israeli palestinian conflict resolved

sharon's withdrawal plan... what are youre thoughts?

Ha! He invaded that Gaza in the first place. I think the israeli's will have to concede a lot more if they ever want to see the end of this damn war.

Terrorism? How do you fight an opponent who has tanks, highly-trained military personnel, fighter jets and the economical capabilities to build a wall around you? An all-out attack? Please. The israeli's leave the palestinians no choice, and the attacks israel executes after each terrorist attack is everything but justice. It's just an eye for an eye. One would think that the yews had learned better after millenia of prosecution.

Mr U

Okay. These are always fun... My thoughts? None to speak of I'm afraid. I'm not sure I really understood the motives behind this move so I'm just hoping for the best. I don't think Gaza should be part of Israel in the final settlement, but I'm not sure if this was a good idea becuase of, like you said, it could be concieved as conceding to terror... I know that Hamas has already started using it as propoganda, but I don't think it really helped their cause all that much... The security chiefs said that it will help fight terror more effectively, and I am led by a gut feeling to believe them. But this isn't anything I'm sure enough about to go protest about or anything.

Since this is sort of related, I think the Kassam threat on Sderot should be taken seriously. I am no security effort so I have on idea how this can be done, but I get the feeling nothing's going to happen until God forbid a large number of people die.

HU, officially, this isn't conceding... it's disengaging from Gaza so that terrorism would be easier to fight... Sharon doesn't believe in negotiating with the current Palestinian administration.
Since we're on the general topic... :p I would agree with you that a weak side fighting for freedom or independence or whatnot can't use full-out attack. What they'd use would usually be guerilla warfare, or strategic attacks, like the Jewish freedom fighters used to fight off the british in the 40s. The problem with the Palestinian terrorists is that they delibirately target innocent civilians - not that they don't mind harming them for their cause, but delibirately. This is why people are so set on fighting terror. It's morally wrong in the way that an army fighting isn't.
I'll need some proof that the actions Israel respnds with to terrorist attacks are revenge-based. What's brought down Palestinian terror to the level it's in now if not the Israeli army's operations? Read the news of the past months about Israel. Terrorism has been brought to probably its lowest since the intifada started and more terrorists are being arrested and killed every day. It might not work as an exclusive solution but you can't say that the army is entirely useless and bases its attacks exclusively on racism.

If the Jews aren't doing this properly, then what do you think the Dutch would have done in this situation? Or if not them, what would an ideal state do?

:wtf:, read your pm.

On-Topic: What I would do?

Simple. Restart negotiations with real terms, not just negotiations to please the UN. They can end the conflict within the year, but they have to get real about it. Both parties. Israel can not have whole Palestina, and the Palestinians can not have the Israel. It's time to come to a midway. If the Palestinians want some jew-inhabited areas, give them to the palestinians while offering the jews a possibility of moving.
I think it is only logical that they should tear down the wall and stop their acts of vengeance each time someone blows up a bus.

Mr U

That is simple. Actually, it's been thought of before. If both sides want to negotiate and actually get somewhere then it'll work... but the thing is, Arafat's already been offered the maximum he was gonna get and refused it and went home to start a terrorist campaign. Virtually the whole world agrees today that he is not a partner for peace, but the thing is, he still holds all the power, and the prime minister is his right-hand man. The reason there are no negotiations going on is because of Arafat. Once he steps down, or once he gets kicked out like might happen soon, there might be a partner and a prospect for peace. Would you negotiate with a man that can think of no midway?
About the Jewish settlements... it isn't just a question of housing... these places have been people's homes for ages... ripping them away from it is a cruel and difficult process, and while it may be worth it to achieve peace, I don't think this is a matter to be looked upon lightly. And anyway, it shouldn't be taken for granted that this wish must be respected. Areas free of Jews? Imagine if Israel demanded areas free of Arabs!
As for the separation fence and army actions, I don't see your logic. How is it derived? Fact is both of these have resulted in a blow to the terror infrastucture, and the evidence of that can be seen in that there aren't tens of Israelis murdered every week like what used to be. I can understand, although not entirely agree with, the claim that these actions are immoral, but to say they're illogical is just being blind to the facts. Less people are dead because of them. That's a logical enough reason for me.

P.S. And you don't need to threaten to ban me just because I'm right and you're wrong :p

True, less people are dying, but the number of casualties have not been reduced to zero. Civilian casualties, I mean, of course. Logical would be destroying the entire palestinian population, as it would immediately solve the problem. However, both methods are everything but moral acceptable and bring us farther from peace than we already were.

Arafat is a terrorist, I agree, but I disagree with the fact that he is the sole obstacle. He is just a bean trying to get some sleep, a nobody. Despite of what you may think, if he dies, another one like him will pop up. As long as he represents the majority, or at least the majority of the people that speak up, there will be no peace. Building a wall around them and bombing their cities will only increase the faith of the palestinians in Arafat and put peace even further away. With a sign of goodwill, at least some of the palestinians will start believing that Israel wants peace.

If there is peace, getting rid of the terrorists will be no problem. I'm sure the US will lend it's troops for a while to search through isreal and kill them, if they still pose a threat. The main problem right now, however is winning the faith of the palestinian people, and with it, making people like Arafat, old news.

Now think twice before you reply to this one, coz I got my finger on that ban button ;).

Mr U

True, less people are dying, but the number of casualties have not been reduced to zero. Civilian casualties, I mean, of course. Logical would be destroying the entire palestinian population, as it would immediately solve the problem. However, both methods are everything but moral acceptable and bring us farther from peace than we already were.
Both methods? Which is the second?
Destroying the Palestinian population wouldn't be entirely logical (by logical I assume you mean helpful to the Israeli cause), since it would most likely start a regional war, which is a big no-no.
But I see your point. Assuming that someone somehow find out the most effective move for Israel to make, it should probably not be taken since it would be immoral and would have many innocents killed. However, this move will not "bring us farther from peace than we already were". It would bring us close to peace. The reason it would not be taken is because it is immoral. It is important to differentiate between these two things. The immoral and ineffective arguments are different ones, and shouldn't be mixed together, because then it would jumble things up worse than they need to be...
Arafat is a terrorist, I agree, but I disagree with the fact that he is the sole obstacle. He is just a bean trying to get some sleep, a nobody. Despite of what you may think, if he dies, another one like him will pop up. As long as he represents the majority, or at least the majority of the people that speak up, there will be no peace. Building a wall around them and bombing their cities will only increase the faith of the palestinians in Arafat and put peace even further away. With a sign of goodwill, at least some of the palestinians will start believing that Israel wants peace.
It's become fashoinable to say that the leader means nothing. They said this about Yassin and Rantisi too - that killing them will achieve nothing - yada yada yada. Fact is, the Hamas's infrastructure and leadership have suffered a major blow. It's not really a question of majority with the Palestinians. For many years now they've been waging a psychological war, demonising the Israelis while idolising their own leaders. Arafat is the most extreme example of this. It is well known that he is corrupt to the core, his intifada has failed every way you look at it, and he's lost the world's trust. The only reason no major moves have been made until now to get him out of office is because he has been leading the Palestinian struggle for so long he has become untouchable. Israelis are anxiously awaiting his death by natural causes so that a sane leadership may pop up and sensible negotiations may start. Arafat might not be the sole obstacle, be he has always been the main obstacle. Just look at how he sabotaged Abu Mazen's progression.

There's not really a problem of the Palestinians not realising Israel wants peace. It's what the whole terrorism idea is based on. The overwhelming majority of Israelis would rather not have themselves or their brothers murdered, which is why the Palestinians are bothering to fight. They are well aware that they have no choice of defeating Israel by military methods. It is Israel's well known dream of a peaceful existence that lends hope to the Palestinian struggle.
What a sign of good will will achieve, however, is less hatred and therefore less potential terrorists. According to this reasoning it makes sense for the army to be softer on the Palestinians, but then, being softer might lead to successful attacks, which themselves lend inspiration for more potential terrorists... It's a frustrating paradox, the answer to which would be a non-Israeli, preferably Palestinian counter-terrorism force, kind of like how the Israeli police stop Jewish terrorists from executing attacks on the Palestinian population.
If there is peace, getting rid of the terrorists will be no problem. I'm sure the US will lend it's troops for a while to search through isreal and kill them, if they still pose a threat. The main problem right now, however is winning the faith of the palestinian people, and with it, making people like Arafat, old news.

Now think twice before you reply to this one, coz I got my finger on that ban button ;).

Mr U
How exactly do you define peace? I define it as having no terrorists attempting any attacks. You talk about fighting terrorists while there is peace. I'm all confuzzled.
I dunno, I think you misunderstand the nature of the war here. The Palestinian areas are controlled by the terrorist organisations. The Palestinian Authority, which legally rules the area is composed of Arafat's terrorist group Fatah and friends. It's not the Palestinian people making the terrorists more dangerous. It's the terrorist organisations making the Palestinian people more dangerous!
The Israeli army is better trained than the American one in door-to-door counter-terrorism. The US could lend more numbers, but that isn't exactly what's missing. Damn it man, it isn't that easy. If it was it'd have been solved already. This conflict's been going on for a hundred years...
I'm still in the process of forming a full opinion about the situation here, but right now I'm thinking that if the terrorist organisations are weakened enough then the Palestinian people's trust could be easily won again. After all, the Israeli people want peace and are willing to give the Palestinian some kind of independence for it. Trust me, I know my public :D

Good luck with converting to Judaism. ;)

OK, I know this is a complex issue that can and never will be resolved with a simple idea. The issue's flow, not just from moral stances but also from religious convictions. Israel is at the hub of the worlds three largest religions. I realise that Islam doesn't find its home in Jerusalem but it still has major shrines there.

The issues stem not just from hundreds of years but thousands. Going back to the root cause of the issue on the Jewish side, they Torah tells that after the exodus from Egypt , under the leadership of Moses, they reached Mt Sinia (I think) Moses went up the mountain and God showed him the land he was giving to the Jewish nation as their own, which stretched further than the current boundaries of Israel (including the occupied territories) do.

Throughout history, the Israelites have been exiled by almost every major empire to rise up. Each time though they have eventually returned to the land whch was granted them by God. The only difference was that in the final era, the land had been occupied by the palestinians who had built their homes/ shrines etc in the land and obviously didn't want to leave.

The other serious issue stems from the Dome on the rock. This mosque was built on the site of the original Temple built by King Solomon, approximately 700years BC and decimated by the romans I think. Now I know that the bible states that the temple will be restored and that a number of fundamentalist chrisian groups, and also for that matter Jewish groups think this is will literally take place and so want to destroy it, which would almost certainly spark WW3.

These are just a couple of the issues that I know of which are at the centre of the current problems in Israel. I don't think that even if Arafat was removed from the equation a lasting peace would be achieved. I hope it can but I have my doubts as to what would be required to bring it about and whether either side would be willing to sacrifice enough to make it happen

Swampy, most of what you say is pretty accurate, at least as far as I know. Apart from the fact that to the best of my knowledge there has been a Jewish state in Israel only three times. The difference the third time was that this time the Jewish people weren't a majority in the land.

I'm more optimistic than you generally speaking. I know, as an observant Jew, that in the current circumstances the religious issues such as the promised boundries of Israel and the third temple are widely understood to be expendable for the time being for the sake of peace, for saving lives. I can't be completely sure but I have a strong conviction that in Islam this is the same - that having less people killed is also a religious issue that holds a lot of weight.
I tend to think that this is more a matter of religion vaguely used for political purposes than real deep religious disagreements. I think that the problems are solvable, only that there are people that are standing in the way. The Palestinian struggle is for independence, not for religious purposes. The Israeli government and public aren't even observant religious, their struggle is for peace and security - of course there are side-issues that are problematic, but these are still largely side issues. I think that the general disagreement is solvable.

The main reason I think there should be a fence is because that way it'll be easier to contain the palestinian people in one place so that it would be easier to locate the terrorists in that area and stop them before they go and start bombing innocent civillians.

I also think that the jewish settelments should clear out not because of any idealistic reason but I think the Israelis are spending to much money on security for the settlements in gaza and in the west-bank, when they should be actually investing all this money in people who really need it. And I mean the 300,000 children that are so poor that they only have one meal a day. I know it's a bit off the subject but it does really bother me.

I also don't really have an opinion about all the situation. I'm sort of center. I don't belive in those slogans like 'death to the arabs' and stuff like that. And I wouldn't go and live in a settlement. I don't go around sticking bumper stickers carrying slogans like 'giving back land - victory to terrorism'. I don't think all the palestinians are bad people but I am still careful about approaching certain people - not because I'm scared but because of safety reasons. Most of my freinds are either right or far right so it's hard to speak with them about this stuff. All in all I think hating people is just bad (don't think of me as a hippie) unless they're neo-nazis or something like that.

you hippie you. Good points, though I'll have to disagree about one thing. Hating is always wrong, even when aimed at neo-nazis or people like them. I say anger is okay, fighting them back if necessary is okay, but all hating does is cloud your judgement...