How do we solve the Middle East problem.

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I already put two forward, have that specified court decide on all disputes was the first suggestion.

Have all the residents vote on the issue, that would include all Palestinian refugees was the 2nd. Neither will happen so what is the point of this exercise?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
I already put two forward, have that specified court decide on all disputes was the first suggestion.

Have all the residents vote on the issue, that would include all Palestinian refugees was the 2nd. Neither will happen so what is the point of this exercise?


What court....and you mentioned a vote that you say should have been taken way back before the creation of the state of Isreal. That makes it moot as the state has already been created and recognised as such. The existing problem is the continued hostilities between Isreal and Palestine in particular with other countries within and outside of the region throwing in their 2 cents at various times.

You say a court...fine, what court, how can we ensure impartiality of that court and how would the desision of that court be enforced?,,,for starters.
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
As much as I have tried to stay out of this I still think that the will to sit down at a table and discuss issues as they did in Ireland with England to end that war is real answer. Nobody but the conflicted people can resolve the issues and all those who threaten either side after the fact will be disarmed if both sides reach an agreement..

If not they will just find other reasons to hate but use other causes, not having this one left.

My opinion only..
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Well the 'which court' was in post #15, the same one recommended back in 1947. Impartiality could be assured by appointing only members that did not vote either way, minus the UK). 43 countries would cease to have any input as they all just became potential witnesses. How does anything get enforced, take their money and then put embargoes in place. I'm sure they can come up with something effective that cannot be vetoed by anything but a majority vote.

That you say some things are moot makes the above moot because the legality of taking that land would be the first case to be heard. You have already determined that, what's the point of looking for anything approaching what is fair after that? Good luck, I've said all I have to.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
As much as I have tried to stay out of this I still think that the will to sit down at a table and discuss issues as they did in Ireland with England to end that war is real answer. Nobody but the conflicted people can resolve the issues and all those who threaten either side after the fact will be disarmed if both sides reach an agreement..

If not they will just find other reasons to hate but use other causes, not having this one left.

My opinion only..


Agreed, now expand on that please.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Well the 'which court' was in post #15, the same one recommended back in 1947. Impartiality could be assured by appointing only members that did not vote either way, minus the UK). 43 countries would cease to have any input as they all just became potential witnesses. How does anything get enforced, take their money and then put embargoes in place. I'm sure they can come up with something effective that cannot be vetoes by anything but a majority vote.

That you say some things are moot makes the above moot because the legality of taking that land would be the first case to be heard. You have already determined that, what's the point of looking for anything approaching what is fair after that? Good luck, I've said all I have to.

Which has been nothing but fluff, about what I expected. It shows you have no real interest in solving anything in the ME, and really prefer the status quo. Gives you something to vent your hatred on.

Have a wonderfull life.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Suggesting the courts hear the arguments from both sides and then come to a binding decision is the wrong route, okay .....
Try following your own guidelines.
"Attacks will not be tolerated."

"It shows you have no real interest in solving anything in the ME, and really prefer the status quo. Gives you something to vent your hatred on."
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
Agreed, now expand on that please.

Well while each side is being supply and supported by other nations they have no real incentive to end the war.. Each is being "Egged on" if you like to continue a war that many children and even adults really do not even know the real origin of today..

If most outside support was stopped and dialogue was encouraged to start at a formal round table diplomatic table in the style that the IRA and British Government took in time common ground would be found to resolve issues, land claims and land disputes.

The boundaries are already there so no need to redefine them. Only set who can get what land and what areas. Realistically that is for Palestinians and Jewish people to decide, not outside people to keep telling them what those boundaries should be..

No one says it will be easy but in time they will settle those points.. No one can discuss those topics for them but the people living those lives..

I cannot imagine what its like being Palestinian or Jewish in that area.. Sorry but I doubt any of us can and those who have lived it are probably bias due to the side they were on.. That is just life.. And that is why they must discuss the issues themselves..
 
  • Like
Reactions: CDNBear

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Well while each side is being supply and supported by other nations they have no real incentive to end the war.. Each is being "Egged on" if you like to continue a war that many children and even adults really do not even know the real origin of today..

You and I are agreeing on way too much...lol....

So... how do we get the "other nations" to stop their "proxy wars"?

If most outside support was stopped and dialogue was encouraged to start at a formal round table diplomatic table in the style that the IRA and British Government took in time common ground would be found to resolve issues, land claims and land disputes.

The boundaries are already there so no need to redefine them. Only set who can get what land and what areas. Realistically that is for Palestinians and Jewish people to decide, not outside people to keep telling them what those boundaries should be..

No one says it will be easy but in time they will settle those points.. No one can discuss those topics for them but the people living those lives..

If you take a look at the 2000 Camp David discussions, you will see that they were DAMN close to an agreement.

I cannot imagine what its like being Palestinian or Jewish in that area.. Sorry but I doubt any of us can and those who have lived it are probably bias due to the side they were on.. That is just life.. And that is why they must discuss the issues themselves..

Fully agree, an imposed "agreement" is never as good as one worked out by both sides. An agreement that both sides have worked towards is more likely to be upheld by both sides.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Suggesting the courts hear the arguments from both sides and then come to a binding decision is the wrong route, okay .....
Try following your own guidelines.
"Attacks will not be tolerated."

"It shows you have no real interest in solving anything in the ME, and really prefer the status quo. Gives you something to vent your hatred on."


Agreed, at this time it was uncalled for..... what I am loking for is something a little more substantial.... saying "let the courts take care of it" and leaving it at that is not much different than saying "nuke the place".... it doesn't say much. Elaborate, how would the courts dessision be implemented, enforced........
 

Trex

Electoral Member
Apr 4, 2007
917
31
28
Hither and yon
Which has been nothing but fluff, about what I expected. It shows you have no real interest in solving anything in the ME, and really prefer the status quo. Gives you something to vent your hatred on.

Have a wonderfull life.

I think Gerry you have reached the nub of the problem when you mentioned preferring the status quo and venting hatreds. You missed vested interests.

Indeed Israel surely must return both the West Bank and the Gaza as was agreed at Camp David.
But surely you know that Arafat in the end intentionally scuttled that deal in order to preserve the status quo?

Once Israel does the right thing and returns those regions unfortunately nothing will then change. The Israeli's will get no credit nor benefit from the action. The missiles will continue to fall and the suicide bombings intended to shred women and children will continue unabated.

The only solution is for the Muslim insistence that Israel and the Jewish homeland must be destroyed to change.
The Muslims would have to accept the state of Israel and live in peace beside it.
Otherwise DarkBeaver is completely correct.
It will be war until the end.

Vested interests in the Arab world need a scapegoat. They need a defined enemy to take the average Muslim's mind off the mismanagement, the corruption, the poverty and the incompetence that is rife within the Muslim nations.

Unless a true visionary pops up in the Arab world and convinces the Muslim world of the benefits of peace I fear it will be a tough sell.

Barak Obama is one of the most likely politicians to be able to build the bridge of peace between Israel and the Arabs that exists on the planet.
If Barak cannot broker peace I think it may be impossible to achieve a lasting piece.
I certainly do wish Obama all the luck in the world.
He's gonna need it.

Trex
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
DB...try reading what I said in relation to the quotes....I didn't say you had a defeatest attitude.

I did not "define" the problem on purpose. What I see as the problem, may not be what you see as the problem. I left it open.

The only thing I want to see is an honest attempt at debate, rather than another thread bashing one side over the other.

That's fair enough gerry. I appreciate honesty when I encounter it. I'll define the problem as I see it. An unacknowledged stockpile of nuclear weapons in the center of the contested area, that area includes every blade of grass on this planet and every man women and child. From that advantage the favoured solution will be derived. I used to troubleshoot machinery, there is no room for error in the problems definition. In the final analysis of this contest machine logic prevails.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
This conflict isn't all that complex once all the BS has been filtered out. For example this is BS:

In 67 Egypt, Jordan and Syria waged war against Israel, Israel ...

from wikipedia:
1967, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack[12] against Egypt's airforce. Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya.

Six-Day War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would be more accurate to say Israel waged war against Egypt which caused Syria and Jordan involvement due to their mutual defense treaty with Egypt.

The origins of this conflict aren't unknown, but deliberately obscurred with misinformation and propaganda by the side which started it. The same side effectively controls most North American media.

Zionism is the root cause of this conflict.
Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The origins of this conflict are clearly presented by modern Jewish Israeli historians like Ilan Pappe:
Ilan Pappe on How Israel was Founded on Ethnic Cleansing :: The Official Website of Ilan Pappé

Before Zionism, this area (Palestine) was a peaceful part of the Ottoman empire.

Toward the end of the 1800's, Zionist Jews began moving to Palestine, funded and supported by wealthy powerful people in the West. At first the Zionist movement was peaceful and legal. But eventually, non-Jewish Palestinians began to feel threatened by the movement and legal restrictions were imposed on Jewish immigration and property ownership in Palestine. That's when the movement became illegal and violent. In the 1930's and 40's rising anti-semitism in Europe and the holocaust atrocities of WW II led to Palestine being overrun by a flood of desperate refugees. In 1947 well funded and armed Zionist terrorists initiated an ethnic cleansing war which continues to this day. Some of these terrorists later became prominent members of the Israeli government.

From the beginning, Zionists have understood the importance of good PR and propaganda. They have confused the issue with misinformation, mythology and outright lies.

Fundamentally this issue is about injustice and oppression. You have almost 5 million people without rights, nationality or security. Give these people these things in a fair and just way and this area will have peace.

Unfortunately the Zionists aren't finished crushing the people who had the misfortune of live on land Zionists believe God gave to Jews.

This war probably will end in an orgy of violence and destruction. Eventually the Zionists will face an existential threat, and likely they will use their WMD arsenals.

The best thing for Canada can do is become a safe haven for refugees on both sides of this conflict. We should remain neutral and not support either side so that we don't become a target. We should not support or arm either side. We should not profit from injustice and the suffering of others, by try to remain impartial.

For example, Canadian companies should be obliged to respect Canadian law and not profit from war crimes:
The companies — Green Mount International Inc. and Green Park International Inc. — are being sued for war crimes in Quebec Superior Court by the West Bank town of Bilin.

They are accused of violating international and Canadian law by acting as "agents of Israel" in building condominiums within Bilin’s town limits and selling them to Israelis

Bil'in - Montreal firms used as fronts for Israeli settlements, activists say

Canadians should be aware that our current government has chosen sides in this conflict. The Liberals have also chose the same side. That pretty much leaves the NDP which has chosen more or less to sit on the fence.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
OK EAO.... you did not address any of the OP...... try again. Reread my opening post and if you still need clarification as to what this thread is about, ask.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
I's have thought what I said was pretty evident. We stay out of their mess until and if they decide to talk with each other instead of lobbing nasties back and forth. Then "we" mediate to try making sure the talks don't revert back to lobbing nasties. Need a picture?

So, we don't intervene in the killing, bombing...... we just sit back and let them have at it. Wouldn't complacency also make "us" responsible for the atrocities? Wouldn't it be better for all if "we" (the world) took an active roll in trying to solve the problems?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
So, we don't intervene in the killing, bombing...... we just sit back and let them have at it. Wouldn't complacency also make "us" responsible for the atrocities? Wouldn't it be better for all if "we" (the world) took an active roll in trying to solve the problems?
Yup. The alternative is that we end up joining in the killing and bombing.
It's not complacent to refrain from interfering in others' business.
Mediating is active.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
OK EAO.... you did not address any of the OP...... try again. Reread my opening post and if you still need clarification as to what this thread is about, ask.

We don't solve this conflict, nor should we try. I agree with LG. I think Canada should stay out of this conflict as much as possible and be an objective third party. When the belligerents tire of trying to kill each other, maybe we could help act as a mediator. But that would only be possible if both sides see us as neutral because we've behaved that way.

(Unlike the US which arms and supports Israel to the tune of about $5B US each year and makes the ongoing oppression and injustice sustainable year after year)
Israel – United States relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe one thing Canadians can do is raise this funding issue with Americans and embarrass them into neutrality. Once Israel has to fund their own death and destruction, they might cut back.

People who think we should get involved should consider my post above, so they are informed about this conflict.