What is your plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 08:55:36 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? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What is your plan for peace between Israel and Palestine?  (Read 8133 times)
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,637
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

« 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
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,637
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

« Reply #1 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: 15,637
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

« Reply #2 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
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,637
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

« Reply #3 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
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,637
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2012, 06:37:09 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.

If that was so, then how come many authoritarian states, such as (for example), the Soviet Union or the Nazis restricted individuals from speaking out against the regime? Is it that the US is so firmly entrenched that individuals don't matter, but they did in the USSR or in Nazi Germany?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.