NationStates Jolt Archive

I have reached the following conclusion: I am fucking fed up with all the finger pointing in this whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am so irritated that no matter what seems to happen, everyone either says that the Palestinians deserve whatever the Israelis can dish out, or that Israel deserves to be bombed into oblivion.

Who cares who did what fifty years ago? So, one group wronged another group, and then that group in turned, wrong those who wronged them, sowing the seeds for the endless cycle of violence; violence begets violence.

My little tirade aside, I have decided rather than hijacking the thread that fuelled my ire, (Stolen Land (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508054)), that I would start my own thread.

This thread is a place in which people can debate possible solutions.

Finger pointing never solved anything. Saying that past actions should dictate the future, in this case seems to only make things worse. If you want to debate the wrongdoings on who's fault it was, this is not the place.

Bringing up a "he did this, he did that" link is not the point of this. The point of this discussion would be for people here to talk about what in theory could be done to solve the Mid East crisis. Like, what could be done that makes it possible to end the generations of violence? What would you like to see happen? Is there something that worked before that might work again? Etc...

And no smouldering craters!

Feel free to report anyone for trolling or attempting to disrupt this thread. If anyone goes into finger pointing mode, direct them to the right thread for that. I just want this to be a discussion of ideas. You can viciously rip apart someone's vision all you want.

And no smouldering craters!

Damn.

I think the first problem is what would a solution look like -- i.e. what would it have to have to satisfy both sides. After that, it is how you get there that is also difficult. I guess, I would identify a cease fire as the first step in reaching the conclusion.
Hopefully I haven't been overly simple.

And no smouldering craters!

So I can advocate any solution for the region as long as it's not a violent one? Well, that's pretty difficult, given that Palestinian terrorists are incessantly raining down rockets upon large civilian areas and mercilessly massacring as many innocent Israelis as they can get their hands on. There can be no peaceful solution until the Palestinians completely disarm and recognize the legality of the Israeli state.

So I can advocate any solution for the region as long as it's not a violent one? Well, that's pretty difficult, given that Palestinian terrorists are incessantly raining down rockets upon large civilian areas and mercilessly massacring as many innocent Israelis as they can get their hands on. There can be no peaceful solution until the Palestinians completely disarm and recognize the legality of the Israeli state.

Shut up troll-boy. Or read the OP. Your choice.

The obvious solution is to deport them all to the Sahara desert and give them pointy sticks. no craters that wy :p

Seriously? I think we need a UN force with TEETH on the ground that can effectively and EVEN-HANDEDLY deal with attempts by either side to strike militarily. Neither side can be trusted to do it themselves so we need something to keep them apart.

Then, get on with building up Palestinian infrastructure. It's easy to say "Look at them! They have riches whilst we have rags. And they still drop bombs on us!" when this is the case (whoever's fault it is, it's still the case and still provides a powerful rallying point).

One of the biggest problems to a "progressive solution" is the nature of compromise that certain elements of both sides refuse to even contemplate. ie the recent partitioning plan that was accepted by Isreal but completely rejected by Hamas because they didn't get everything they demanded.

To end the conflict, everyone involved would have to sit down and say exactly what you've said here: "Let's forget about what who did to whom 50 years ago. Let's forget who lived on this land thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago. What we need to do is sit down and figure out what the people here and now need. How can we make sure that we all have somewhere to live, enough to eat, and can worship as we please?"

Unfortunately, I think this is something that people figure out over time, rather than all at once. And as long as they're still trying to figure it out, there will be some people who will incite violence again and again and again, often not even knowing why. The rational people involved need to do what they can to stop the violence, but without going to extremes themselves.

I'm reminded of a story not too terribly long ago about a Palestinian man who lost his son. IIRC, the child was caught in crossfire between Palestinians who had been firing on Israel and Israeli troops. The Israeli government apologized for his death, as it was completely unintended. The father, unlike so many, did not seek revenge. In fact, he donated the boys organs at an Israeli hospital, which meant that they were used to save the lives of Israelis (most likely children). When criticized for this by some Palestinians, the man pointed out that his son had died and it was a tragedy, but at least good would come of his death and, perhaps, every time those saved or their parents thought about the organs that had saved their lives, they would realize that more compassion was needed in this conflict.

So I can advocate any solution for the region as long as it's not a violent one? Well, that's pretty difficult, given that Palestinian terrorists are incessantly raining down rockets upon large civilian areas and mercilessly massacring as many innocent Israelis as they can get their hands on. There can be no peaceful solution until the Palestinians completely disarm and recognize the legality of the Israeli state.
The way you speak, you speak as if all the people in that area were terrorists, which is hardly true. Most are attempting to live out a simple existence, but are caught in the crossfire. It is prejudices that help fuel terrorism. It's close-mindedness that keeps hatred alive.

A close-mind prevents you from seeing the grander scheme of things. You see only the immediate present and ignore the possibilities.

After all, would a terrorist exist if he had nothing to fight? No, he wouldn't.

Would a person become a terrorist if they had a roof over their head, a family to care for, food on the table and a job. No, they would think twice because they have too much at stake.

A person who has lost everything is more likely to engage in terrorist activities. They stand to lose nothing. If the person had something that gave them a purpose, they would rethink.

They would still resist, but they might find new means.

Then, get on with building up Palestinian infrastructure. It's easy to say "Look at them! They have riches whilst we have rags..

So Israel is criticized because its people were intelligent, hard-working, and adept enough to build a glorious country in the middle of the desert from scratch, while the Palestinians could not construct a functional country given all the time in the world? No, all it shows is that the Israeli people are far superior to their Palestinian counterparts.

One of the biggest problems to a "progressive solution" is the nature of compromise that certain elements of both sides refuse to even contemplate. ie the recent partitioning plan that was accepted by Isreal but completely rejected by Hamas because they didn't get everything they demanded.
Yes, stubbornness does get in the way.

Compromise is never easy because no matter who gives up what, everyone is losing something because they had to give up something they cherished.

Jerusalem should remain neutral ground, completely open to all Jewish, Christian, and Muslim worshippers. It should be either

a) a self-administered entity working closely with both Israel and Palestine.


or


b) a territory administered by the UN.


I agree with the premises of the OP, but quite frankly I have no idea how we would begin to implement that. What is needed is a sincere and comprehensive cease fire on the part of both parties, but unfortunately fanatical elements on both sides always wind up ruining it. It's probably one of the most difficult international problems in the world today.

So Israel is criticized because its people were intelligent, hard-working, and adept enough to build a glorious country in the middle of the desert from scratch, while the Palestinians could not construct a functional country given all the time in the world? No, all it shows is that the Israeli people are far superior to their Palestinian counterparts.

Far superior at bombing them into the dirt. Israeli bulldozers smash Palestinian orchards, Israeli missiles smash Palestinian infrastructure. Israeli troops blockade palestinian roads and fire over the heads of people trying to get to work.

You cannot build sandcastles when bigger kids with bigger friends come and kick them away.

Jerusalem should remain neutral ground, completely open to all Jewish, Christian, and Muslim worshippers. It should be either

a) a self-administered entity working closely with both Israel and Palestine.


or


b) a territory administered by the UN.


I agree with the premises of the OP, but quite frankly I have no idea how we would begin to implement that. What is needed is a sincere and comprehensive cease fire on the part of both parties, but unfortunately fanatical elements on both sides always wind up ruining it. It's probably one of the most difficult international problems in the world today.

Tried that. Didn't work. See the '48 invasion.

Would a person become a terrorist if they had a roof over their head, a family to care for, food on the table and a job. No, they would think twice because they have too much at stake.

Osama bin Laden had all the money in the world, yet he nonetheless went down the disgusting path to terrorism. There is no convincing correlation between poverty and terrorism, only between ignorance, religious fervor, etc., and terrorism.

A person who has lost everything is more likely to engage in terrorist activities.

It's not Israel's fault that it was able to build a highly successful state from nothing while the Palestinians were woefully unable to construct a functional country. Israel should not be forced to pay for the inability of the Palestinians to forge a viable state.

So I can advocate any solution for the region as long as it's not a violent one? Well, that's pretty difficult, given that Palestinian terrorists are incessantly raining down rockets upon large civilian areas and mercilessly massacring as many innocent Israelis as they can get their hands on. There can be no peaceful solution until the Palestinians completely disarm and recognize the legality of the Israeli state.

Well, it's better than saying, "Bomb the hell out of Palestine until they recognize Israel." The problem isn't with Palestine so much as it's with the rest of the Arab world. Those states are so insistent on not recognizing Israel that they basically let Palestine go to hell. The issue isn't getting the Palestinians to disarm or recognize Israel. The issue is to get the other Arab states to recognize Israel and stop supporting suicide-bombing. If some other Arab states recognize Israel, there will be pressure on the Palestinians to do so.

The problem is this, though - it will be a bloody battle to get moderates into power. It's the type of thing that will make the French Revolution and the ensuing battles look positively tame. Well, it will be a lot like the French Revolution - but with bombs. Big bombs. Suicide bombers, even. Far fewer people in France had the means or the desire to kill themselves and several others at once. And sadly, Saudi Arabia will need to turn into a little bit more of a freedom-friendly land where Madrasas don't have the country by the balls. Or at the very least, the people have to want to release the vise-grip the Madrasas have on them. As of now, I don't think they do.

So Israel is criticized because its people were intelligent, hard-working, and adept enough to build a glorious country in the middle of the desert from scratch, while the Palestinians could not construct a functional country given all the time in the world? No, all it shows is that the Israeli people are far superior to their Palestinian counterparts.
Would you kindly leave this thread. I do not like trolls.

I tried to be patient with you, but, you're very, very close-minded. I cannot tolerate someone like you.

You have the choice to ignore my thread and not reply, hence, leaving peacefully, or I can go ask the mods to intervene. Your statements are inflammatory and would certainly give the mod something to deal with.

No one group of people is superior to any other. One group may excel at something that one doesn't, but, no one is superior to anyone else.

Osama bin Laden had all the money in the world, yet he nonetheless went down the disgusting path to terrorism.

Osama bin Laden is a person. Terrorism requires a movement.

Jerusalem should remain neutral ground, completely open to all Jewish, Christian, and Muslim worshippers. It should be either

a) a self-administered entity working closely with both Israel and Palestine.


or


b) a territory administered by the UN.


I agree with the premises of the OP, but quite frankly I have no idea how we would begin to implement that. What is needed is a sincere and comprehensive cease fire on the part of both parties, but unfortunately fanatical elements on both sides always wind up ruining it. It's probably one of the most difficult international problems in the world today.

Trite statement: perhaps what is needed is a whole new way of viewing people that do not hold the same religious beliefs as you, the same political beliefs as you and the same tradition as you -- i.e. the 'other'.

No one group of people is superior to any other.

I meant to imply that they were technologically, economically, etc., superior. I did not intend for it to be an inflammatory comment in any way whatsoever, just a statement of fact. You must acknolwedge that Israel is thriving in many areas, while many Palestinians live in squalor.

Edit: if you would not like to hear my viewpoint because it conflicts with yours, however, I will kindly leave the thread. If I do that, I will not be the close-minded one, though.

The palestinians had a country and cities before the Israelis bombed them to hell you Fascist S***head

It's not Israel's fault that it was able to build a highly successful state from nothing while the Palestinians were woefully unable to construct a functional country. Israel should not be forced to pay for the inability of the Palestinians to forge a viable state.

Israel a democracy successful country, my ass. They have killed 5,000 Palestinians, 500 in past two months, compared to what two Israelis.

Israelis are also not superior to Palestinians, it just show they are criminals and dirtbags.

Osama bin Laden is a person. Terrorism requires a movement.

I was simply arguing that the cause of the movement is not lack of money, but ignorance.

Trite statement: perhaps what is needed is a whole new way of viewing people that do not hold the same religious beliefs as you, the same political beliefs as you and the same tradition as you -- i.e. the 'other'.
This is why I believe being educated by a third party source can help.

If you can shed light into the darkest corners, draw people's attention to what is happening, they will wake up.

People who blindly hate have been taught to hate. They were not born that way.

The Palestinians who hate the Jews, were not born like that. They were taught that.

Jews were likely taught they are being persecuted on all sides by uncaring Muslims; they were not born thinking that all Muslims are evil.

No one was born wanting to be a terrorist. They were indoctrinated.

For a situation like this, for people with such deeply ingrained hatred, being shown alternatives would help pave the road.

Ramming solutions down their throats that don't seek to alleviate age old tensions and hatred is no solution at all.

Whoever it was that said we should have a UN force is probably on the right track. At least it would be a third party to serve as a buffer between the warring sides.

Even if we get them to the table, getting the blinders off would be tricky. People are stubborn creatures.

Who thinks that perhaps education would make a difference?

I meant to imply that they were technologically, economically, etc., superior. I did not intend for it to be an inflammatory comment in any way whatsoever, just a statement of fact. You must acknolwedge that Israel is thriving in many areas, while many Palestinians live in squalor.

Edit: if you would not like to hear my viewpoint because it conflicts with yours, however, I will kindly leave the thread. If I do that, I will not be the close-minded one, though.
You should have watched your wording then.

When something is written on the internet, it can be changed or remove. Thus, removing it from memory, but if those words were spoken, you cannot remove spoken words. Spoken words are forever.

I do realise that there is a difference in living conditions, but, it isn't always because one group is inherently better. There are many factors that contribute to conditions.

FYI - I do not have a problem with right-wing views, I just have a problem with people who make statements that are bordering on blind discrimination.

The solution needs to have two critical aspects:

1.) Israel needs to feel completely secure. Every time Israel has felt there is a threat to it or its people it usually launches a massive preemptive strike. This will entail getting either the U.S. or the U.N. or both involved in peace-keeping operations.


2.) The Palestine needs to become more modernized. A huge reservoir for terrorist troops comes from the slums in Gaza and the West Bank, as long as the Palestinians feel as though they're being deliberately kept in a state of poverty they are going to see Israel as an oppressive force. The Palestinians don't necessarily want their land back, they want their way of life back. This needs to be carried out by a nation that the Palestinians do not see as occupiers(Israel, U.S.), I suggest one of the Arab nations that have signed peace treaties with Israel.

Well, I hope we can have this kind of discussion without finger pointing. There are several issues in this 'roadmap' so to speak, and I will try and deal with them in turn. Of course, any constructive criticism is welcome.

1. Withdrawal from Palestinian Territories
The question is, who acts first? Do the Palestinian terrorist organisations, who see themselves as fighting for their freedom, stop their activities first, or does Israel, who sees itself as defending itself from enemies, both real and perceived, who are out to destroy it. This manifests itself in a cycle of violence: attacks, counter attacks, etc.

However, I am strongly of the opinion that Aesop's moral "persuasion is stronger than force" applies here. Simply using only military means to attempt to defeat terrorists, including the continued occupation of the Palestinian territories, only seems to contribute to the popular support of terrorist organisations. It is this popular support for terrorist organisations (which is not necessarily popular support for the destruction of Israel) which needs to be cut for terrorist networks to stop functioning.

Therefore, the best thing would be a withdrawal from Palestinian territory, and not fuelling the fire with continuing to build settlements that only throw fuel on the fire. It would not be the end of terrorism, but the start of the end of terrorism.

2. Borders
Another difficult issue. I think the general principle is 'the more the better', since leaving behind a state feeling it has been permanently robbed of land that is rightfully theirs is less likely to be able to overcome support for terrorism. However, I don't think that stubbornly insisting on 1967 borders, although desirable, is impractical - I doubt the Israelis would accept it, for one, and the idea of a small amount of Palestinian land being transferred to Israel seems necessary - especially considering the reverse could happen with Arab Israeli areas being exchanged too.

Although it is far from perfect, I think the following would be a starting point, a minimum, so to speak: (It is a shame Arafat walked away from the talks:( )

http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/final_status_map_taba.gif

It doesn't include Arab Israeli areas to could become Palestinian, though.

It does, however, include East Jerusalem as a Palestinian area. Again, I see this as virtually necessary for Palestinians to accept any kind of state and not be left with some resentment stemming from the idea they have been robbed.

3. Right of Return
I'm no expert on this field, but I don't think it is practical for a million Palestinian refugees to suddenly be given Israeli statehood, whatever rights they may or may nor have, depending who you ask. Perhaps a solution, decided after there is a Palestinian state, involving Israel, Palestine and Jordan may be a better solution.

4. Aid/Economy
A poor economy will undoubtedly help breed terrorism, and so ensuring the economy of a state will be healthy is necessary. Firstly, the Border, with its Barrier around it, must not be designed to separate Palestinians from farmland and resources - or other parts of Palestine for that matter. Walling off bits of Palestine will make it more difficult for an economy to function, if trade and movement of resources cannot happen.

Aid must also continue, for the same reason: the Palestinian economy bust be strong to ebsure a successful and accepted state, although this can be done without filling the treasury of the terrorists.

That's all I can think of just now. I may add more later.

The solution needs to have two critical aspects:

1.) Israel needs to feel completely secure. Every time Israel has felt there is a threat to it or its people it usually launches a massive preemptive strike. This will entail getting either the U.S. or the U.N. or both involved in peace-keeping operations.


2.) The Palestine needs to become more modernized. A huge reservoir for terrorist troops comes from the slums in Gaza and the West Bank, as long as the Palestinians feel as though they're being deliberately kept in a state of poverty they are going to see Israel as an oppressive force. The Palestinians don't necessarily want their land back, they want their way of life back. This needs to be carried out by a nation that the Palestinians do not see as occupiers(Israel, U.S.), I suggest one of the Arab nations that have signed peace treaties with Israel.

Those are two very excellent points.

Security is a big issue in this situation, so is feeling that one isn't trapped because of another's decisions or actions.

I don't know if Egypt counts, but it has signed a peace treaty with Israel.

I think if there was one smart nation in the region, it should be Turkey. They should sign a peace treaty and exert pressure on the other Arab nations. They have enough clout. They should forget about the EU and think about their backyard. They would be able to help, and they don't seem to have pissed off Israel or the others.

So Israel is criticized because its people were intelligent, hard-working, and adept enough to build a glorious country in the middle of the desert from scratch, while the Palestinians could not construct a functional country given all the time in the world? No, all it shows is that the Israeli people are far superior to their Palestinian counterparts.

This thread is about finding solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fellating Israel is not going to solving anything.

3. Right of Return
I'm no expert on this field, but I don't think it is practical for a million Palestinian refugees to suddenly be given Israeli statehood, whatever rights they may or may nor have, depending who you ask. Perhaps a solution, decided after there is a Palestinian state, involving Israel, Palestine and Jordan may be a better solution.

That's all I can think of just now. I may add more later.
The refugees could be split between three areas, so no one region is burdened with the large group. They could be given the option of where to go and each area takes a number based on their capacity.

They could get a temporary shelter under the UN mandate in an area that is agreed upon by all parties so the refugees don't feel forgotten or threatened.

The refugees could be split between three areas, so no one region is burdened with the large group. They could be given the option of where to go and each area takes a number based on their capacity.

They could get a temporary shelter under the UN mandate in an area that is agreed upon by all parties so the refugees don't feel forgotten or threatened.
That's what I was trying to get at. Simply sending all of them to one area would be impossible politically and economically at best.

The only solution is the jews give back the land they stole including Jerusalem. Anything else and there won't be peace.

That's what I was trying to get at. Simply sending all of them to one area would be impossible politically and economically at best.
Such a distribution should also keep families in tact so no one is left without his or her family. Even in the darkest times, a family helps one get through.

The only solution is the jews give back the land they stole including Jerusalem. Anything else and there won't be peace.

End of progressive discussion. This is precisely why the problem may be unsolvable in the real world.

Even MTAE's suggestion about the Palestinians disarming was more reasonable.

Such a distribution should also keep families in tact so no one is left without his or her family. Even in the darkest times, a family helps one get through.
*nods*

If planned properly, it could even be possible to get families of 2-3 generations kept together.

The only solution is the jews give back the land they stole including Jerusalem. Anything else and there won't be peace.

Thats not going to happen, at least not without 200+ nukes being launched. This post highlights one of the banes to the peace-process; The unwillingness to compromise. Both sides simply want their will to be enforced without any regard to the well-being of the other.

Thats not going to happen, at least not without 200+ nukes being launched. This post highlights one of the banes to the peace-process; The unwillingness to compromise. Both sides simply want their will to be enforced without any regard to the well-being of the other.
Exactly. As much as I and most, if not all, Palestinians detest these settlements, for example, it is much better to have a state on 95% of Palestine than no state on 100%. If you want everything, you will end up with nothing.

Since they both want their own country in thesame spot, the only long-term solution that doesn't involve a smoking crater (though that would be easier, and possibly more humane) would be to deny them both their own country.

Designate the whole area some sort of UN protectorate. Neither side gets a say in the place's administration. They can live in it or not, as they see fit, but if they live in it they'll be governed by laws they do not have the power to charge. Some sort of minarchy with strong law enforcement and protection of holy sites would likely offend the fewest people.

But you can't let either side in the dispute have any control over the region at all. For fighting over it for so many years, they both lose. If nothing else, it's fair.

The only solution is the jews give back the land they stole including Jerusalem. Anything else and there won't be peace.

Should the Palestinians and other Arab countries then go find the descendants of those they "stole" the land from and give it back to them - which may mean that the Jewish people end up with Jerusalem anyways? Should Britain give back much of its land to the Celts? Should the US give back all of its land to the Native Americans? Should the French and British give all their land to each other?

Or are we going to recognize the fact that war, colonization, etc. causes land to change hands and that, at this point, we need to figure out how to best accomodate everyone?

I agree with MTAE, barely. Terrorism is not based on poverty, The American government are terrorists, OSB is a terrorist (Leader-type), Lots of other succesful people are terrorists.

The rest, no. Stop using over-sensationalist terms, The first part would be a cease-fire, as opposed to retribution, congrats on that.

This is something the UN needs to handle, and somehting they should have been. As much as the thought worries me, where's a world police when you need it (Run by the entire world, not by a single country).

Be like parents, give them a time out, confiscate they're toys, tell them to play nice, smack the bottoms of anyone who doesn't.

I was simply arguing that the cause of the movement is not lack of money, but ignorance.Don't be silly, a lack of ignorance isn't what's to blame here :p

Since they both want their own country in thesame spot, the only long-term solution that doesn't involve a smoking crater (though that would be easier, and possibly more humane) would be to deny them both their own country.

Designate the whole area some sort of UN protectorate. Neither side gets a say in the place's administration. They can live in it or not, as they see fit, but if they live in it they'll be governed by laws they do not have the power to charge. Some sort of minarchy with strong law enforcement and protection of holy sites would likely offend the fewest people.

But you can't let either side in the dispute have any control over the region at all. For fighting over it for so many years, they both lose. If nothing else, it's fair.



This is basicaclly what I said (Afterwards though :P, you didn't steal it, I didn't see yours) except with a few small changes (And is better worded).

If they make it a new Stand-alone state (Which would require it to be UN run, not a form of colony) and allow slightly limited choices, i.e. the people can't pick a leader, UN does that from time to time, Then it should be possible to keep them happy, and turn it into one of these 'developed countries' where everyone in it considers themselves the same people, even if there are 101 religions and belief systems.

The way you speak, you speak as if all the people in that area were terrorists, which is hardly true. Most are attempting to live out a simple existence, but are caught in the crossfire. It is prejudices that help fuel terrorism. It's close-mindedness that keeps hatred alive.

A close-mind prevents you from seeing the grander scheme of things. You see only the immediate present and ignore the possibilities.

After all, would a terrorist exist if he had nothing to fight? No, he wouldn't.

Would a person become a terrorist if they had a roof over their head, a family to care for, food on the table and a job. No, they would think twice because they have too much at stake.

A person who has lost everything is more likely to engage in terrorist activities. They stand to lose nothing. If the person had something that gave them a purpose, they would rethink.

They would still resist, but they might find new means.

Poverty does not cause terrorism. Islam does. Read the Koran.:upyours:

Don't be silly, a lack of ignorance isn't what's to blame here :p

Grammar Nazi :p.


I'm sure we all know what he means, can't we disagree with that instead? ;)

It's not always ignorance, often something more akin to naievity, genuinly being misled, believeing they are doing the right actions, because they aren't in a situation where opposing information is available (You cant be ignorant if you have no possible way to know otherwise)

Poverty does not cause terrorism. Islam does. Read the Koran.:upyours:

How so? I'm serious, where does it say anything unpeaceful?


And how do you manage to blame the IRA on the Koran, how do you blame American Terrorism on the Koran, I hope yopu have answers for these, I'm looking forward to it.

Poverty does not cause terrorism. Islam does. Read the Koran.:upyours:
Your comments are inflammatory and irrelevant. I'm reporting this to the mods because I want this thread to stay alive and not be shut down because people like you decide to hijack it by being moronic.

And how do you manage to blame the IRA on the Koran, how do you blame American Terrorism on the Koran, I hope yopu have answers for these, I'm looking forward to it.
I was going to write the same thing but decided to make an example out of that poster. You make a very good point. Islam does not cause terrorism, even if there are terrorist who claim to be 'Muslim'.

Exactly. As much as I and most, if not all, Palestinians detest these settlements, for example, it is much better to have a state on 95% of Palestine than no state on 100%. If you want everything, you will end up with nothing.
Compromise means sacrifice.

A person never completely gets his or her way; there is always a sacrifice to be made, and that comes through compromise.

I was going to write the same thing but decided to make an example out of that poster. You make a very good point. Islam does not cause terrorism, even if there are terrorist who claim to be 'Muslim'.

ANTI-HIJACK TEAM! ASSEMBLE!!


So, my opinion is still that the UN should step in with a carefully monitered form of World Police (PeaceKeeping Forces) that take control of the area as peacefully as possible, and declare it it's own nation/state/country/whatever.
Everyone living in the area (Consisting of all places within it) are citizens of the new nation, For a long time there would have to be some form of curfew and armed police, with lots of courts set up to cope with ongoing vendettas.
After a while it would settle (We hope) and it would be like most places, one nation, with one citizenship, who are free to have their own beliefs (Once this has happened, leadership can be given back to voting public, if they mess it up, back to the UN)

Poverty does not cause terrorism. Islam does. Read the Koran.:upyours:

So explain to me what the noted Mullah Gerry Adams has been up to all this while...

So explain to me what the noted Mullah Gerry Adams has been up to all this while...
Bringing up NI in this case would make for a good case study. Something went right there eventually.

The IRA has done its part to try and rectify the past as have their rivals. Wounds heal with time, and there are still problems, but with Catholics having a voice and people having a chance to rise up.

The Catholics were once like the Palestinians; they were like second class citizens. They had the IRA to make their voices heard.

But, they have come into the 21st century because they have been heard.

So, my opinion is still that the UN should step in with a carefully monitered form of World Police (PeaceKeeping Forces) that take control of the area as peacefully as possible, and declare it it's own nation/state/country/whatever.
For this to have any clout, you would need America to acknowledge the UN fully and unconditionally, and act under the banner of the UN's peace force. American influence would make a difference. If they put their weight behind the UN it would make a difference in a peacekeeping force because it would then be taken seriously.

It would require America to not blindly support Israel, but, I imagine a change in administration would help that.

I fear there is no solution beyond simply letting the two blow the shit out of each other, watch from the sidelines, and then help the winner back onto his feet. Diplomacy does not, has not, and will not, stand a chance in the middle east.

Poverty does not cause terrorism. Islam does. Read the Koran.:upyours:

FARC, Irgun, the Kahane Chai, Baader-Meinhof, The Red Brigades, The Red Corps., The Iron wolves, The Black Hand, Los Pepes, The Stern Gang, The IRA, Ulster Volunteer Force, National Front for the Liberation of The People of South Vietnam, The Lord's Resistance army, The Nagaland Rebels, Red Hand commandos, Babbar Khalsa, and the National Liberation Front of Tripura.


All terrorists, all non-islamic.....Any questions?

I'd hate to say it, but I don't think it's going to be a soluble problem in the next couple of decades. Instead, I propose we build a fence around the region, and let them sort their own shit out.

For this to have any clout, you would need America to acknowledge the UN fully and unconditionally, and act under the banner of the UN's peace force. American influence would make a difference. If they put their weight behind the UN it would make a difference in a peacekeeping force because it would then be taken seriously.

It would require America to not blindly support Israel, but, I imagine a change in administration would help that.

I agree, and I think America should. But as long as they consider themselves an independant superpower, they're happy on their own. As long as America can cancel out anything the UN does (By supporting the people against them) it is doomed to failure. America, get with it! the UN is important, moreso than you because it involves other countries too.

FARC, Irgun, the Kahane Chai, Baader-Meinhof, The Red Brigades, The Red Corps., The Iron wolves, The Black Hand, Los Pepes, The Stern Gang, The IRA, Ulster Volunteer Force, National Front for the Liberation of The People of South Vietnam, The Lord's Resistance army, The Nagaland Rebels, Red Hand commandos, Babbar Khalsa, and the National Liberation Front of Tripura.


All terrorists, all non-islamic.....Any questions?

Actually, ideas cause terrorism. While Islam is an idea, it's only one of many.

I fear there is no solution beyond simply letting the two blow the shit out of each other, watch from the sidelines, and then help the winner back onto his feet. Diplomacy does not, has not, and will not, stand a chance in the middle east.
Under these conditions, it doesn't.

Diplomacy works when nations who wield ample influence can step up and say "ok, children enough. Put the toys away and go into your corners for a time out."

Yes, it's oversimplifying, but as long as foreign powers exert their influence in this region, supporting one side or another, the cycle will continue.

When Israeli and Hamas loose their base support, they might begin to think twice, especially when their support becomes neutral.

This doesn't mean sanctions or embargoes, it simply means, for example, America tells Israel to put a hold on the missiles, and Hamas' supporters tell the group to STFU and stop ignoring the interest of the Palestinians.

I fear there is no solution beyond simply letting the two blow the shit out of each other, watch from the sidelines, and then help the winner back onto his feet. Diplomacy does not, has not, and will not, stand a chance in the middle east.
I have a feeling that Iran (and the whole of the Middle East) would not allow Israel to destroy Palestine, and America and Europe would not let the unlikely possibility of Palestine destroying Israel happen. And anyway, we're trying to stop the two wanting to blow the shit out of each other anyway.

I fear there is no solution beyond simply letting the two blow the shit out of each other, watch from the sidelines, and then help the winner back onto his feet. Diplomacy does not, has not, and will not, stand a chance in the middle east.

The only way we could get democracy there is to force it upon them, which doesn't sound very fair. Once the majority want democracy (Assuming they eventually will) it would be fair to help them.

FARC, Irgun, the Kahane Chai, Baader-Meinhof, The Red Brigades, The Red Corps., The Iron wolves, The Black Hand, Los Pepes, The Stern Gang, The IRA, Ulster Volunteer Force, National Front for the Liberation of The People of South Vietnam, The Lord's Resistance army, The Nagaland Rebels, Red Hand commandos, Babbar Khalsa, and the National Liberation Front of Tripura.


All terrorists, all non-islamic.....Any questions?

No doubt about it, the Koran is almost completely unrelated, just used as an excuse by some.

I'd hate to say it, but I don't think it's going to be a soluble problem in the next couple of decades. Instead, I propose we build a fence around the region, and let them sort their own shit out.

Sad, but that would work too, I was trying to think of one that has less lives lost. Is it possible to combine this with a system whereupon if they dont want to be part of that, they can leave it?

Sad, but that would work too, I was trying to think of one that has less lives lost. Is it possible to combine this with a system whereupon if they dont want to be part of that, they can leave it?

Not gonna work. I've dedicated so much of the last few years of my life to figuring out what the hell is going on, and it will be culminating itself in a paper that will arrive on my profs desk next Wednesday. 18 pages saying that we're dealing with an insoluable issue of identity, and that our actions cannot solve the problem, no matter what we do.

Under these conditions, it doesn't.

Diplomacy works when nations who wield ample influence can step up and say "ok, children enough. Put the toys away and go into your corners for a time out."

Yes, it's oversimplifying, but as long as foreign powers exert their influence in this region, supporting one side or another, the cycle will continue.

When Israeli and Hamas loose their base support, they might begin to think twice, especially when their support becomes neutral.

This doesn't mean sanctions or embargoes, it simply means, for example, America tells Israel to put a hold on the missiles, and Hamas' supporters tell the group to STFU and stop ignoring the interest of the Palestinians.

I said almost exactly the same thing, about the parents coming in and saying "Time out!" ~Confiscates toys~

I have a feeling that Iran (and the whole of the Middle East) would not allow Israel to destroy Palestine, and America and Europe would not let the unlikely possibility of Palestine destroying Israel happen. And anyway, we're trying to stop the two wanting to blow the shit out of each other anyway.

Propose a viable alternative then?

Diplomacy is unteneble because none of the possible intermediaries are remotely objective, or auitable to both parties. The role of the USA in the region precludes its being an intercessor, whilst if the EU or China intervenes, allegations of self-interest are levelled. Would it not be easier to let the inevitable happen, in the absence of the USA, and then simply welcome a more moderate Islamic world into the international community?

Not gonna work. I've dedicated so much of the last few years of my life to figuring out what the hell is going on, and it will be culminating itself in a paper that will arrive on my profs desk next Wednesday. 18 pages saying that we're dealing with an insoluable issue of identity, and that our actions cannot solve the problem, no matter what we do.

If we took what you said literally, we could build a fence, and then only people who are confirmed (Somehow) to not cause issues if they're let out, get let out, and into other societies as they wish (Whichever is most suitable for them)

Poverty does not cause terrorism. Islam does. Read the Koran.:upyours:

I suggest you read Qur'an. Islam mostly certainly does not cause terrorism.

Thats not going to happen, at least not without 200+ nukes being launched. This post highlights one of the banes to the peace-process; The unwillingness to compromise. Both sides simply want their will to be enforced without any regard to the well-being of the other.

why should I care about the well-being of the jews?

Then it should be possible to keep them happy, and turn it into one of these 'developed countries' where everyone in it considers themselves the same people, even if there are 101 religions and belief systems.
Ideally, sure, but even if they're not happy, at least I've given them a common enemy (the UN).

why should I care about the well-being of the jews?

Why should anyone care about the well being of Palestinians then?

Maybe this whole "humanity" thing?

So I can advocate any solution for the region as long as it's not a violent one? Well, that's pretty difficult, given that Palestinian terrorists are incessantly raining down rockets upon large civilian areas and mercilessly massacring as many innocent Israelis as they can get their hands on. There can be no peaceful solution until the Palestinians completely disarm and recognize the legality of the Israeli state.
The palestinians had a country and cities before the Israelis bombed them to hell you Fascist S***head

Israel a democracy successful country, my ass. They have killed 5,000 Palestinians, 500 in past two months, compared to what two Israelis.

These posts are incompatible with the OP.

If we took what you said literally, we could build a fence, and then only people who are confirmed (Somehow) to not cause issues if they're let out, get let out, and into other societies as they wish (Whichever is most suitable for them)

If you really want to take that point of view literally feel free, but I'm speaking in metaphors.

The only way we could get democracy there is to force it upon them, which doesn't sound very fair. Once the majority want democracy (Assuming they eventually will) it would be fair to help them.
Democracy doesn't offer a solution here because as soon as one side has the majority they'll subjugate the other.

They can't be given political power.

why should I care about the well-being of the jews?

Because they are, infact, people.

Ideally, sure, but even if they're not happy, at least I've given them a common enemy (the UN).

No country is happy, at all. But if they'd be happier, then yes it would be better. And if they're common enemy is untouchable, I like this, an enemy they cant do shit to, they'd stop fighting, and eventually, if not learn, then realise that they are better off from what these people have done.

I'd have to admit, it would take me a while to realise if I was in that situation :p

why should I care about the well-being of the jews?
Nor is this, racist.

If you really want to take that point of view literally feel free, but I'm speaking in metaphors.

Then treat what I said as keeping the metaphor and extending it, not a real fence, but the same thing would apply.

Democracy doesn't offer a solution here because as soon as one side has the majority they'll subjugate the other.

They can't be given political power.

Hence the UN government.

why should I care about the well-being of the jews?

Do you care about the well-being of millions of arabs? What about the well-being of Al-Aqsa mosque?

The fact is, Israel is a well-established state, one that cannot be removed without a disastrous war. An attempt to militarily destroy the state of Israel would plunge the ME into a huge war that would result in the utter destruction of the entire region. Making peace with Israel is in the Arab's best interest, it would allow them to modernize and improve every aspect of their society.

I don't particuarly care about the well-being of either side. They're just getting on my nerves.

Propose a viable alternative then?
I did propose a solution on the second page of this thread, if you must know, a compromise between both sides. However, simply telling the two to let hell on each other isn't viable, either. If anything, it would only lead to thousands of lives being lost. Because of the interests of other states in the region (who would not accept the likely Israeli victory) and the interests of the USA in Israel, it would likely spiral into a further conflict.

Diplomacy is unteneble because none of the possible intermediaries are remotely objective, or auitable to both parties. The role of the USA in the region precludes its being an intercessor, whilst if the EU or China intervenes, allegations of self-interest are levelled. Would it not be easier to let the inevitable happen, in the absence of the USA, and then simply welcome a more moderate Islamic world into the international community?
Untenable while western foreign policy remains as it is, perhaps, but more attractive than conflict.

Do you care about the well-being of millions of arabs? What about the well-being of Al-Aqsa mosque?

of course. how I could I not.

Do you care about the well-being of millions of arabs? What about the well-being of Al-Aqsa mosque?

The fact is, Israel is a well-established state, one that cannot be removed without a disastrous war. An attempt to militarily destroy the state of Israel would plunge the ME into a huge war that would result in the utter destruction of the entire region. Making peace with Israel is in the Arab's best interest, it would allow them to modernize and improve every aspect of their society.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

The Arab states can send their armies crashing into Tel Aviv, but not until the Israelis set off over 200 nuclear weapons.

of course. how I could I not.

Then realize that destroying Israel would entail destroying both Al-Aqsa, and the lives of millions of Arabs. Israel has a massive army and both nuclear and chemical weapons.


What would help the Palestinians much more than the destruction of Israel, is the construction of a lasting peace with Israel.

This is not finger pointing, but I would like to see less negative reporting against Israel in the media and more effort on the part of European media's to demonstrate understanding of Israel's position. It seems the manner of coverage is always very decidedly anti-Israel, loading massive sympathies onto only Palestianin suffering, particually the coverage of the supposed shelling of an Palestianin family on a beech in Gaza, which it is now certain could not have been the Isralie navy, although this is what all the media reported instantly. This is perhaps a general trend, the media needs to report more with the facts. I have yet to see an interview with any Isralie civilains in the same manner as Palestianins are interviewed. When the BBC cover the events they talk to the Isralie millitary and Palestinan civilians. They do not talk to Isralie citizens it seems, even when Israel is suicide bombed.

Exactly. As much as I and most, if not all, Palestinians detest these settlements, for example, it is much better to have a state on 95% of Palestine than no state on 100%. If you want everything, you will end up with nothing.

Slippery slope, better to have 94% 93% 1% etc.

First thing is for the UN to take full control of the situation and negotiations, any other authority is going to have bias screamed at it from the start.

Effectively there has to be some sort of negotiations, invite both sides government negotiators but warn them that if they walk out their place will be taken by UN appointed replacements. Sort out a solution that involves two viable states.

Final thing would be to stuff the place full of UN peacekeepers, let the Israelis know that if something happens the UN will deal with it not them and vice versa. Look to establish Palestine as a viable independant state (while poverty may not be the sole cause of terrorrism I'd say it's likely to be an exacerbating factor causing more people to become terrorrists) and go from there.

Most importantly for me is to stop direct retaliation between the two sides, make them put it through the UN (at least official retaliation).

Best I can come up with.

I don't particuarly care about the well-being of either side. They're just getting on my nerves.
Ah yes, the "I hate everyone equally" mentality. Sorry to say, but that kind of attitude makes a good third party that way there is no bias. ;)

This is not finger pointing, but I would like to see less negative reporting against Israel in the media and more effort on the part of European media's to demonstrate understanding of Israel's position. It seems the manner of coverage is always very decidedly anti-Israel, loading massive sympathies onto only Palestianin suffering, particually the coverage of the supposed shelling of an Palestianin family on a beech in Gaza, which it is now certain could not have been the Isralie navy, although this is what all the media reported instantly. This is perhaps a general trend, the media needs to report more with the facts. I have yet to see an interview with any Isralie civilains in the same manner as Palestianins are interviewed. When the BBC cover the events they talk to the Isralie millitary and Palestinan civilians. They do not talk to Isralie citizens it seems, even when Israel is suicide bombed.
That is a fair and valid point.

The media does tend to act in a way that is detrimental to getting the right message out to the people. It either acts bias in favour of Israel or Palestine. Of course, the bias is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people tend to believe that Israel gets more than ample coverage and the Palestinians are the ones who get no time to have their voices heard over the roaring sound of missiles whistling through the air.

The media does bear a great amount of responsibility when reporting any story because people tend to trust the media for getting the facts and thje media will ignore all the facts simply to capture the interest of their audience rather than to conduct fair and partial journalism.

Would a more paryial media fix the problem? No, but it might help the west see the sitation through unclogged vision.

First thing is for the UN to take full control of the situation and negotiations, any other authority is going to have bias screamed at it from the start.

Effectively there has to be some sort of negotiations, invite both sides government negotiators but warn them that if they walk out their place will be taken by UN appointed replacements. Sort out a solution that involves two viable states.

Final thing would be to stuff the place full of UN peacekeepers, let the Israelis know that if something happens the UN will deal with it not them and vice versa. Look to establish Palestine as a viable independant state (while poverty may not be the sole cause of terrorrism I'd say it's likely to be an exacerbating factor causing more people to become terrorrists) and go from there.

The UN is a good body; it has good intentions, but even those can go awry when the power falls into the hands of those unable to handle it.

I have a question for you....

If there is going to be a peacekeeping force, would it be solely made up of soldiers from nations other than Israel, since that might be an issue for the Palestinians. They might be less likely to trust a UN force that had Israelis in it.

Ah yes, the "I hate everyone equally" mentality. Sorry to say, but that kind of attitude makes a good third party that way there is no bias. ;)

Sounded more like the "smouldering crater" view.

Sounded more like the "smouldering crater" view.
Not quite. They just said they didn't care. If someone doesn't care about either side, it just means they are tired of all the bullshit and want a solution. Of course, they won't say it because it takes less time to say you don't give a shit.

Not quite. They just said they didn't care. If someone doesn't care about either side, it just means they are tired of all the bullshit and want a solution. Of course, they won't say it because it takes less time to say you don't give a shit.

But, in not caring about either side, "smouldering crater" becomes a viable solution.

But, in not caring about either side, "smouldering crater" becomes a viable solution.
No, it makes you immune to Hamas' childish whining and Israeli tantrums. Thus, making you able to make them shut up because they will only get what they want if they listen to you.

No, it makes you immune to Hamas' childish whining and Israeli tantrums. Thus, making you able to make them shut up because they will only get what they want if they listen to you.

True, I bet they want not to be a crater. Thus, they must listen to me to get what they want.

True, I bet they want not to be a crater. Thus, they must listen to me to get what they want.
See? Being an insensitive asshat pays off.

Seriously, I find that people who are indifferent are more likely to have no bias on the issue. Those who care one way or another might be counterproductive to the process.

The UN is a good body; it has good intentions, but even those can go awry when the power falls into the hands of those unable to handle it.
True. But I feel it's the best available choice.


I have a question for you....

If there is going to be a peacekeeping force, would it be solely made up of soldiers from nations other than Israel, since that might be an issue for the Palestinians. They might be less likely to trust a UN force that had Israelis in it.
Preferably from nations not from the Middle East.

See? Being an insensitive asshat pays off.
Absolutely. It makes me more willing to threaten just walling off the region and letting them fight each other. You want to blow each other up? Fine, go ahead. Call me when you're done.

True. But I feel it's the best available choice.


Preferably from nations not from the Middle East.
I agree that the UN is a good choice, it just needs to work as a cohesive unit on this.

I think It might be possible to have a couple of Mid-East nations in the peace force. Kuwaitis and Turks haven't shown amy direct hostility to either group...

Preferably from nations not from the Middle East.
Exclusively white South Africans.

I agree that the UN is a good choice, it just needs to work as a cohesive unit on this.

I think It might be possible to have a couple of Mid-East nations in the peace force. Kuwaitis and Turks haven't shown amy direct hostility to either group...

Fair enough. Preferably ones from the nations that are directly involved in the conflict (basically Israel and the nearby Arab States).

Fair enough. Preferably ones from the nations that are directly involved in the conflict (basically Israel and the nearby Arab States).
Would be excluded? Definitely fair.

Sure, Israel might not like it, but, they will tolerate it as long as there is a peace keeping force that will do its job. The Palestinians might be uncomfortable with it too, but, they would at least know this force isn't their enemy and that these soldiers are there simply to prevent Israel from hanging around like a rain cloud over the Thanksgiving Parade.

I agree that the UN is a good choice, it just needs to work as a cohesive unit on this.

I think It might be possible to have a couple of Mid-East nations in the peace force. Kuwaitis and Turks haven't shown amy direct hostility to either group...

We could also use Egypt and Jordon, both have signed peace treaties with Israel. I especially like Turkey due to the secular government, but could their military handle keeping Hamas and Israel under control?

We could also use Egypt and Jordon, both have signed peace treaties with Israel. I especially like Turkey due to the secular government, but could their military handle keeping Hamas and Israel under control?
Hamas might listen to a group that is 'Muslim', even if there are a few upstarts who are a problem. No one said they had to like it, but, they would tolerate it, once it is agreed upon. Well, they should.

There would be a rocky start but once it becomes a fact that it is either the peacekeeping force or the Israelis, Hamas might show restraint.

Israel, from what I read, may not like having someone else fight for them, btu by the same token will appreciate international efforts to contain the fire.

This is not finger pointing, but I would like to see less negative reporting against Israel in the media and more effort on the part of European media's to demonstrate understanding of Israel's position. It seems the manner of coverage is always very decidedly anti-Israel, loading massive sympathies onto only Palestianin suffering, particually the coverage of the supposed shelling of an Palestianin family on a beech in Gaza, which it is now certain could not have been the Isralie navy, although this is what all the media reported instantly. This is perhaps a general trend, the media needs to report more with the facts. I have yet to see an interview with any Isralie civilains in the same manner as Palestianins are interviewed. When the BBC cover the events they talk to the Isralie millitary and Palestinan civilians. They do not talk to Isralie citizens it seems, even when Israel is suicide bombed.

Here I thought the media loved to attack both sides in the conflict, showing the destruction on both sides and condemning both the Israeli military and the Palestinian militants and giving bleeding heart coverage of the victims, Israeli and Palestinian alike. The adventure in Lebenon is the exception to this but in the conflict at large there seems to be a rather balanced coverage, as much as you can call it when you show nothing but broken bodies as that is what sells.

FARC, Irgun, the Kahane Chai, Baader-Meinhof, The Red Brigades, The Red Corps., The Iron wolves, The Black Hand, Los Pepes, The Stern Gang, The IRA, Ulster Volunteer Force, National Front for the Liberation of The People of South Vietnam, The Lord's Resistance army, The Nagaland Rebels, Red Hand commandos, Babbar Khalsa, and the National Liberation Front of Tripura.


All terrorists, all non-islamic.....Any questions?

I was referring to "terrorism" in the context of the Middle East, since that IS what we were discussing here. I should have been more clear and said that Islam is the cause of 99% of the terrorism in the Middle East. I was assuming that the people on this thread would be smart enough to realize that. I guess not.

Islam is the cause of 99% of the terrorism in the Middle East. I was assuming that the people on this thread would be smart enough to realize that. I guess not.

The causes of terrorism in the ME are political and socio-economic in nature. Islam is used as the justification for these terroristic activities. Putting the blame of ME terrorism on the entire religion of islam is illogical, most of the world's muslims do not live in the ME. Your using a glittering generality here, explain to me how something as vague as "islam" could explicitly commit a terrorist act.

The causes of terrorism in the ME are political and socio-economic in nature. Islam is used as the justification for these terroristic activities. Putting the blame of ME terrorism on the entire religion of islam is illogical, most of the world's muslims do not live in the ME. Your using a glittering generality here, explain to me how something as vague as "islam" could explicitly commit a terrorist act.It would be the same as Catholicism. (Yes, I'm using another incident, but it fits this topic). Religion is used to justify actions (or morality).; It doesn't matter which religion, but it is done. Look at any religion rampant with rabid fundies who have the common sense of a yak; they use religion to justify stupidity, ignorance and discrimination.

Thermal Nuclear War is the only ONLY way to solve this problem.

Thermo Nuclear War is the only ONLY way to solve this problem.
We can solve this WITHOUT killing everyone in the process... err... I think.

both sides need to just stop it. Israel needs to stop invading patestine, and settling land they dont own, and Palestine needs to stop killing civilians in israel. but neither side will stop till the other does, so we have war without end.

The causes of terrorism in the ME are political and socio-economic in nature. Islam is used as the justification for these terroristic activities. Putting the blame of ME terrorism on the entire religion of islam is illogical, most of the world's muslims do not live in the ME. Your using a glittering generality here, explain to me how something as vague as "islam" could explicitly commit a terrorist act.

I realize most Muslims aren't Middle Eastern, other Muslim nations like Indonesia, Somalia, and Nigeria have a bunch of Muslims terrorists too. It is Western apologists who blame terrorism on political and socio-economic problems. The Muslims committing these acts claim to do it in the name of Allah. Why would nations like Iran care about destroying Israel and attacking Jews in Argentina in 1994?

I would tell the two groups I was going to cut the land in half and give one part to each group. Upon hearing this, the true owners of the land would step forward and say they would rather have their sworn enemy have the land that see it torn asunder. At that point, I would give the land to the people who were willing to give it up, as that would indicate to me a love of the land that only the true owners would have. This method resolved one dispute in the Middle East, so I see no reason why it cannot resolve all of them.