?

Log in

peace between Israel and Palestinians - Worthy Debate [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
real debate

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

peace between Israel and Palestinians [Aug. 22nd, 2004|10:13 pm]
real debate

worthydebate

[sabbathunter]
ok here is a nice controversial topic to start off with :)

here is my feelings on the topic.
peace is attenable and in the near future but a few things must happen
1) israel pulls out of Gaza and most of the West bank (except for jerusalem) they can build any wall/barrier they want along the approx green line of 1967
2) the UN goes into the west bank and gaza and acts as the police force since currently the PA is unable or unwilling to do so
3) elections are held within the west bank and gaza to decide on a leader. an election in which arafat isnt eligble to run. he has stolen enough money and been enough of a hinderance to peace
4) 6 months after that election the UN begins to train a new independent police force
5) 1 year after; talks begin for a permanent peace between israel and palestine
6) the UN is redeployed to border positions in the west bank and gaza to make sure terrorists cannot get over the border.

thoughts?


david
linkReply

Comments:
From: raistlinjones
2004-08-22 08:17 pm (UTC)
What part of that benefits Israel? I mean, obviously they get the "peace" part, but it doesn't really sound like much of a compromise.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: libram
2004-08-22 08:59 pm (UTC)
Why was my reply deleted?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sweetbums
2004-08-22 09:01 pm (UTC)
Eek, are you sure you sent it? I didn't delete it, nor did I see it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: libram
2004-08-22 09:15 pm (UTC)
Oh, I posted it alright... *sigh* I hate those debate idiots... Have you read their latest post?

Anyway, not to get off topic:

I mainly posted saying I agreed with raistlinjones, that sabbathunt's plan doesn't do much for Israel. I went into more detail, but I'll save it for when the debate grows a bit more.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: raistlinjones
2004-08-22 09:01 pm (UTC)
I certainly didn't delete it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sabbathunter
2004-08-22 09:11 pm (UTC)
neither did i, but it appears that two replies that were posted were deleted, for good cause.

anyway to continue the debate

is israel giving up a lot? yes, but mostly areas where they are not wanted and that was supposed to have been a palestinian state (for the most part) back in 1947.
at this point the west bank and gaza area cancer for israel. the amount of resources they are spending is ridiculous. (ill try to find the exact numbers)
i think that if an effective leader (read not arafat) was in charge of the would be palestinian state, a lot of the terror would disappear.

that leader would of course have to not steal money meant for the palestinain people, like arafat has. I really think that if the millions arafat stole went to the people like it was supposed to be the terror would be less.

david
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: raistlinjones
2004-08-22 09:26 pm (UTC)
The terror would be gone only if the Palestinian people thought they got a good deal. Unfortunately, I don't know what that would take - would they be happy with just the Gaza strip, or would they want more?

It could be that then Jerusalem would be what they would want - isn't there plenty of significance to Muslims there, too?

Anyway, I agree that ideally, Israel would just give up that land, build a huge wall, and leave it at that. I wonder if there's something the UN could give them to make it a more favorable offer.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sabbathunter
2004-08-22 09:44 pm (UTC)
well under my idea the palestinians would get gaza and the west bank, which is what they should have had in 1947 if not for their 'bretheren' and the war against israels independence.

as for jerusalem control of it should remain in israeli hands. with the muslim sites controled by muslims (as it is now)
they wouldnt be controlled by palestinians, but under some kind of Islam council or group (similar to they way the church of the holy sepcular is controlled by several christian sects)

nothing is going to be easy, but it is possible with a lot of work.

look at the peace between egypt and israel. israel gave up all the land (the sinai) it conqured from egypt. in return it was promised peace, and has gotten it on that front, even if it has been a cold peace at times.

david
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: raistlinjones
2004-08-22 09:48 pm (UTC)
Sounds like a pretty decent idea.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sweetbums
2004-08-22 09:12 pm (UTC)
I agree with you. Frankly, I don't think that any side will ever agree to any sort of "compromise" because there is none that would suit what each one wants. If there was an easy solution, it would be done. As I mentioned in the other community, I watched an amazing documentary last night called "Death in Gaza" and something really struck me. A little Palestinian boy was asked if he ever thought a compromise would be reached (mind you this boy was "fighting" for the cause) and he said that no, one could never be reached because the Israelis had killed too many of his people. Obviously, a lot of his people share that thought, as do a lot of Israelis. It's a never-ending cycle.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sabbathunter
2004-08-22 09:15 pm (UTC)
it is that thinking (by the little boy) why i think the two sides need to be seperated as much as possible. with the wall/fence/barrier and a multinational force patroling the border. if they cant reach each other they cant kill each other (sure there will be rockets and such, but the violence will greatly decrease)

and over time i feel trust will evolve and peace can be reached. its not something that will happen over night. it will take years.

david
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)