Discussion: Peace in the Not so Distant Future (in Debates)


AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] November 12 2009 12:21 PM EST

As you all may be aware, Israel and Palestine have had a rocky relationship at best. This stems from a long line of disagreements over land and water rights. If you're not familiar with the conflict, you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

In 1993, things seemed to take a turn for the better. At the Oslo Accords, Yasir Arafat (then leader of the PLO), and Yitzhak Rabin (Prime minister of Israel at the time) met with other leaders around the world to sign a peace agreement between the two nations. Israel agreed to give Palestine the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip in return for peace between the two nations. All seemed to be headed in the right direction.

For the past sixteen years, the conflict has been lightened mildly. The countries are fighting between each other, but it is mainly to try and control the extremist groups such as: Hamas, PFLP (Less extreme as of late), the PIJ, and the Kach party. We can see that the people of Israel and Palestine want peace by who they have voted for, and what they believe. Jews, Muslims and Christians (many are present in Israel and Palestine) all teach peace in their religion. Also, during the time of the Oslo Accords, Arafat's approval rating soared, just under what Obama's has been recently. This desire for peace is obvious in Israel too, where the Kach party has never won over three percent of the vote.

I think that if the people and government from each Israel and Palestine keep working in the direction they are headed towards, peace might not be just some pipe dream. As long as the people in each nation holds their government accountable for their actions, one day soon there may be peace between Israel and Palestine.

So, what do you guys think? Will there ever be peace between these two nations? Can Muslims and Jews ever live together peacefully in the Holy Land?

AdminShade November 12 2009 12:23 PM EST

I think there will never be peace. Some people just either donᄡt learn or canᄡt set aside ancient wars.

Also, both groups of people want the same piece of land but canᄡt both fit on it. They will keep on trying to get peace but fail time after time because of dumb actions of other people.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 12 2009 12:24 PM EST

Not while there's one radical Muslim or Jew left alive on the planet.

AdminShade November 12 2009 12:24 PM EST

off topic a bit here but China also wants to have some small part of land (forgot name) near the Himalayas but those people want to be separated from China.

I'd say, let them split up.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] November 12 2009 12:31 PM EST

Marl, if that was true, how is there peace anywhere? If you want to argue that point, that's another topic. In the United States, we would say that we are at peace with most other countries. Yet, there are extremist in the United States too. Do you think there are not people in the United States who hate Jews? I would say there are, but this does not disqualify our nation from being at peace with Israel.

AdminShade November 12 2009 12:34 PM EST

This isn't about radical Muslims or Jews in America though, it is about in Israel and Palestine. Those extremists whomever they are have a different score to settle.
However, it doesn't mean that if those countries don't have any extremist left that it would automatically lead to peace either...

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] November 12 2009 12:47 PM EST

Shade I'm not talking about all violence leaving their lands. That of course would never happen, there's always going to be a group that cannot be stopped. What I am suggesting is that the two nations, if they unite together, can live in the same area, without fighting wars with each other.

Cube November 12 2009 1:02 PM EST

I don't think there will be peace any time in the near future. They have made some progress, but keep backtracking.

I was never pleased with the stance of the Bush administration because I think compromises are needed from both sides to make way for peace. I think Obama does recognize this.

In the United States, it seems all Palestinians get labeled as simple terrorists, which some are, but Israel does nothing to alleviate the problem by striking back with 10x the force. It seems like part of the problem is the Palestinians lack of strong centralized leadership, dedicated to peace. With better leadership, hopefully they'd actually be able to limit the violence, but that won't happen anytime soon. I feel like Israel's faults are underplayed as it definitely has more power and more control over it's own actions. Israel continues to assert it's dominance, and I think that's the wrong path if they want peace.

If they need land to live on, I'd gladly give up Montana, but neither of them would take it. The fight is definitely ideological, or else they wouldn't have so many disagreements on so many issues. Both leaderships are stubborn as all get out. Unfortunately, barring some mass slaughter, I don't foresee peace for 20+ years.

RaptorX November 12 2009 2:49 PM EST

When Palestine was given Gaza they were happy to have that, but it was just a beginning, they still wanted all of the land around it - including Jerusalem. Their Government seems to not be able to control or may even support their radical idealists. They basically want all "infidels' out of 'their' holy land and their country as well as the rest of the world. And an 'infidel', I hear, is basically anyone who can't be converted to their belief structure. So we are all in trouble. They actually want us off the planet entirely. At least according to their beliefs in the Koran.
Israel is very small in comparative population but luckily technologically advanced and have allies or they would have been destroyed a long time ago. I think they are defending their land as they see they have to, to survive. ( Though I admit - their blowing up people 10X as much as they were hit, does at times make you wonder who the radical one is.) But maybe that is how to communicate to the extremists. They only back down when a MUCH larger force threatens them. (the US/UN force is too small to be very threatening in actions as well as numbers, IMO. But, I think Israel can be reasonable as shown by their giving up Gaza for peace.. but I doubt Palestinians will ever make true concessions.
Tell me if I am off base. I am still trying to understand them all. I hope they actually want peace someday, but I see them only make concessions that build their footing in the area, and then don't honor their treaties.

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] November 14 2009 3:56 PM EST

Cube:

"In the United States, it seems all Palestinians get labeled as simple terrorists, which some are, but Israel does nothing to alleviate the problem by striking back with 10x the force."

Alright, I'll give you that. Israel does often hit back harder than they need to, but I see this problems slowing down over time. Israel will, and most definitely should, start focusing on the terrorist groups, instead of the actual nation of Palestine. They've already started to shift that way, focusing on such groups as Al-Qassam. If Palestine does their part in stopping and silencing these groups, the responses from Israel with coincide with the actions of Palestine, both being against the terrorist groups.


"It seems like part of the problem is the Palestinians lack of strong centralized leadership, dedicated to peace. With better leadership, hopefully they'd actually be able to limit the violence, but that won't happen anytime soon."

I also agree with you on this, while there is some sort of structure in Palestine, they still need a stronger centralized group that helps control the terrorist groups and its citizens.
The PLO started to shift into this around the turn of the century, but has lost a little power due to some attacks by Hamas. Now the PA sort of fills that position, but they too are weak and need help. I see this as an area where they Israeli attacks will actually help. When Israel has responded lately, it's been to the groups, not to Palestine. These responses could deeply weaken the extremist groups, and allow for the PA to finally get control of their country.

"The fight is definitely ideological, or else they wouldn't have so many disagreements on so many issues."

Well, that about hits the nail on the head. The fight is definitely ideological. But remember, just because they have strong feelings does not mean they can not reach some sort of compromise. It is also important to remember that their ideologies can actually help the problem. Both of the main groups ideologies actually preach peace and living together. There can be a solution, it will just take a little time.

RaptorX:

"When Palestine was given Gaza they were happy to have that, but it was just a beginning, they still wanted all of the land around it - including Jerusalem."

Can two groups of people not share some land? Is that not possible? I know that the two groups have a lot to get over, but is it not possible? Israel did agree to give Palestine the area right to the east of Jerusalem, and I'm sure if the conflict slowed, Israel would be willing to allow the people of Palestine to come and go freely into Jerusalem.

"They basically want all "infidels' out of 'their' holy land and their country as well as the rest of the world. And an 'infidel', I hear, is basically anyone who can't be converted to their belief structure. So we are all in trouble. They actually want us off the planet entirely. At least according to their beliefs in the Koran."

I can not begin to express how prejudice and under-informed this sounds. I hope you were talking about the most extreme of Muslims, not just the average person from Palestine. Muslims, just like Christians and Jews (Most of them), are peace loving people. Yes, the Holy Land is important to them, but they have other tenants that are important to them as well. Gustav Weil, a well-known Quran historian, explains in an article he wrote that the "love of peace and truth" are some of the "recommended virtues most pleasing to God." While some Muslims do see the "jihad" has being a physical one, in which they have to wage war with all the "infidels," this by no means represents the majority.

"But maybe that is how to communicate to the extremists. They only back down when a MUCH larger force threatens them. (the US/UN force is too small to be very threatening in actions as well as numbers, IMO. But, I think Israel can be reasonable as shown by their giving up Gaza for peace.. but I doubt Palestinians will ever make true concessions."

Well first off, considering that the US forces (without a draft) is just one-fourth of the size of the entire country of Israel, I would say that you are mildly mistaken on the fact that the "US/UN is too small." But in response to your other idea, Israel is as much responsible for this situation as Palestine. They need to both make agreements and concessions. Israel has over-reacted many times in the past, while Palestine needs to unite and get a control on the extremist in their country.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] November 14 2009 5:38 PM EST

Religion is the oil that fuels that fire. Ban religion from the planet and this conflict can be resolved, not sooner not later.

(And I mean all religion)

Vaynard [Fees Dirt Cheap] November 14 2009 11:26 PM EST

I love when people say we should ban religion and say religion is the cause of all the world's ills. You ignore everything good religion offers to people, and reject it for the bad things done in the name of religion in the past. We should as soon ban government because every war ever fought has been between ruling bodies of one form or another. This may sound like a nice hippy kind of idea, but it's really quite idiotic no matter how you look at it.

Anyway, isn't atheism a form of belief itself? The belief that there is no existence of deities. Am I the only one that views it as ironic that someone of one belief (atheism) says we should ban all other forms of belief because they do not match with their own? Isn't that similar to the definition of the crusades? Spreading the word of your own views?

In the context of this thread, pretend they did ban somehow ban religion, and assume the world didn't end because of fighting over that silly ordinance (I assure you you it would though, people would not react favorably to you forcing your religion=bad view on them). The Middle East would still be where it is at today, but instead of the Jews and Muslims fighting over the Holy land you would only change the names. Peace would not ensue, the same groups would be arguing over land and water only they would be divided along ethnic lines not religious ones.

Brakke Bres [Ow man] November 15 2009 6:21 AM EST

nope since that little conflict down there started as a religious one.

It slowly grew out into an economic conflict since the Palestine's want more room.

Let me put it like this. In history there have been more wars in the name of religion then any of the other 2 reasons.

The latest example is Afghanistan of a war about religion.

Marlfox [Cult of the Valaraukar] November 15 2009 7:00 AM EST

Henk is 100% correct. Religion (and there is a difference between religion and a belief in God), has caused more deaths, wars, and enslavement (both mental and physical) than any number of crazy dictators combined.

However, it is only theoretically possible to "get rid of" religion, because anything can be made into a a religion. (For example, here in America we have an entire religion based around money. We have places of worship (banks), places where holy men get closer to their god (Wall Street), a whole "path", if you will, to let the common people find "true enlightenment" (the "American Dream", which is at its heart an entirely soulless endeavor to accumulate more "stuff")).

Yet, I think that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is being confused (or over-simplified) as a fight over a couple dusty religious sites, rather than a battle over an inheritance that both groups believe is rightfully theirs.

(Full disclosure: I both believe in God and define myself as a Christian.)

Wise December 9 2009 6:35 PM EST

You all do realize these people groups have been fighting virtually non-stop for thousands of years, right? Of course they have a few hundred years of peace here and there, but mainly they fight.

Of course, the entire world suffers wars constantly. It's human nature to be selfish and thus fight. I agree that Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have tenets of peace, but humans follow the religions. Humans are selfish. Humans are the problem, not religion. Well, more specifically, human selfishness is the problem.

Admin{CB1}Slayer333 December 9 2009 6:39 PM EST

A nation goes to war every time a thread is brought up from the dead :(

AdminTitan [The Sky Forge] December 9 2009 7:24 PM EST

(psst) I don't really believe anything I posted. I did this all for a class :).
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002vPl">Discussion: Peace in the Not so Distant Future</a>