Whats your Middle East Peace Plan?

Originally posted by deccal
First of all, this is a very good improvement for the OP, after his/her terrible thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

That thread was not meant to be neutral.

This thread is meant to explore more neutral grounds.

In order to gain more insight one has to shift viewpoints and look at an issue from every angle.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

In order to gain more insight one has to shift viewpoints and look at an issue from every angle.

This is a necessary tactic; I wish more and more people learn to do this, before calling, labeling human beings as mere terrorists or extremists and make them an open target to be killed.
And this should not be forget also: every angle you are talking about presupposes that you should try to feel how the person standing on this angle feels. Not only rational but also emotional understanding should interfere.

reply to post by Skyfloating


In your OP you stated... why don't we simply let Palestinians form their State on the land they now live on. That is anything but neutral. It would legitimize the illegal Occupation of Palestinian land, the very issue that causes so many problems in the first place. An end to the Occupation of Palestinian territories must be included in any peace agreement if it has any chance of success. You can not simply say, stay in your ghettos and refugee camps, and small corners of land that we have not taken yet, and live happily there, while the other side lives on land that they agreed was yours. Keep in mind that when Israel was formed, 52% of the land was set aside for Israel and 48% was set aside for Palestinians. Israel has since Illegally occupied all but 12% of the land.

If Israel were to end the occupation, there would be a real chance for lasting peace. Prior to the current Gaza crisis. Hamas had become more moderate and was negotiating in good faith towards that end. Hamas has indeed indicated that they would recognize Israel as a legitimate state based on the pre'67 borders. They have stated so again, since the Gaza attacks. Some have suggested that Israel broke the ceasefire and bombarded Gaza, in order to derail the moderate stance Hamas had been showing. Seeding hate through bombardment. To legitimize illegal Israeli occupation will never solve the problem nor is it a neutral stance.

reply to post by Majorion


Majorian, you, as a Saudi, come from a different angle on this than I do, and I would say your sympathies are polar opposites of mine.

Having said that, you miss the most important thing about peace.

A truism.

You don't have to like the truism, you don't have to even acknowledge the truism, but it's there for all to see, it's been there for all time, and it will never, ever change as long as mankind is on this earth.

The only way to obtain peace, the only way to enjoy the fruits of peace, and the only way to guarantee peace (for a while) is to absolutely crush the opponent who would bring war and fighting to you.

Parity is not a function of peace. Parity is not a function of understanding. Parity is not a function of fairness.

There is no fairness, as much as we'd all like for life to be fair.

It isn't. So wake up, and let's get down to what works.

We know that negotiation, statesmanship, cease-fires, peace initiatives, bilateral agreements, and even returning land has not solved this problem.

Real world here. No la-la land.

Until one side destroys the other (Gaza) there will be no peace. Until the Egyptians and Jordanians, now misidentified as "Palestinians" or the Israelis are wiped out, there will be no peace.

Neither side will let up.

Best thing to do is to let them go. There never should have been a Six-Day War. Nor as far as that goes, a Hundred-Hour War.

Clever names for unfiinshed business.

So pull your head back from the clouds, and think about this from a solid, realistic view.

One side or the other will have to be physically wiped out for peace to reign in this area.

Like it or not, personal preferences aside.

The only long-lasting solution is brutal.

Just as is the truth.

But hey, let's all pretend that our sensitivities will solve this problem with understanding.

Not in a thousand years.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by dooper]

reply to post by dooper

Originally posted by dooper
I would say your sympathies are polar opposites of mine.

'Polar opposite' suggests, that like you, I'm one sided with regards to sympathy; only on the other side. Naturally, I am inclined on the Palestinian side. However, unlike you, I do have sympathy for the innocent Israeli populace, they deserve a homeland, they deserve to exist. You on the other hand, admittedly have no sympathy for all the women and children who needlessly die in Gaza. You consider all their deaths simply as part of the "operation", or "greater good", or "only viable solution".

Originally posted by dooper
So pull your head back from the clouds, and think about this from a solid, realistic view.

Well, the other day I woke up to former U.S president Jimmy Carter in an interview with Larry King, and he was asked about how peace may be achieved in the region. He went on to say that he believed Hamas to be genuine in their desire for real peace, and that their only prerequisite, was cessation of the block aids.

Perhaps you should tell Mr. Carter, that he "has his head in the clouds", for believing that peace is possible between Israel and Palestine.

This was your proposed peace plan; dooper

Originally posted by dooper
Middle East peace plan?

Apparently, it will require a blood bath.

[edit on 9/2/09 by Majorion]

reply to post by Majorion

Hey, Maj. I didn't say I had no sympathy for the women and children of Gaza who are killed in counterstrikes.

I would that no civilian would ever be killed in war. You can take that to the bank.

But I also recognize that belligerents who willfully disregard the consequences of their actions upon their own civilian population by attacking, or launching rockets from civilian-dominated areas are the lowest scum of the earth.

I would further suggest that many of these Hamas "holy fighters" intentionally fire from traditionally civilian areas, hoping the Israelis will not return fire, and not caring if they do. I would suggest that Hamas is the party that doesn't give a damn about Gazans, not even women and children.

These clowns will sneak out, launch a rocket, and run like hell. Later, they'll send a boy to retrieve the launcher. It's real hard at distance to make positive identifications between kids and the original launchers, so the kid will be killed.

Now to me as a man, that is one of the most disgusting, low-life, cowardly things I can imagine any rational person could do. So I ask myself, who's fault is that? You can call me a biased bastard if you want, but I blame it on the cowards who sent the kid out there, knowing it was very possibly now identified and targeted.

I would suggest that Israel takes much more care to minimize civilians than does Hamas. Hamas is filled with cowards. Israel uses the more expensive munitions to effect minimal civilian casualties.

It would be much more effective and a lot cheaper for Israel to just level block by block as fire originated from.

And Maj. For God's sake, if you want to speak rationally, don't use Jimmy Carter as an example of sane, rational, prudent thinking.

Jimmy Carter is one of America's largest, living turds.

Jimmy Carter has been, is, and will be one of America's greatest jokes, and thus an embarrassment.

He's been proven impotent, he's been proven a coward, and proven to be a fool.

Jimmy Carter is so full of crap, he has to get someone else to call his dog for him.


[edit on 9-2-2009 by dooper]

reply to post by dooper

Originally posted by dooper
It's real hard at distance to make positive identifications between kids and the original launchers, so the kid will be killed. Now to me as a man, that is one of the most disgusting, low-life, cowardly things I can imagine any rational person could do.

Then you should easily see the dilemma.

If it were one case of a child being killed, or maybe two, then it can stand to reason that such cases were genuine mistakes.

However when the cases multiply by tenfold, then you can rationally assume that it's deliberate. Here are the figures of children who died in 2008 alone;

Last updated February 3, 2009

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000: Palestinians: 1056

TOTALS FOR 2008: Palestinians: 78

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000: Israelis: 123

TOTALS FOR 2008: Israelis: 4

Remember These Children 2008 Memorial

Now to you as a man, is that not one of the most disgusting, low-life, cowardly things you can imagine?

Originally posted by Terapin
If Israel were to end the occupation, there would be a real chance for lasting peace.

Im not considering that because its not going to happen. The inhabitants dont consider themselves "occupying" the land. Something else needs to happen.

reply to post by dooper


The "enemy" being "completely crushed" is not going to happen either. International Observers will not permit that. Israel needs to "keep face".

reply to post by Majorion


As I said, there is no fair, there is no equity, there is no proportionality.

The best way for Gazan women and children to be safe is for these clowns called Hamas to quit throwing things over the border.

It's a simple concept, it's easy to follow, and it frees up money to spend on better things, like water systems, sewer systems, food supplies and enables more time to farm.

Numbers mean nothing.

When two sides fight, at some point, one side will either be unable to fight further, or will be unwilling to die further. At that point, one side will surrender as they are completely defeated.

This is the brutal nature of conflict. Wishing differently will not change the fact.

Only the loser knows what that "number" will be. Only the loser can make that determination.

This is why it is most merciful to end a war quickly than to let a conflict continue without resolution.

The faster you reach that number, the quicker it's over. The longer it continues unabated and unresolved, the greater total suffering, the greater total deaths.

Brutal.

To be sure.

reply to post by dooper

Originally posted by dooper
The best way for Gazan women and children to be safe is for these clowns called Hamas to quit throwing things over the border.

How can they stop throwing things over the border, when they are being assassinated, bombed, tortured, and pushed back?

Israel's Supreme Court ruled in favor of the legality of the continued practice of targeted assassinations in late 2006

It's funny you mention proportionality, the constant choices in your terminology are quite revealing;

Civilian casualties are legal "only if it meets the demands of proportionality" the court ruled

Israel's Dirty War - Security Council - Global Policy Forum

I've always failed to understand why people always tend to complicate a relatively simple problem. Always want to crowd the calculation with various and sundry ancillary considerations that never quite get to the root of the problem.

A guy goes to the doctor. "Doc, I play ball on weekends, I'm the pitcher, and every single time I throw my screwball, my arm locks up, the pain goes down my spine, and I can't even walk for three days. Got any ideas?"

"Quit throwing the screwball."

You stop throwing and launching things across the border, you stop shooting across the border, and you stop sending suicide bombers across the border, you become good neighbors, and there will be no need for assassinations.

An assassination is a method used to minimize a body count by striking only at the head of the snake.

Personally, I like segmentation. The snake's head is always moving and hard to hit. You segment the snake, and it's just as dead.

To assume that there are truly rules of warfare is foolish. Proportionality has never, and let me emphasize NEVER, EVER been a component of warfare.

And some foolish old men can generalize and philosophize all they want, and it's not going to change the fact that proportionality is never, ever, to be considered when defeating an enemy.

One of the most basic premises of warfare is to kill the enemy in the greatest numbers, in the greatest concentrations, as efficiently as you can, as quickly as you can.

The more you kill the faster, the closer you are to the end of the conflict.

Someone tell me what the maximum kill ratios are, or those ratios deemed acceptable by the useless group in the UN?

Give me the stipulated kill ratio limit.

What if your force is outnumbered, does this specified kill ratio still hold, or do you get to increase the ratio proportionally in that you have lesser numbers?

And what are those provisions?

That's what I thought. There is none.

And if Israel, or any other nation goes a bit over the line?

Who's going to pull down Israel's pants and spank them?

International observers, are, OBSERVERS. They don't "allow" or "let" anything!

International observers don't do anything, don't change anything, don't accomplish anything, and they don't alter anything.

Let them go observe somewhere else.

The truth is, these "international observers" are bought and paid for.

[edit on 9-2-2009 by dooper]

reply to post by dooper


why should they stop first?

id say the one with the least victims should stop first..

how about the one with the most devastating force should stop first?

reply to post by Terapin


sad but true... moore land is slowly being taken away from them.. soon there will be nothing left but refugee camps and prisons..

As long as the world keeps watching to everyday sports and glamour on television they won't notice what horrible things are happening..

Time is running out and the land is needed.. but as long as there is hope and peace for them, then i'll be joining the battle

I don't think Israelis were suicide bombing Gazan civilians in markets, buses, coffee shops, etc.

This leaves a very bad impression on folks, and a very bad taste in the Israelis mouths.

I find it disgusting myself.

Of the two, who has more to gain by changing their ways?

Originally posted by dooper
I don't think Israelis were suicide bombing Gazan civilians in markets, buses, coffee shops, etc.

This leaves a very bad impression on folks, and a very bad taste in the Israelis mouths.

I find it disgusting myself.

Of the two, who has more to gain by changing their ways?

changing is different to stopping..

unfortunately i don't think any side is in a state to simply change... that would just mean "bending the rules to get there anyway"...


But that doesn't mean there should be no balance here !


i mean, this is not just a man-to-man figt for the king's daughter, no, this is man-to-army fight !

So it's fair to see who is in the better position to lay down their weapons..

reply to post by Reignite


Man to Army? Not a fair fight?

It's never been fair. Nothing's ever been fair. The very concept of "fair" is a very modern concept.

Life isn't fair.

If you are one man and want to shoot at an army, then you're your own man, you can make your own choices, and you can do whatever you choose.

But if one is a single man and elects to start shooting at an army, don't whine about it being fair.

They'll kill you deader than **it and never give it a second thought.

Nor should they.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Reignite

 

Man to Army? Not a fair fight?

It's never been fair. Nothing's ever been fair. The very concept of "fair" is a very modern concept.

Life isn't fair.

If you are one man and want to shoot at an army, then you're your own man, you can make your own choices, and you can do whatever you choose.

But if one is a single man and elects to start shooting at an army, don't whine about it being fair.

They'll kill you deader than **it and never give it a second thought.

Nor should they.

peacefull demonstrations wont work.. we have all seen this...

civilians with a poster on a stick at one side of the fence
vs
an army with high-tech guns and armor and vehicles on the other side

seems pretty fair to me

reply to post by Skyfloating


The Inhabitants may not consider them selves as Occupiers, but that doesn't mean much. They think the entire area was given to them by God. The State of Israel however, understands that the settlements are illegal and their own supreme court has agreed.

Both the United Nations and the International Court of Justice refer to the area as the "Occupied Palestinian Territories," with Israel being the occupying force.
Israeli settlements in those areas are a clear violation of established international law. This violation has been affirmed by a majority of members of the Geneva convention, as follows: section 12. "The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power (Israel) to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof."

The West Bank, and the Gaza Strip have been referred to as occupied territories (with Israel as the occupying power) by Palestinian Arabs, the rest of the Arab bloc, the UK, the EU, the USA, and both the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and even the Israeli Supreme Court.

If you propose that lasting Peace will come about by keeping Palestinians in ghettos and allowing the theft of their property, then you would be mistaken. Every peace plan thus far has involved land reform. Settlements are currently built on land that is deeded to palestinian individuals, as well as land set aside for them by the UN when Israel was created. 12% of the remaining land area will not allow Palestinians to have any kind of economic viability, particularly when Israel keeps destroying their homes and farmland.

Everyone recognizes that compromise must happen, and land reform is paramount. It is either that, or as some have suggested, a blood bath until the Palestinians are eradicated. I fail to see what is wrong with ending the occupation and sticking to the initial UN land deal. There is enough room for both sides to have a safe homeland.

The Israelis will never, ever have a safe homeland, regardless of what they do, what they give away, what they say.

I've been watching this for decades.

It's not going to end. It's not going to end until one side or the other ends it. Permanently.

Right now, with no give on either side, either the Israelis must be wiped out, or the "Palestinians."

And the day Israel is gone, the Arabic Islamic fundamentalists will be doing the same things to all Western cultures.

One after another. It's a religious requirement.

We have an old saying down here.

"The closest alligator is the biggest."

Right now Israel is the sore spot in the Middle East, simple because they exist. Something that cannot be tolerated.

Let them go the next time until they finish it.

And if the smaller side doesn't want a next time, then quit shooting things over the border.