powerful/respected third party is going to pay the price in blood, which is why it will probably never get done.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2012, 11:45:35 AM »

only US/Israel stand in the way of the global consensus for a return, roughly, to the pre-67 borders.  much like US/South Africa stood together in the Reagan years, once Israel is isolated completely on the world stage, the natural processes will be allowed to occur.
Logged
The Simpsons Cinematic Universe
MustCrushCapitalism
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 737
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.23, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2012, 12:12:34 PM »

I would say more but I don't know what to do with Gaza. Hamas stands in the way of progress there and I would say Egypt should just annex it but I don't think they would want to honestly.

Hamas have agreed to partake in elections with Fatah. If elections could be held freely and fairly, we probably wouldn't see Hamas and Fatah dividing Palestine.

I'm pretty sure Fatah and Hamas recently reached some sort of agreement to hold Palestinian elections this year, which I'd predict Hamas winning, by a long shot.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2012, 12:57:25 PM »

Personally, I prefer the one-state solution, but the Israelis would never accept it...
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2012, 01:01:20 PM »

only US/Israel stand in the way of the global consensus for a return, roughly, to the pre-67 borders.  much like US/South Africa stood together in the Reagan years, once Israel is isolated completely on the world stage, the natural processes will be allowed to occur.
You are answering a different question.  The question asked is what would bring peace, not what the world community thinks is fair.  Getting everybody in the world together to force Israel to accept the pre-67 borders wouldn't give us peace.  The only thing that will give the region peace is neutering the terrorists, your plan would only embolden them.
Personally, I prefer the one-state solution, but the Israelis would never accept it...
again, that would not bring peace.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2012, 01:07:52 PM »

"the terrorists" good stuff
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2012, 01:13:49 PM »
« Edited: May 27, 2012, 01:19:35 PM by Vosem »


Are you suggesting these groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam_Brigades, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_and_Kahane_Chai) are not terrorists?

only US/Israel stand in the way of the global consensus for a return, roughly, to the pre-67 borders.  much like US/South Africa stood together in the Reagan years, once Israel is isolated completely on the world stage, the natural processes will be allowed to occur.

US & South Africa certainly stood together during the Reagan years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_Act

Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2012, 01:41:48 PM »
« Edited: May 27, 2012, 01:44:06 PM by Vosem »

In answer to my own questions, Israel should withdraw from most of the West Bank, but keep the Jordan Valley and some settlement blocs -- the border should roughly follow the barrier, but Palestine would have to give up a few small villages north of Netafim, for contiguous Israeli territory -- for instance, for the purposes of logic, Ofarim should be connected with the Green Line in the area south of Rantis, instead of going through Bet Arye. And there could be some more expansion by Jerusalem, on the other hand, including Adam and Ma'ale Mikhmas. The Jerusalem Landfill should also be on the Israeli side. Further to the south, the barrier is very awkward, and Israel should probably give up Husan, Battir, and Har Gilo. By Gillo, the border should be expanded into Bethlehem, so as to include Rachel's Tomb in Israel. The border should be shifted around Eshkolot so it does not look like a penis. Shima should be included, and there should be another bulge at Suseya. In the north, where the Jordan Valley is included, Israel should control everything until just north of the Site of the Baptism of Jesus, which should be Palestinian. Gaza would be a Palestinian exclave; Kiryat Arba and H1 would be an Israeli exclave. Some sort of multinational elevated highway/railway, Gaza-Hebron, would be under joint control. There would be a right of return to an actual Palestine, and Palestine could totally have its own military. Jewish settlers would be kicked out. Israel would also have to pay Palestine some lump sum of money each year, for some period of time. The Temple Mount, like all of Jerusalem, would remain under Israeli sovereignty, but the waqf would be shifted from a Jordanian waqf to a Palestinian one. Palestine is to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Israel is to recognize Palestine as a Palestinian one.

Do I think this will happen? No. It gives up too much for both the Palestinians and the Israright, and it isn't a case of meeting in the middle -- in terms of land it's overly favorable for Israel, and in terms of what the post-peace governments can and cannot do it's overly favorable to Palestine (Danny Ayalon would hate it -- one totally Muslim state, one Jewish-majority, Muslim-minority state).

Would it cause peace immediately? No. But I think there's enough for the Israeli right to accept and the Palestinians get actual statehood, instead of becoming a puppet state like Ehud Barak proposed at Camp David (seriously -- airspace over the West Bank remains Israeli?), but in exchange they lose significant amounts of territory. I honestly think both sides could live with this.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2012, 01:47:54 PM »

Thanks for playing!
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2012, 02:25:39 PM »


1.) Make Jerusalem and international city under UN supervision.


This has always struck me as a terrible idea.  Imagine calling the UN next time a streetlamp burns out to request it be replaced, or lobbying the UN to fix potholes in the street in your neighborhood, or taking a zoning dispute to the UN.  There'd be absolutely no governmental accountability to the people of Jerusalem in dealing with the functions that a local government does every day of the year.
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2012, 02:26:41 PM »

Jordan annexes West Bank and Egypt annexes Gaza. Three state solution.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2012, 03:23:25 PM »

Jordan annexes West Bank and Egypt annexes Gaza. Three state solution.

Everyone's happy...except for the King of Jordan and the President of Egypt.  Tongue

And the King of Jordan's life expectancy would suddenly be measured in months.
Logged
hawkeye59
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,530
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2012, 03:25:32 PM »

My solution would be to have two states:
Israel and the West Bank and
Jordan as a bi-national state between the non-Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinians. Jordan would consist of current borders, the Gaza Strip (assuming a saner government comes along), and the Sinai, and perhaps a large, unpopulated Egyptian governorate, like the Red Sea Governorate. There would be more than enough room for Palestinian refugees, and Israel would guarantee the transfer of refugees, if they want.
Another option would be
Israel and the West Bank and
Egypt gets Gaza
All this is presuming a saner Gaza, which there would be no peace plan without.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2012, 03:46:59 PM »

Jordan annexes West Bank and Egypt annexes Gaza. Three state solution.

Everyone's happy...except for the King of Jordan and the President of Egypt.  Tongue

And the King of Jordan's life expectancy would suddenly be measured in months.
Jordan has a Palestinian majority, so getting rid of the Hashemites in Jordan and changing it to a Palestinian controlled republic would be part of any workable long term solution. Together with the West Bank, this would be a viable state (which the West Bank is not on its own).
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2012, 03:47:23 PM »

2 state solution with 1967 borders with land swaps. A divided Jerusalem would be the capital of both countries, divided on ethnic/religious lines. The Palestinians would have no military, along the lines of Japan after World War II. The borders of the new Palestine would be manned by an international force, probably a UN force possibly one of a third party (I think the British were mentioned at one point). As for the right of return, a small number of refugees will be allowed to return, the rest will be compensated with money. This money should be in part provided by Israel and in part by the international community. We in America should provide a big chunk of it, as peace in the middle east would be worth the cost.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,305
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2012, 04:05:13 PM »

Why should the Palestinians be barred from having a military?
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2012, 04:23:10 PM »
« Edited: May 27, 2012, 04:28:03 PM by Dereich »

Why should the Palestinians be barred from having a military?

Because the Israelis get their knickers in a twist over the idea of a Palestinian army on their borders. There was something in the Palestine Papers where the Israelis were saying that they would never allow a Palestine with a military that had offensive capabilities and wanted to keep IDF soldiers stationed in the new Palestine, and what I said was one of the proposed compromises. Neither side likes it of course, but then again neither side likes anything but completely getting their way.

Here's an article about it on Al Jazzera: http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112512170239319.html
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2012, 04:32:35 PM »


I'm sure they are, in the sense that they are willing to kill or injure civilians in order to achieve a political aim; but by this simply definition the US is the world's leading terror state, willing to kill, rape, maim, and destroy on a scale heretofore unknown in human history, and Israel is a most important junior partner in the ongoing genocide.  the poor fkers you just linked to in their wildest dreams will never do the damage of the Pentagon.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2012, 04:38:45 PM »

Why should the Palestinians be barred from having a military?

Because the Israelis get their knickers in a twist over the idea of a Palestinian army on their borders. There was something in the Palestine Papers where the Israelis were saying that they would never allow a Palestine with a military that had offensive capabilities and wanted to keep IDF soldiers stationed in the new Palestine, and what I said was one of the proposed compromises. Neither side likes it of course, but then again neither side likes anything but completely getting their way.

Here's an article about it on Al Jazzera: http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112512170239319.html
I'm one of the more pro-Israel people here, but I think it's a bad idea to not let the potential Palestinian state have a military.  How else are they going to keep a boot on the neck of the terrorists inside their own borders?  They shouldn't have to rely, at least not long term, on outside forces to do it.  Nor should outside forces be perpetually obliged to pay for it in blood and coin.
I'm sure they are, in the sense that they are willing to kill or injure civilians in order to achieve a political aim; but by this simply definition the US is the world's leading terror state, willing to kill, rape, maim, and destroy on a scale heretofore unknown in human history, and Israel is a most important junior partner in the ongoing genocide.  the poor fkers you just linked to in their wildest dreams will never do the damage of the Pentagon.
The current western Armies are better at keeping collateral damage to a bare minimum than anybody else now or ever.  Your hyperbole shows your bias.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2012, 04:58:01 PM »

Give Palestine to Jordan & Egypt, bribe them with some money and let them deal with the fallout.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2012, 05:18:49 PM »

Why should the Palestinians be barred from having a military?

Because the Israelis get their knickers in a twist over the idea of a Palestinian army on their borders. There was something in the Palestine Papers where the Israelis were saying that they would never allow a Palestine with a military that had offensive capabilities and wanted to keep IDF soldiers stationed in the new Palestine, and what I said was one of the proposed compromises. Neither side likes it of course, but then again neither side likes anything but completely getting their way.

Here's an article about it on Al Jazzera: http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112512170239319.html

A country that cannot defend itself is not a legitimate state -- note that in my proposal Palestine would exchange a significant chunk of land for a working military with offensive capabilities.

I'm sure they are, in the sense that they are willing to kill or injure civilians in order to achieve a political aim; but by this simply definition the US is the world's leading terror state, willing to kill, rape, maim, and destroy on a scale heretofore unknown in human history, and Israel is a most important junior partner in the ongoing genocide.  the poor fkers you just linked to in their wildest dreams will never do the damage of the Pentagon.

This is preposterous. The US has been spending decades fighting overseas, protecting your right to say whatever you want -- like that, for instance. If it wasn't for the US government, you would not have the right to freely say that -- it always amazes me how people can criticize the US and praise its enemies, when they would not be allowed to do that same thing if they actually lived in one of those enemies. And do you really think overthrowing Hussein and the Taliban killed more civilians than would have died if those governments had remained in power?

You really have no idea at all, do you?
Logged
k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,753
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2012, 05:42:55 PM »

No, Vosem. The only reason you're free to criticize the U.S. government and such is because you or I or anyone else on our own isn't enough to be a threat. If there was, all your "liberties" would be taken away pretty damn quickly.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2012, 05:52:38 PM »

No, Vosem. The only reason you're free to criticize the U.S. government and such is because you or I or anyone else on our own isn't enough to be a threat. If there was, all your "liberties" would be taken away pretty damn quickly.
Unless you're in the UK, where saying something funny about a black guy can get you two months in jail and kicked out of college.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.