[PAX] Working toward a two-state solution?
- Thread starter bamf
- Start date
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?
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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
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:
Desalination is a good idea, except it is expensive and nobody will do it unless they basically have to (is my guess).
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).
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?
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?
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.