- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Poli Talk Solutions: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:15 pm
Okay baws, we're gonna omit the easy answers: you can't nuke one side, have one side take over, or ignore it altogether.
How would you solve this clusterfrick of a mess?
Your proposal should incorporate solutions for 1. The West Bank, 2. Gaza, and 3. Jerusalem
1. The West Bank: this is where the key issue lies. Look at the map. The borders are so intertwined that it's just asking for repeated confrontation and flare-ups.
Give it to Israel. In turn, Palestinians should receive compensation for their homes and will be relocated to...
2. Gaza: aka the new Palestine. This strip of land runs right along the coast and will be far more valuable than the speckled borders of landlocked property Palestinians have now in the West Bank.
To accommodate for the West Bank relocation, Palestinians are given the land directly East or South of Gaza.
Look at map with satellite images. There aren't any major developments East or South of Gaza. Going East, Israel gives up undeveloped land for about 10 miles, but gets to expand their established West Bank settlements. If you go South, Egypt will need to give up some land they aren't significantly using. Egypt is already on good terms with Israel and this will provide them with new trading partners (Gaza borders can finally be opened). You can now also create a larger buffer zone between Gaza and Israel.
Expanding South into Egypt makes better sense. No Israeli small towns are changed. Palestine also gets to expand their land along the coast.
3. Jerusalem: Israel isn't giving it to the Palestinians. Also, there is no way the Palestinians will give up the West Bank if it means they lose Jerusalem. Giving it to Israel will create turmoil with the other Middle Eastern countries due to its religious significance. The solution here is to go with the UN's recommendation of making Jerusalem an international city. It becomes neutral ground with the UN handling security.
Peace talks always fall through because of the terrible border lines. Get both sides to agree on clear border lines and progress will be made. Incentives need to be given to both sides to make this happen.
Hamas needs to sign on or will be forcefully dissolved. West Bankers will move if given reimbursement and can move to better land in the new Palestinian region. If the locals don't agree to the move, have their fellow Palestinians forcefully relocate them--not Israel.
Both sides end up with well-demarcated land with access to the coast.
EDIT: changed the map. I only wanted a map that showed how interlaced the West Bank was. All the other maps made the West Bank look like solid plot of land.
EDIT #2: don't make this something it's not. It's not a religious declaration of righteousness or having you involve the US government. It's asking why or if you should try to solve it. It's just asking if you could come up with a feasible solution. If so, how?
How would you solve this clusterfrick of a mess?
Your proposal should incorporate solutions for 1. The West Bank, 2. Gaza, and 3. Jerusalem
1. The West Bank: this is where the key issue lies. Look at the map. The borders are so intertwined that it's just asking for repeated confrontation and flare-ups.
Give it to Israel. In turn, Palestinians should receive compensation for their homes and will be relocated to...
2. Gaza: aka the new Palestine. This strip of land runs right along the coast and will be far more valuable than the speckled borders of landlocked property Palestinians have now in the West Bank.
To accommodate for the West Bank relocation, Palestinians are given the land directly East or South of Gaza.
Look at map with satellite images. There aren't any major developments East or South of Gaza. Going East, Israel gives up undeveloped land for about 10 miles, but gets to expand their established West Bank settlements. If you go South, Egypt will need to give up some land they aren't significantly using. Egypt is already on good terms with Israel and this will provide them with new trading partners (Gaza borders can finally be opened). You can now also create a larger buffer zone between Gaza and Israel.
Expanding South into Egypt makes better sense. No Israeli small towns are changed. Palestine also gets to expand their land along the coast.
3. Jerusalem: Israel isn't giving it to the Palestinians. Also, there is no way the Palestinians will give up the West Bank if it means they lose Jerusalem. Giving it to Israel will create turmoil with the other Middle Eastern countries due to its religious significance. The solution here is to go with the UN's recommendation of making Jerusalem an international city. It becomes neutral ground with the UN handling security.
Peace talks always fall through because of the terrible border lines. Get both sides to agree on clear border lines and progress will be made. Incentives need to be given to both sides to make this happen.
Hamas needs to sign on or will be forcefully dissolved. West Bankers will move if given reimbursement and can move to better land in the new Palestinian region. If the locals don't agree to the move, have their fellow Palestinians forcefully relocate them--not Israel.
Both sides end up with well-demarcated land with access to the coast.
EDIT: changed the map. I only wanted a map that showed how interlaced the West Bank was. All the other maps made the West Bank look like solid plot of land.
EDIT #2: don't make this something it's not. It's not a religious declaration of righteousness or having you involve the US government. It's asking why or if you should try to solve it. It's just asking if you could come up with a feasible solution. If so, how?
This post was edited on 5/16/21 at 6:58 pm
16
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:18 pm to The Detroit Lions
Cage match to the death.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:21 pm to The Detroit Lions
quote:
How would you solve this clusterfrick of a mess?
I feel like the Israelis are solving it now
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:21 pm to The Detroit Lions
The map over time graphic is very misleading and very problematic.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:22 pm to The Detroit Lions
First of all your map is wrong. There was no “Palestine” therefore there was no “loss of Palestine land”
Not to mention the loss of the land was because they attacked Israel and got destroyed. They are lucky Israel didn’t take all of the land and tell them to kick rocks. Israel actually gave a lot of land back.
Not to mention the loss of the land was because they attacked Israel and got destroyed. They are lucky Israel didn’t take all of the land and tell them to kick rocks. Israel actually gave a lot of land back.
This post was edited on 5/16/21 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:23 pm to The Detroit Lions
Mortal Kombat
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:24 pm to The Detroit Lions
I don't like your options.
The Jews bulldozing the bomb throwers is the best option.
The Jews bulldozing the bomb throwers is the best option.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:26 pm to The Detroit Lions
There was never a Palestine.
There wasn’t one in 1946.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:30 pm to The Detroit Lions
Bible says it's Israel's. The muslims stole it, so they have to give it back.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:31 pm to WaWaWeeWa
Updated the map
It wasn't to emphasize the "loss" of land, just to show what the real borders in the West Bank are today. Every other map I saw made the West Bank look like it was intact.
It wasn't to emphasize the "loss" of land, just to show what the real borders in the West Bank are today. Every other map I saw made the West Bank look like it was intact.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:31 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
First of all your map is wrong. There was no “Palestine” therefore there was no “loss of Palestine land”
The Romans renamed the province Palaestina, after The Second Jewish Revolt.
That was 135 AD.
This post was edited on 5/16/21 at 6:33 pm
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:32 pm to deeprig9
quote:
The map over time graphic is very misleading and very problematic
i got rid of it. I was trying to focus on the West Bank's borders.
This post was edited on 5/16/21 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:34 pm to The Detroit Lions
It’s not my problem to solve. And that applies equally to the United States. The late, great Justin Raimondo explains:
A Palestinian State?
....In short, the creation of a Palestinian state – a centralized, unified bureaucratic apparatus, that rules over the occupied territories – is a bad idea whose time has come. It is not going to lead to peace: quite the opposite.
That’s because neither side wants peace, and this is quite obvious from their demands: the Israelis demand the “right” to build settlements on other people’s property, and the Palestinians continue to insist on the “right of return” – a “right” I’m waiting to be exercised in the United States. Is the UN going to demand that we give most of the country back to the Indians? Then they can turn Wall Street into a giant casino – oh, wait...
Since neither sides wants peace, there will be none. Given these intractable circumstances, we must withdraw from the role of “broker,” which the American conceit of exercising “world leadership” at every opportunity has made mandatory.
We have no interest in the creation of yet another radical Arab state which is bound to turn against us, no matter what we do, or how we vote in the UN. We must also withdraw as Israel’s shield and chief financier: that, indeed, is the very first step we can and must take in order to extricate ourselves from the most dangerous trouble spot on earth.
At the point where the world’s three great Abrahamic religions meet, there the seismic plates of civilization brush up against each other – to inevitably violent effect. The creation of a new state in the very epicenter of this seismic disturbance is just asking for an earthquake of epic proportions.
....Not all problems have solutions, and the recognition that we have done what we can – while making the situation far worse – is key to forging a new policy that puts our own interests first.
....The US government’s self-appointed role in the region as mediator and “peace” broker is a textbook example of how interventionism leads to the exact opposite of its ostensible objectives. We tout a “peace process” that has only produced more war and stick our noses into snake pits where they don’t belong. Then we wonder why we get bitten.
A Palestinian State?
....In short, the creation of a Palestinian state – a centralized, unified bureaucratic apparatus, that rules over the occupied territories – is a bad idea whose time has come. It is not going to lead to peace: quite the opposite.
That’s because neither side wants peace, and this is quite obvious from their demands: the Israelis demand the “right” to build settlements on other people’s property, and the Palestinians continue to insist on the “right of return” – a “right” I’m waiting to be exercised in the United States. Is the UN going to demand that we give most of the country back to the Indians? Then they can turn Wall Street into a giant casino – oh, wait...
Since neither sides wants peace, there will be none. Given these intractable circumstances, we must withdraw from the role of “broker,” which the American conceit of exercising “world leadership” at every opportunity has made mandatory.
We have no interest in the creation of yet another radical Arab state which is bound to turn against us, no matter what we do, or how we vote in the UN. We must also withdraw as Israel’s shield and chief financier: that, indeed, is the very first step we can and must take in order to extricate ourselves from the most dangerous trouble spot on earth.
At the point where the world’s three great Abrahamic religions meet, there the seismic plates of civilization brush up against each other – to inevitably violent effect. The creation of a new state in the very epicenter of this seismic disturbance is just asking for an earthquake of epic proportions.
....Not all problems have solutions, and the recognition that we have done what we can – while making the situation far worse – is key to forging a new policy that puts our own interests first.
....The US government’s self-appointed role in the region as mediator and “peace” broker is a textbook example of how interventionism leads to the exact opposite of its ostensible objectives. We tout a “peace process” that has only produced more war and stick our noses into snake pits where they don’t belong. Then we wonder why we get bitten.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:36 pm to Scruffy
quote:
There wasn’t one in 1946.
The same could be said of Israel.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:37 pm to The Detroit Lions
quote:
How would you solve this clusterfrick of a mess?
send israel all the ammo and weapons it needs to exterminate every last muslim and step back and stay the frick out of it, its none of our business short of supporting israel with whatever it needs
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:39 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
The muslims stole it, so they have to give it back.
The Muslims beat them and took it, no?
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:39 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
The US government’s self-appointed role in the region as mediator and “peace” broker is a textbook example of how interventionism leads to the exact opposite of its ostensible objectives. We tout a “peace process” that has only produced more war and stick our noses into snake pits where they don’t belong. Then we wonder why we get bitten.
I'm not having y'all solve this on the US government's behalf or for some religious brownie points.
Think of it as a DIY. This is the current issue. How would solve it? Not why or if you should. Just how?
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:40 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:True, but, there was an Israel in 1947.
The same could be said of Israel.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:43 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Justin Raimondo
One of the GOAT. Anti-war.com and Lew Rockwell take me back to the Ron Paul campaign days in 2007.
Posted on 5/16/21 at 6:45 pm to Bulldogblitz
quote:
The Muslims beat them and took it, no?
Tomato, tomato. Seems like Isreal can beat them and take it back, no?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News