Ok, the Israeli Palestine conflict... Can we talk solutions?

[Boysclothes]

Loads of threads on here criticising various parties/criticising the way the Israeli state was established etc etc. Can we have a solution based thread?

Starting from these parameters....

Israel exists and will continue to do so.
Hamas are totally uninterested in negotiation.

What can be done? What action should Israel/Hamas take now?

Would be great if we could steer away from unbridled criticism and try and think what should come next.

As I said, I don't think you can illegally occupy a state that doesn't exist. No one has a right to that patch if dirt. Everyone has passed through it at some point. It's sandpit politics at it's most tedious.

Talk to me about rights not to get bombed before breakfast (both sides, since both are bombing) and I can get on board. Talk to me about a "right to live in xyz place" and I see absolutely no factual basis for that claim (on either side). God and "I was there for longer" are both poor reason. Unless someone can explain to me why the British in 1967 had some higher legitimacy that allowed them to merrily erase history at will when drawing borders? It worked so well during Partition after all.

Of course you have a right to live somewhere if you abd your family have been there for generations. Or are you saying you'd be happy if someone turned up and forced you out of your house at gunpoint and made you go and live in a refugee camp in Belgium?

My perspective: there is a "solution" in place, right now, and it is one that US foreign policy wants and maintains. There is an unstable situation, that spreads instability across the Middle East and keeps fuel flowing towards the US and its supporters, and stops the Middle East ever becoming a stable area, with unified interests and representative governments that are answerable to their electorates.

The US needs to stop maintaining Israel as its puppet state in the Middle East.

The blockade needs to end.

A solution would be easier to find if we all stopped pretending this was about religion, and started acknowledging this is about fuel and power.

A quarter of the US Foreign Aid budget goes to maintaining the "solution" we have all seen on television, on social media, in newspapers.

The horror we have watched does not come cheap. The US paid for lots of it. And they didn't do it from altruism.

What we have seen is a solution. It is an outcome of deliberate planning, and maintained expensively by a super-power.

Your OP should read: what alternative solution would we desire, who do we think "we" are, and is there any way we can get this alternative vision to become reality?

I've seen at least three posters say US won't do anything because this conflict is about fuel/oil - "US needs an ally in the Middle East because of oil" but I'm never sure what the posters are talking about.

Since the 80s, US imports most of its fuel from Canada, Saudi and Mexico. Is the feeling that America fears upsetting Saudi? So the theory is Saudi Arabia are threatening to cut oil supplies to the US?

That's a really interesting perspective, cat. I thought the west supported Israel because it wanted a small place of democracy and stability in the ME, an ally in a region in potential non-allies. But v interesting point there. I do think if the west stop shoring up Israel then the Israeli state will disappear. The Jews absolutely will be expelled from the region, as they have from every other Arab country excepting a handful in North Africa. Can you imagine a united Israel/Palestine with the palestians in charge? Wouldn't happen, the Israelis would be out. And personally I do think I it's important Israel continues to exist as a nominally jewish state. The rise of anti Semitism in Europe convinces me even more that we need a place to go if necessary.

But I suppose if what you say is true, then why would israel's allies keep the money and arms flowing in without the benefit of oil flowing the other way? If peace was achieved then would they withdraw that?

What's a bit sickening is that we have been SO CLOSE before. And now it seems further away than ever.

Israel to get out of the west bank immediately and stop blockading Gaza. Sure make the borders tight, but they have no legitimate right to control water the way they are doing or the sea blockade. The West need to enforce appropriate sanctions for the illegal activity in the West Bank including a moritorium in the selling of arms until Israel adhere to the law.

Recognise Palestine as a state and ensure free and fair elections. If Hamas are voted in again, recognise them as a legitimate government (as we do Sin Fein) and apply appropriate sanctions should they continue to fire rockets into Israel.

Make Jerusalem an independant state within a state - like the vatican but multi-faith. It should be run by a governing body made up of representatives from each of the three religions.

Right of return is more difficult but I would agree a number that can return with financial compensation for the others.

cat I agree that fundamentally it's all about oil and the broader region. But I disagree that instability is a strategic goal for the West -- instability actually threatens the cheap supply of oil.

What they really prefer are stable dictatorships in every country. People are fond of pointing out US support for Israel but let's look at the huge US support for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc -- the first Gulf War was fought to defend Kuwait and Saudi. Propping up autocracies who would supply oil.

The peace process in the 90s was meant to bring stability (not democracy) to the region. I think this is still motivating the US and the West. They don't really care about democracy and human rights, they want stability and they want their oil. That's why they default to siding with Israel. But it's also why the whole region is blowing up, because people are tired of living under Western constraints.

You want to talk solutions? Right now there is no solution because you can't look at the conflict in isolation, you have to look at the whole region. The entire political order and value system that was imposed upon the Middle East after WW1 is collapsing. THAT is the real problem.

The idea of creating a permanent map of two states with official borders and mutual non-interference -- it's a lovely idea but it's a bit 20th century now. The new reality is ISIS creating a new state out of Syria and Iraq and slaughtering everyone, Saudi and Qatar and Iran funding insurgents, Egypt teetering between autocratic regimes while the Sinai falls apart, Libya descending into complete chaos.

With that kind of regional context, neither Israel nor Hamas have any incentive to go back to the Oslo parameters. They will keep fighting it out and trying to grab what they can. They will put up with instability and war crimes and civilian suffering rather than give up anything they want.

Sorry to be so bleak but that's how I see it.

Saudi Arabia is in the Middle East and is far and away the biggest supplier of crude oil to the US. I haven't looked at figures for gas. SA is not a democracy and is fairly dependent on a secure US market to ensure a high enough standard of living for the majority of its citizens to keep them going along with things. And the fear of chaos outside to keep them governable. And money. Lots of money. From that secure US market. Which is actually a market that is subsidised, by Saudi Arabia. A kind of sweetheart contract. How comfy. If you were massively dependent on that oil, how terrifying to think that situation might ever change.

As it did in 1971. With the oil crisis. Better make sure that never happens again.

If I were a good person, I would link to lots of great explanations available on-line but I think my first suggestion might actually be Jason Burke's book on Al Queda, actually. Why? Because in seeking to provide an explanation for why this network emerged, he gives a good, short overview of US foreign policy and how it has led to the rise of religious-inflected protest movements in the Middle East.

The policy, in short, is to destabilise anything that looks like being a stable, representative political government in the Middle East, capable of securing an allied power base across the Middle East, and instead foment instability that implicitly ensures there is no alternative scenario than (relatively) cheap fuel flowing to the US.

I do wonder how things might change with the emergence of China who, apparently, are not playing ball and supporting the US Middle East foreign policy.

John the problem is that instability and conflict in the Middle East raises oil prices worldwide, so even if the US doesn't get most of its oil from ME countries it will pay through the nose if their oil supplies are disrupted or threatened

Thank you for explanation and links. I will return!

Woowoo, do you see no benefit/need for a Jewish state?

No, I don't. There needs to be a place where Jews are safe of course, but no more so than there needs to be a place where Palestinians are safe, and no more so than there needs to be a place where Kurds and other minorities are safe.

There is no real reason why anyone wouldn't be safe in a properly governed state, and there is no reason why a state needs to be governed by any particular religion. Jews are perfectly safe and well respected in the USA, which obviously isn't a Jewish state.

The first move has to come from Israel, they are the ones that have turfed people out of their homes and ignored the boundaries stated by the UN, and they are far more worthy of being called terrorists than Hamas are.

Palestinians need to be compensated for what has been done to them, they deserve justice. It is ridiculous to say that Israel have tried to reach a peaceful solution when at the same time as saying that's what they want, their actions have proved the opposite is true.

dreamingbohemian thank you for the clear explanations. That has put things into a wider context. I think that is the best summing up I've read in a long time.

I am inclined to agree with you about there not being a solution though. Not with everyone busy holding firm to their twisted section of knotted rope and trying to cut/wall others off.

Is the only way forward to let everyone fight it out and for the victors to wear the crowns?

Why thank you YeGods

I think peace will only happen when both sides have a real incentive to seek it, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. It's not really about how much they hate each other or not -- even bitter enemies can make peace, if they have the right incentives.

I don't think outsiders can solve the conflict or force a peace -- we saw the limits of this approach in the 90s. If peace is being pushed by outsiders then it's vulnerable to spoilers internally, on both sides.

I think what outsiders can do is try to limit the scope of the destruction, limit settlements and blockades, limit funding to armed groups, encourage proper economic development and good governance, etc. But that's all kind of stuff on the margins.

It's important to remember a lot of people are benefitting politically and economically from the conflict and I don't mean outsiders, I mean people within Israel and Palestine and as long as that's the case, there will be incentives for conflict to continue.

Sorry, I know that sounds defeatist.

I think it sounds positive, in that it is realistic and not bombastic.

I think it is good to recognise the efforts of peacekeepers and kindnesses. Particularly at these harsh times.

11 UN peacekeepers are being remembered today.

Small (and big) kindnesses between different faith communities keeping discussions going and open here wherever we live is good.

I don't see the point in boycotting goods from the region, surely peaceful trade and making a good living should be encouraged. Why should farmers suffer, it only leads to more hardship for more people in the long run.

I agree with dreaming - until both sides get sick of killing each others children NOTHING will change.

And there's not a thing anyone can do about it from the outside.

Woowoo

You believe that

"There is no real reason why anyone wouldn't be safe in a properly governed state, and there is no reason why a state needs to be governed by any particular religion. Jews are perfectly safe and well respected in the USA, which obviously isn't a Jewish state. "

Jewish history does not reflect that statement.

Jews were perfectly safe and respected in Medieval Spain until 1391 www.jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=1390&endyear=1399 when 10,000 Jews were killed and many others were forced to convert. They were all expelled in 1492 even though the king's personal and favoured physician was Jewish and was told he could keep his position if he converted.

Jews were firmly embedded in German society, in the 20th century with some anti-semitism over getting jobs but not much more than your usual public school prejudices and no worse really than the rest of Europe at the time. That all changed in 1933 with the election of Hitler.

I could go on and on through the world. There is no country with a continual and safe Jewish community since the destruction of the second temple.

So the USA may appear safe today and US Jews are relatively safe apart from little incidents like the below which happened this April
www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/14/us-usa-kansas-shooting-idUSBREA3C0MX20140414

but that firstly doesn't mean that the US would ever consider taking in the whole of world Jewry, as they clearly demonstrated by their refusal to consider any policy of rescue during WW2 and secondly where does that leave Jews currently in bad situations.

French Jews are leaving France in large numbers because of things like
this and this and this

Would you call France a properly governed state?

For some reason Jews just don't seem to be safe so until countries are willing to take in any refugee with open arms (and this country doesn't fit that description) or world peace arrives there will always be a need for a Jewish state (and a whole host of others too)

There is a need for a Palestinian state. But Israel keeps on stealing more and more of their land. More and more 'settlements'. The 7 year siege of Gaza where their water , food and medical supplies are carefully controlled. Do not tell me Israel is interested in peace while Israel keeps stealing their land and rationing all Gazans.

There are no settlements in Gaza.

There are no settlements in Gaza

Oh, well that's ok then! The blockades and the rationing and the oppression and the stealing of land in the West Bank and the killing of innocents is fine, as long as there aren't any settlements in Gaza, that must mean that the Israelis don't really treat the Palestinians like shit.

And it's funny how the land now known as Gaza is significantly smaller than it used to be.

Tigger, I don't really think it's helpful to go back thousands of years to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries to try and justify what a Jewish state is doing to people today. If a Jewish state hadn't been responsible for genocide now then maybe I would be able to see the benefit of having one, but the creation of Israel hasn't meant peace, it hasn't meant safety for Jews, and the problems now are as bad as they ever were, it's just that they have shifted onto another group. That isn't a solution, or a good reason for having a Jewish state.

I realise my earlier posts are an incredibly simplistic ideal of what I would like to see if I were in charge of the world, and reality is far removed from that. But honestly, I don't see why any state should be governed by any religion. Religion should always be a personal thing, not something that countries are run on.

Oh dear, it's a bit wearing when you can't state a simple fact about Israel without someone coming and writing a paragraph about how you didn't then follow it up with a huge amount of vitriol about how they are evil child murderers etc. I didn't draw any of the conclusions you've just attributed to me about everything "being ok" because there were no settlements in gaza. I just stated there were no settlements in gaza because the pp seemed to allude that there were.

Boysclothes : do you see the continuing and increasing stealing of Palestinian land as a stumbling block to peace? Do you think Hamas have a right to retaliate? and if so, what form should that retaliation take?

YOu say Gaza is not occupied; what is the blockade then? how would you define that?