NationStates Jolt Archive

This september I'm heading out to Prague for a year to study there at the institute of public administration and international relations. For part of the form because they were teaching the course in English, they required a short essay from us all about one of several topics. I chose the question "How can lasting peace in the Middle East be achived" and this is what I wrote.

Lasting peace in the Middle East is a goal that, presently, seems a very long distance away. Principly there are two main affairs that must be resolved in order to say that a measure of peace has been achived. The resolution of Iraq's situation and the Israel/Palestine question.
One of the principal needs for the reconstruction of Iraq is to see international solidarity in the reconstruction and security question. Mainland European countries such as Germany and France have previously taken a political decision to refrain from intervening in Iraq for various reasons (France was at the time of the opinion that this was a violation of the international order). However in order for security to be a serious possibility, the United States and the United Kingdom cannot be the only two primary contributors of troops to Iraq. Both contries are capable of experiancing war fatigue, and particually more so when the international community at large is seeming so opposed to this situation. However, countries like France, Germany and others need to stop looking at Iraq as a political situation and start looking at it as a humanitarian one. Regardless of the political motivations behind the Iraq campaign, the people of Iraq are unquestionably suffering. Turning Iraq into a poilitcal point scoring match of the continental Europeans vs. The trans-atlantic alliance is not frankly worth the lives of the Iraqies. With new government recently elected in France, this may hopefully soon be the case.
Iraq also needs to be able to help itself as well as to be helped by the United States and United Kingdom. Hostility to the coalition, both from within Iraq and in the international community at large comes in no small part from the fact that it seems to be very much the coalition forcing its will onto the Iraqi people, and the people themselves having little, if no say in it. Iraq needs to demonstrate more and more that it is an independent, sovereign state and as such possess the instruments of a state. These include adequate police and security forces that are able to, without assistance from American or British forces, be responsible for security of their own population on a large scale. If it can be widely demonstrated that Iraq is both willing and able to care for its own, the international community will most likely look upon Iraq as being more successful and will be more likely to consider offering their assistance to speed up the process of helping Iraq to help itself.
The second issue that needs a resolution, that of the Israel/Palestine question, is in many ways, paradoxically more complicated and simpler. The reason for this being that to the outside world, the end result that will achieve peace is fairly obvious.
The Palestinians need to accept that they will not be getting the ‘right to return’ that they so often claim to deserve when entering these negotiations. The Palestinians also need to accept that they will not be getting the pre-1967 borders that they wanted. This is for a number of reasons, largely relating to previous attempts to offer them land. The partition in 1948 gave the Palestinians a much larger state than they could ever hope to have now, but they rejected it at the time, and instead called upon their Arab state neighboughs to attack and destroy Israel. This they failed to achieve in 1948, and again in 1967 and 1973. The continued offering of land to the Palestinians and their continuing rejection reached a high in 2000 with the rejection of an offer of ninety percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. With the rejection of this the Palestinian Authority launched a second infadatia. For Israel or the rest of the international community to offer the Palestinians more land now than was offered in 2000 would suggest that terrorism and viloence would be more effective at securing your goals than is negotiation, something that cannot be suggested.
Israel simmilarly need to give up the dream of ‘Greater Israel’ which includes the whole of the West Bank and Gaza and they need to suspend settlement construction in these areas. Thus far Israel has seemed more willing to give in and be reasonable than has the Palestinians, given their recent willingness to abandon Gaza and during December of 2006 to withold retaliation for several weeks despite repeated terrorist rocket attacks from across the wall. However the abandonment of Gaza, while originally done in good faith (expecting that if they give up an area of their control, the Palestinians would not take advantage) has proven to be strategically misguided and so the Israelie Defence Forces have had to be re-deployed into Gaza.
The use of terrorism and viloence to achieve political aims in the Middle East presents us with a set of conditions, not linked to only Iraq and the Israel/Palestine question, but to the whole of the Middle East and the world at large. This is the question of the nature of terrorism and its value loaded nature. The phrase used by Ghandi “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” has created a great hindernce to peace. While it is not Ghandi himself who caused it, but it is the idea that the end justifies the means. In the case of the Middle East, the cause of destroying Israel or purging America and Britain from Iraq and various other ideals are worth killing for. In order for there to be peace in the Middle East, terrorism and freedom fighting need to be seen as two distinct entities. In any cause relating to fighting freedom, there are only two groups that can be considered legitimate targets, the military and the government. The practise of terrorism is that of intentionally killing civilians in order to create fear which in turn creates political pressure to a particular course of action. This cannot be seen as a legitimate tatic if we are to have Middle Easten peace

I thought I'd like to see peoples comments on my thoughts

The "Middle East" issue is one where the only solution is to let it burn itself out.

Interesting, but if you want to address the issue of a 'lasting' peace you might want to mention the coming confrontation between Shia Islam (led by Iran) and Sunni Islam (led by Saudi Arabia).

I also believe that it's wrong to say that the Palestinians shouldn't be offered more land: just as they must be pragmatic in giving up the right to return, so Israel must be pragmatic and offer more than was offered last time.

EDIT: congrats on getting onto the course btw :)

The partition in 1948 gave the Palestinians a much larger state than they could ever hope to have nowThat's exactly the point. With no partition the Palestinians would have kept the territory they already had (all Palestine) and would have made a state out of it. So the root of evil and the conflict is the partition of Palestine and the unnecessary creation of a Jewish state there. So offering Palestinians land that is by justice theirs anyways is in fact pretty insulting. And why should the Palestinians accept any other border than the Green Line? Because of Jewish greed for land?

That's exactly the point. With no partition the Palestinians would have kept the territory they already had (all Palestine) and would have made a state out of it. So the root of evil and the conflict is the partition of Palestine and the unnecessary creation of a Jewish state there. So offering Palestinians land that is by justice theirs anyways is in fact pretty insulting. And why should the Palestinians accept any other border than the Green Line? Because of Jewish greed for land?

Hmm, so what's the final solution to this, do you think?

That's exactly the point. With no partition the Palestinians would have kept the territory they already had (all Palestine) and would have made a state out of it. So the root of evil and the conflict is the partition of Palestine and the unnecessary creation of a Jewish state there. So offering Palestinians land that is by justice theirs anyways is in fact pretty insulting. And why should the Palestinians accept any other border than the Green Line? Because of Jewish greed for land?

I happen to know you are an anti semitc nut.

The Jewish state was not unnesscary. The British created it and the UN sanctioned it for many reasons
- It is the traditional homeland of the Jews
- The Jews could no longer be guests in other peoples countries as demonstrated finally by the Holocaust but also by historic anti-semitism in both the Christian and Muslim world
- Jewish communities were present there at the time in their droves, they had the right to self determination, as did every other people hence why the Palestinians were offered a state also.

And others. But you're an anti-semetic nut, so you won't listen to me. I've seen you're comments before. Things like "If they Jews were so hated by so many people throught so much history that says more about them than the people who hated them" (aproximation) and othe such wonderful comments.

Interesting, but if you want to address the issue of a 'lasting' peace you might want to mention the coming confrontation between Shia Islam (led by Iran) and Sunni Islam (led by Saudi Arabia)

True, I should have said though I only had 1000 words, but you are correct. If I had more on refelection I would have included it.


I also believe that it's wrong to say that the Palestinians shouldn't be offered more land: just as they must be pragmatic in giving up the right to return, so Israel must be pragmatic and offer more than was offered last time.

Perhaps, but I don't believe that offer can be made while there is viloence. Maybe a deal. The Israelies make a standing offer. If there is 5 years or less perhaps without viloence the Palestians get a larger state than offered in 2000


EDIT: congrats on getting onto the course btw :)

Thank you, its something I'm very much looking forward to

Hmm, so what's the final solution to this, do you think?Give half of Pennsylvania to the Jews. The UN will surely draw up a partition plan.

Give half of Pennsylvania to the Jews. The UN will surely draw up a partition plan.

Sure, but it seems most Jews in Israel don't want to move.

So you'd have to enact forced deportation, no?

What happens when that becomes cost-prohibitive?

Give half of Pennsylvania to the Jews. The UN will surely draw up a partition plan.

Of course, because Pennsylvania is the traditional homeland of the Jews. And while we're at it, give half of the Isle of Skye to the Palestians, A third of Vanantu to the Kurds and a sixteenth of the London Bourogh of Bromley to the Tibetians.

Give it up...

will never happen as long as the stupid concept of religion exists

The use of terrorism and viloence to achieve political aims in the Middle East presents us with a .....

You don't see the Irony of stating that just down the sheet from

However in order for security to be a serious possibility, the United States and the United Kingdom cannot be the only two primary contributors of troops to Iraq.
which seems to lead to a call for other states to lend troops to militarily "acheive political aims"?

will never happen as long as the stupid concept of religion exists

I suggest a more private discussion for that. Do you have MSN and if so could you message it to me personally

Sure, but it seems most Jews in Israel don't want to move.And? Why can't the world do to Israelis what Israelis do to Palestinians?

So you'd have to enact forced deportation, no?Were Palestinian Arabs asked if they wanted to move when half of their home land was supposed to be given away to foreigners back then?

What happens when that becomes cost-prohibitive?If creating Israel wasn't, then dismantling it also shouldn't.

You don't see the Irony of stating that just down the sheet from

which seems to lead to a call for other states to lend troops to militarily "acheive political aims"?

Making Iraq a safe and free place is not a political aim. Its a humanitarian one. Whatever the reasons for war were/are, Iraq should be made safe, free and democratic if possible.

Of course, because Pennsylvania is the traditional homeland of the Jews. And while we're at it, give half of the Isle of Skye to the Palestians, A third of Vanantu to the Kurds and a sixteenth of the London Bourogh of Bromley to the Tibetians.

Give it up..."traditional homeland" is no criterion. Jews allegedly wanted a state because of security. There was no reason to create that state in already inhabited Palestine, then the actual homeland of Palestinian Arabs.

And? Why can't the world do to Israelis what Israelis do to Palestinians?

Israel didn't do that to the Palestians. The Israeli provisional government urged the Palestians to stay in there homes but they fled fearing war and the exagerated stories of Der Yessain


Were Palestinian Arabs asked if they wanted to move when half of their home land was supposed to be given away to foreigners back then?

See above


If creating Israel wasn't, then dismantling it also shouldn't.

Or, you know, we could have peace. That would be nice. Two states, at peace. Seems fair to both sides.

And? Why can't the world do to Israelis what Israelis do to Palestinians?

Why would two wrongs make a right?

Were Palestinian Arabs asked if they wanted to move when half of their home land was supposed to be given away to foreigners back then?

Were Jews asked if they wanted to move when they were put on leaky boats in the Atlantic?

If creating Israel wasn't, then dismantling it also shouldn't.

And by "dismantle" you mean destroy.

Yeah, I'm digging your Jew-hate. But I wonder what motivated it for you. Did a Jew do something bad to your someone in your family?

Or, you know, we could have peace. That would be nice. Two states, at peace. Seems fair to both sides.Not if that peace comes at the expense of the Palestinians, who would have to finally and completely accept a foreign state implanted into their home land. Solitudinem faciunt, pace appellant.

Why would two wrongs make a right?Hey, if Jews did it, it can't be wrong, can it?

Were Jews asked if they wanted to move when they were put on leaky boats in the Atlantic? Arabs did that?

And by "dismantle" you mean destroy.To be created elsewhere. So I rather mean move.

Yeah, I'm digging your Jew-hate. But I wonder what motivated it for you. Did a Jew do something bad to your someone in your family?Jews invented a god and wrote the bible. They did something bad to humankind.

"traditional homeland" is no criterion. Jews allegedly wanted a state because of security. There was no reason to create that state in already inhabited Palestine, then the actual homeland of Palestinian Arabs.

Lets see, the Jews were living there at the time too. They had built communities and cities there too. And it is historically their home. There is nowhere else that is their own.

Lets see, the Jews were living there at the time too. They had built communities and cities there too. And it is historically their home. There is nowhere else that is their own.Palestine is not their own, they only made up 7% or so of the population there in the last 1500 years (at least), so that's what they should have got after the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. But there no reason ever to take away half of the land from Arabs to give it to Jews, least of all the Jews immigrating en masse to Palestine for ideological reasons. Why should give any population of any area give up half their home land to foreigners? Why? Ever? Because the foreigners had military success?
And today? Folks always expect the Palestinians to accept any Israelis proposal, no matter how bad and to their disadvantage it is?

UB, regardless of the history, they are there now and they are not going to all go away because you or anyone else says so. So it is better to have two state peace than perpetual war.

Hey, if Jews did it, it can't be wrong, can it?


Sheer sophistry. Clearly you believe it was wrong... so if you believe it to be justification, you are engaged in "two wrongs make a right" fallacious thinking.


Arabs did that?

No, Nazis did. You know, people who hated Jews just about the same way you did. This was what the forced deportation comment was coming from and how it ties your belief in with the Nazi belief. Do try to keep up.

To be created elsewhere. So I rather mean move.

That's like saying if I kill someone and make a clone out of their DNA, I'm not actually killing anyone.

Jews invented a god and wrote the bible. They did something bad to humankind.

There you go with more anti-semitic garbage. Demonize Jews all you want, it only makes your kind easier to dismiss.

UB should be dismissed. He's an anti semetic nut, the kind who will fill the ranks of Hamas and stall peace for ages prefering perpetual war where it is glorious to die and glorious to kill Jews. There will never be peace so long as people who are like UB are in positions of power.

UB, regardless of the history, they are there now and they are not going to all go away because you or anyone else says so. So it is better to have two state peace than perpetual war.Then get Israel the fuck out of the West Bank. It is Israel that is continuing the war with every new house that is built in the Jewish settlements there. As long as their colonization goes on there can be no peace. Israel has always been the perpetrator in this conflict, Palestinians have always only reacted to what Israel did from the very beginning. Israel is trying to force peace on the Palestinians by obviously dishonest offers, but the politically correct faction of Israel-lovers here fails to see that. The only peace that Israel pursues is that under Israel's conditions. Just imagine what would happen if the West Bank became an independent Palestinians state: the Palestinians would immediately take back the water resources of the West Bank of which currently 90% are used by Jewish settlers and the tiny rest by Palestinians. No Israeli government wants to lose the votes of these Jewish settlers, so subsequently there is no reason to assume that Israel could be interested in real peace, meaning an independent Palestine, anytime soon.

Isn't it really ironic that "peace" and "middle east" sort of rhyme?

UB should be dismissed. He's an anti semetic nut, the kind who will fill the ranks of Hamas and stall peace for ages prefering perpetual war where it is glorious to die and glorious to kill Jews. There will never be peace so long as people who are like UB are in positions of power.Better to be an anti semite than to be against semites.

Go ahead and keep posting UB.

I don't even have to post anything to defend my case.


Everytime a moron like you, OD, Soviestan, or AP posts something against Israel, you are strengthening my case. I don't even have to argue with idiots like yourself to prove my point of view. Your own ignorance is doing it with all of your pointless and uneducated 4,400+ posts.

Israel didn't do that to the Palestians. The Israeli provisional government urged the Palestians to stay in there homes but they fled fearing war and the exagerated stories of Der Yessain


So when Yitzhak Rabin stated in his Diary
(being ordered to drive out 50,000 civillians) from Lydda and Raml in 10/11th July 1948 -
"Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! [garesh otem in Hebrew]. 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring, .... Psychologically, this was on of the most difficult actions we undertook"

....was he being delusional? He said later......

"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action."(interview with David Shipler, New York Times,October 22, 1979)

Mass hysteria that lingers on for 30 years?

As for Iraq being "peaceful" and "free" wouldnt thjat nessitate the removal of the US forces who clearly have less than altruistic reasons for being there?

So when Yitzhak Rabin stated in his Diary
(being ordered to drive out 50,000 civillians) from Lydda and Raml in 10/11th July 1948 -
"Ben-Gurion would repeat the question: What is to be done with the population?, waving his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! [garesh otem in Hebrew]. 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring, .... Psychologically, this was on of the most difficult actions we undertook"

....was he being delusional? He said later......

"Great Suffering was inflicted upon the men taking part in the eviction action. [They] included youth-movement graduates who had been inculcated with values such as international brotherhood and humaneness. The eviction action went beyond the concepts they were used to. There were some fellows who refused to take part. . . Prolonged propaganda activities were required after the action . . . to explain why we were obliged to undertake such a harsh and cruel action."(interview with David Shipler, New York Times,October 22, 1979)

Mass hysteria that lingers on for 30 years?

As for Iraq being "peaceful" and "free" wouldnt thjat nessitate the removal of the US forces who clearly have less than altruistic reasons for being there?

More Jews were driven out by other Arab nations than Arabs driven out by Jews. It sucks, but both sides did it.

The only reason we don't have a Jewish refugee problem is because Israel strained its few resources in the 1950s (without US aid BTW as that came later one) to accomodate them. They lived in tents for a while, but the Jewish refugees were eventually brought into permanent cities. Israel has yet to have recovered from the influx of refugees fleeing for their lives from Arab nations. They still did all they could to accomodate them.

It's too bad the Arabs (Arab governments is what I mean by this) don't have the decency to treat their own brethren with the same respect. It would be a whole lot easier for the Jordan and Egypt to have taken them in than it was for Israel.

Afterall, in Israel's case it was a base population of 600,000 taking in about 800,000 evicted refugees. I can imagine countries with populations of several million would have no problem taking in 400,000 refugees.

Israel did horrible things in 1948, but the situation forced them too. Most of the Arabs evicted were from villages helping the Arab side in the war. While all of the residents in the village weren't joining the fighting, Israel couldn't take a chance. This was just three years after the Holocaust and 600,000 Jews were on the verge of extermination. They did horrible things in their fight for survival. Had the Arabs not invaded, Israel wouldn't have had to evict the Palestinians.

Format issues:
Break the paragraphs up either with indentations or skipping a line.
Spell check that baby!!!!
It's Gandhi, not Ghandi, and Iraqis not Iraqies.
(Since they're looking for an essay in English on the topic, such things will be important.)

To the essay itself:
Frankly, I thought it was a bit stale and superficial overall. You chose two obsticals that are obvious, without really examining the underlying causes. In particular, the Iraq issue is more a symptom of over-arching issues, and a recent blip at that.

And, the means of acheiving the solutions to the obsticals you give are not at all concrete. Basically, you've said Iraq needs to take care of itself, and the Israelis and Palestinians need to play nicer together.


Turning Iraq into a poilitcal point scoring match of the continental Europeans vs. The trans-atlantic alliance is not frankly worth the lives of the Iraqies. With new government recently elected in France, this may hopefully soon be the case.

NATO is mostly (nearly 90%) made up of continental European powers. And I don't understand the 2nd sentence at all.

More...(..........)...Palestinians.

If three years after the Nazis stuck my people in a train to a death camp, I'd have been in that position, its quite likely I wouldn't have bothered 'escorting' anyone I though in the way of a safe haven out. I'm not Jewish, nor was I there though. Hence perspective.

The point is that it happened. Denying it happened is not the way to solve anything, and starts antagonism. The OP is just trotting out the usual shite in this regard.

In South Africa they had the "Truth and Reconciliation" thing, where people came forward and admitted what they did. Theres been calls for it for NI, though its doubtful the Brits would approve regardless. You can't just blank over their suffering anymore than they can blank over the Israelis. The OP just throws salt in the wound.

As to not absorbing them - that was a decision taken in the late 60's, and at the time nobody thought it would drag on this long. Lebanon won't change its policy because of the Sunni/Shia/Christian balance. The rest either don't care or have ulterior motives. Jordan and Syria treat them relatively well in comparison - I'm unsure of what the situation is in Egypt.

As long as people keep talking about some stupid "two-state solution" there will never be peace. It's just an excuse for both sides to keep the conflict going. "Oh, we want a two state solution, but they aren't willing to be at peace with us." and "We wan't a state, but they won't give us the land they stole." Basically, nether of the governments wants peace, they are in power because of fear, and there is so much hate and misunderstanding on both sides that there simply cannot be two states living side by side at peace. There needs to be one government, one country, a democracy where everyone's rights are respected and neither the Palestinians or the Israelis are treated like second-rate citizens. But you know what, the people in power on both sides aren't going to let that happen, because in a wonderful world, they wouldn't be in control.

So when will there really be peace? When the common people on both sides see through the lies and hate and they overthrow their governments. When will that happen? Who knows?

As long as people keep talking about some stupid "two-state solution" there will never be peace. It's just an excuse for both sides to keep the conflict going. "Oh, we want a two state solution, but they aren't willing to be at peace with us." and "We wan't a state, but they won't give us the land they stole." Basically, nether of the governments wants peace, they are in power because of fear, and there is so much hate and misunderstanding on both sides that there simply cannot be two states living side by side at peace. There needs to be one government, one country, a democracy where everyone's rights are respected and neither the Palestinians or the Israelis are treated like second-rate citizens. But you know what, the people in power on both sides aren't going to let that happen, because in a wonderful world, they wouldn't be in control.

So when will there really be peace? When the common people on both sides see through the lies and hate and they overthrow their governments. When will that happen? Who knows?

Jews will never accept a one-state solution, because they are afraid of Arab children. They know they would soon be the minority in their beloved Jewish State.

I thought I'd like to see peoples comments on my thoughts

First of all congratulations. Unfortunately, I doubt there will ever be a lasting peace in the Middle East so my thoughts are found in the lyrics to this song.

Artist: Joseph & Children Lyrics
Song: Any Dream Will Do Lyrics

I closed my eyes, drew back the curtain
To see for certain what I thought I knew
Far far away, someone was weeping
But the world was sleeping
Any dream will do
I wore my coat, with golden lining
Bright colours shining, wonderful and new
And in the east, the dawn was breaking
And the world was waking
Any dream will do

A crash of drums, a flash of light
My golden coat flew out of sight
The colours faded into darkness
I was left alone

May I return to the beginning
The light is dimming, and the dream is too
The world and I, we are still waiting
Still hesitating
Any dream will do

A crash of drums, a flash of light
My golden coat flew out of sight
The colours faded into darkness
I was left alone

May I return to the beginning
The light is dimming, and the dream is too
The world and I, we are still waiting
Still hesitating
Any dream will do

This september I'm heading out to Prague for a year to study there at the institute of public administration and international relations. For part of the form because they were teaching the course in English, they required a short essay from us all about one of several topics. I chose the question "How can lasting peace in the Middle East be achived" and this is what I wrote.



I thought I'd like to see peoples comments on my thoughts

I think you have written a very well thought out essay. I like it and the points you make. Heck, you could probably expand that into a Masters thesis. Very good.