Solution for lasting peace in the Middle East

[bush_cheney2004]

Keeping the status quo going is blocking peace. As someone else has pointed out, this has been Likud's plan. To annex as much Palestinian land as possible. The longer there is no peace and no Palestinian state, the more land can be annexed.

Then take your complaint up with Likud and the sovereign government of Israel.

Since congress and senate are not going to be moved, it looks like pressure from Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and other mid-East U.S. allies on both Hamas and U.S. is the only way to achieve this. This is of course, if Bibi is not replaced by a less extreme party/coalition.

The Senate is part of the U.S. Congress. Either way, the House and Senate have appropriated over $100 billion to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine since the 1979 Peace Accord. Canada, the self proclaimed peacekeeper and honest broker, not so much.

Edited November 27, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Palestine as an independent state would need to beg Bangladesh for foreign aid. It has no resources, no industry, can't feed itself, and doesn't have enough water for either industry or proper farming, even presuming it had enough farmland, which it doesn't. It can't support the people living there now, much less those who would want to return if it became independent. Its governmental budgets are mostly paid for by the United States for it has very little to tax. So what would happen if they became independent? The place would soon deteriorate into an Islamist state run by a dictator whose people lived in misery -- much as they do now. I do not imagine peace would likely flow from such a situation.

The only logical way to resolve the Palestinian question is to give the West Bank to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. The people living there would become either Egyptian or Jordanian citizens. You would have to pay (bribe) Jordan and Egypt to take them, of course, but it would be cheaper, in the long run, than any other resolution. It would also give Israel the peace it is looking for.

Actually it has plenty of water, but its residents are not allowed to use much of it. Your solution is not logical at all, because Egypt and Jordan dont want to assimilate the palestinian population, and the palestinian population doesnt want to be assimilated by them either. So its a total non starter.

[Guest Peeves]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21986 Edited November 28, 2012 by Peeves

[Hudson Jones]

Either way, the House and Senate have appropriated over $100 billion to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine since the 1979 Peace Accord.

With more than 3/4 of that going to Israel.

Sometimes you need to accept that you've made a bad investment and it's time to cut yourself from it.

[Guest Peeves]

With more than 3/4 of that going to Israel.

Sometimes you need to accept that you've made a bad investment and it's time to cut yourself from it.

What does that have to do with the post subject? It's a non sequitur. Stick to the point.

"Solution for lasting peace in the Middle East"

[Hudson Jones]

What does that have to do with the post subject? It's a non sequitur. Stick to the point.

"Solution for lasting peace in the Middle East"

It's a reply to BushCheney's response to my post. Pay attention.

[Hudson Jones]

You need to familiarize yourself with what the Arabs have done, before going into fear factory mode.

The Arab League members unanimously endorsed the peace initiative on March 27. It consists of a comprehensive proposal to end the entire Arab–Israeli conflict. It provides in a relevant part:

(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (

Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the

UN General Assembly Resolution No 194

. © Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (

Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.

Link

[Guest Peeves]

You need to familiarize yourself with what the Arabs have done, before going into fear factory mode.

The Arab League members unanimously endorsed the peace initiative on March 27. It consists of a comprehensive proposal to end the entire Arab–Israeli conflict. It provides in a relevant part:

(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (

Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the

UN General Assembly Resolution No 194

. © Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (

Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.

Link

Uh huh, like the radical extremist jihad types will ever agree to terms that you posted. A peace agreement that ignores the militant enemies isn't worth an al-taqiyya..

[bush_cheney2004]

With more than 3/4 of that going to Israel.

Fortunately, there is no requirement to know mathematics to post here.

Sometimes you need to accept that you've made a bad investment and it's time to cut yourself from it.

And sometimes you have to accept that you have no say in the matter.

[Hudson Jones]

Uh huh, like the radical extremist jihad types

This sort of simpleton talk works within the foxnews demographic, but not so much outside of it.

[Hudson Jones]

Fortunately, there is no requirement to know mathematics to post here.

Do tell. How much money has the U.S. given to Israel since 1979?

And sometimes you have to accept that you have no say in the matter.

I do have a say. We all have a say. This is why we're here.

[Guest Peeves]

So then no one can dispute my thesis? Perhaps I will have to start another thread for responses to my position.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Peeves

[bush_cheney2004]

Do tell. How much money has the U.S. given to Israel since 1979?

As much as it wanted to. You gotta problem with that?

I do have a say. We all have a say. This is why we're here.

Nope....nobody here has a real say in the matter. But you could make a large donation to AIPAC like me.

[Signals.Cpl]

So then no one can dispute my thesis? Perhaps I will have to start another thread for responses to my position.

Let me ask you the following:

Which nation will not accept Israel’s existence?

As much as Egypt may huff and puff they benefit greatly from remaining on the good side of the US, they benefit financially and give the chance as we saw they would love to be the power broker in the region.

Then we come to Syria, nothing to see here as they can offer nothing but a token disapproval of any plan for the time being and the foreseeable future they are out...

How about Jordan? Well they have an economic and military relationship with the US and I highly doubt that they would jeopardize their ties to the US.

Lebanon well their approval is not a prerequisite for peace but should they become a problem they could be dealt with appropriately...

Saudi Arabia, their position seems to rest on Palestinians having their own nation and as such they would be satisfied with any such deal mainly because of the threat in the gulf that Iran poses and Saudi Arabia needs the US military to Guarantee their security in the region.

Iran will most likely oppose any peace between Israelis and the Palestinians but their opinion in the region does not matter much.

With cooperation from Egypt and Jordan the flow of weapons will slow down to a trickle if not stop all together. If the political aspect is done properly there should not be much problem. As dre stated Israel should reward moderates who negotiate and shun violence while reacting with force when approached with force. The goal is not to defeat or negotiate with Hamas or any other terrorist organization, the goal is to show the Palestinian people that negotiation is the way to go, because sending 1,000 or even 5,000 rockets at Israel would do nothing but bring death, destruction and more poverty while peaceful negotiations bring stability, prosperity and peace.

Defeating Hamas will not come from the weapons of the IDF but from the Palestinian people, convince them that it is in their best interest and it more profitable to make peace and they will defeat the extremists themselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Defeating Hamas will not come from the weapons of the IDF but from the Palestinian people, convince them that it is in their best interest and it more profitable to make peace and they will defeat the extremists themselves.

That's all well and good, but they still get to target and kill terrorist organizations like Hamas. Mess with the bull...get the horns.

[GostHacked]

Israel occupies the west bank for strategic military defense. This is one reason why Israel and the US refuse to have, as Bibi says, a 22nd Arab state and a 2nd Palestinian state (he makes the claim that Jordan is the Palestinian state), and makes the caveat of 'at the expense of the only Jewish state'. In that video I posted where we have a 28 yr old Bibi talking about all this his claim was that another Palestinian state would mean more wars, more bloodshed and just more problems. But here we are in that situation regardless. So those claims can be tossed out the window.

Bibi also like to trot out that if the west bank was part of a new Palestinian state then Israel would only be 9 miles wide. But that is only in a certain section of the country. Israel won't be leaving the west bank anytime soon, it's of militarily strategic importance they occupy the west bank for defense. That is how Bibi sees it.

Edited November 28, 2012 by GostHacked

[Guest Peeves]

Israel occupies the west bank for strategic military defense. This is one reason why Israel and the US refuse to have, as Bibi says, a 22nd Arab state and a 2nd Palestinian state (he makes the claim that Jordan is the Palestinian state), and makes the caveat of 'at the expense of the only Jewish state'. In that video I posted where we have a 28 yr old Bibi talking about all this his claim was that another Palestinian state would mean more wars, more bloodshed and just more problems. But here we are in that situation regardless. So those claims can be tossed out the window.

Bibi also like to trot out that if the west bank was part of a new Palestinian state then Israel would only be 9 miles wide. But that is only in a certain section of the country. Israel won't be leaving the west bank anytime soon, it's of militarily strategic importance they occupy the west bank for defense. That is how Bibi sees it.

That's how I expect a reasonable person would see it. Settling the West Bank,or withdrawing from the West Bank would not change the status quo viz a viz the agenda of..Hamas-Hezbollah, Iran or the Egyptian Brotherhood. There are elements in the Gaza that would kill an Israeli as soon as look at them regardless any Hamas stated policy or cease fire.

If one considers all who have attacked Israel it is obvious or should be that vacating the West Bank is of no more a plus to Israel than vacating The Gaza or vacating Lebanon was.

Were I an Israeli in the Knesset, I would hold out till the cows come home because to do otherwise will serve no purpose. Those enemies or detractors of Israel abroad, would still want more from Israel, and still claim an inappropriate response if Israel reacted to any attack on its citizens.

I read a letter to the Ed. What Israel needs is not just the ability (iron dome ) to destroy incoming, but the capability to turn the rockets about retuning them whence they came...or to the manufacturer...Iran.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Peeves

[Canuckistani]

Israel occupies the west bank for strategic military defense. This is one reason why Israel and the US refuse to have, as Bibi says, a 22nd Arab state and a 2nd Palestinian state (he makes the claim that Jordan is the Palestinian state), and makes the caveat of 'at the expense of the only Jewish state'. In that video I posted where we have a 28 yr old Bibi talking about all this his claim was that another Palestinian state would mean more wars, more bloodshed and just more problems. But here we are in that situation regardless. So those claims can be tossed out the window.

Bibi also like to trot out that if the west bank was part of a new Palestinian state then Israel would only be 9 miles wide. But that is only in a certain section of the country. Israel won't be leaving the west bank anytime soon, it's of militarily strategic importance they occupy the west bank for defense. That is how Bibi sees it.

There's a difference between occupying territory for defense and settling in that territory. There's a case to be made for the former as long as there are hostilities, not for the latter. The latter just ensures hostilities will continue.

As for some Palestinians wanting to kill Israelis as soon as look at them, that sword cuts both ways.

[Guest Peeves]

There's a difference between occupying territory for defense and settling in that territory. There's a case to be made for the former as long as there are hostilities, not for the latter. The latter just ensures hostilities will continue.

As for some Palestinians wanting to kill Israelis as soon as look at them, that sword cuts both ways.

You make a distinction, but it is moot. The West Bank is disputed territory and if it serves Israel then why give it up? There is no apparent benefit in so doing. There are benefits in settling and having a presence in it and in the Golan Heights. Vacating Gaza or Lebanon resulted in being attacked from same. Who is to say another front would not grow from vacating the West Bank?

Why give up any security that extra geography provides with no benefit in return? Because someone with a bias suggests you should?

As for the two edged sword, no doubt you are right. However I refer to the organized sub groups in Gaza that defy any Hamas cease fire.

[DogOnPorch]

There's a difference between occupying territory for defense and settling in that territory. There's a case to be made for the former as long as there are hostilities, not for the latter. The latter just ensures hostilities will continue.

Really? UN 413 went through without as much as a burp, rewarding North Viet-Nam for invading its neighbours with a seat at the UN. I imagine the 'settlement' continues to this day...as does the 'occupation'.

[Argus]

Actually it has plenty of water, but its residents are not allowed to use much of it. Your solution is not logical at all, because Egypt and Jordan dont want to assimilate the palestinian population, and the palestinian population doesnt want to be assimilated by them either. So its a total non starter.

There is no cultural, religious, ethnic, spiritual or linguistic difference between Palestinians and Jordanians or Egyptians. And no, there isn't enough water, and no, there isn't anything productive for all those people to do. As I said, an independent Palestine would make Bangladesh seem rich by comparison.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Argus