Is peace possible?

[Gustav32Vasa]

Now that Israel and Palestina meets for the first time in 4 years I wonder if peace between them is possible.

Do you think that its possible in the next 10-20 years?

[Gunhead]

Of course it's possible, just not likely. Problem is this conflict is used by both sides to gain power internally. When factions on both sides can go "look it's teh eevil jews/arabs/palestinians support us and we'll make them go away". There is no end. Add religious rhethoric and trouble is coming.

-Gunhead

[Steven Snyder]

Now that Israel and Palestina meets for the first time in 4 years I wonder if peace between them is possible.

Do you think that its possible in the next 10-20 years?

Label me an optimist, but I think with Arafat out of the way, there is a glimmer of hope that they might just decide to stop killing each other.

So far things have been looking hopeful.

[Lucifer]

Just as you can't generalize a nation because of its leader. Except I tend to think so because people asked for it.

[Mange]

Now that Israel and Palestina meets for the first time in 4 years I wonder if peace between them is possible.

Do you think that its possible in the next 10-20 years?

Yes, if Palestine becomes a viable state that isn't controlled by Israel.

[RedImperator]

It's encouraging that Sharon, who's really the least likely person in any position of power in Israel to seek peace, seems committed to ending this mess. It could be that maybe, just maybe, both sides are just tired of the conflict and have finally reached the point where compromise seems palatable.

[Knife]

It's encouraging that Sharon, who's really the least likely person in any position of power in Israel to seek peace, seems committed to ending this mess. It could be that maybe, just maybe, both sides are just tired of the conflict and have finally reached the point where compromise seems palatable.

Which just shows that the universe does have a sense of irony.

[tharkûn]

It's encouraging that Sharon, who's really the least likely person in any position of power in Israel to seek peace, seems committed to ending this mess. It could be that maybe, just maybe, both sides are just tired of the conflict and have finally reached the point where compromise seems palatable.

This is more common than you might think. If you want a policy to pull through the best advocate is some one whose personal inclination and general political philosophy is against it. Many would be opponents are brought into line by other issues and will back the party rather than the cause itself. This is how you have Reagan, the villian of the freeze movement, getting the largest arms control agreement with the Soviets. This is how you have Johnson pushing through civil rights.

Is there are chance for peace? Not right now. The best I think this generation can hope for is seperate existance with a minimum of violence. Unless the Palestinians are willing to liquidate Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and risk a civil war in so doing there are WAY too many dumbasses who will continue to fight regardless.

[Joe]

There will be peace if one of two things happens;

1) the Israelis leave, or

2) the Palestinians get rid of their extremist groups, like tharkun said.

Never gonna happen.

[Chmee]

It's encouraging that Sharon, who's really the least likely person in any position of power in Israel to seek peace, seems committed to ending this mess. It could be that maybe, just maybe, both sides are just tired of the conflict and have finally reached the point where compromise seems palatable.

This is more common than you might think. If you want a policy to pull through the best advocate is some one whose personal inclination and general political philosophy is against it. Many would be opponents are brought into line by other issues and will back the party rather than the cause itself. This is how you have Reagan, the villian of the freeze movement, getting the largest arms control agreement with the Soviets. This is how you have Johnson pushing through civil rights.

While that's true, when you're a negotiator there has to be at least some level of trust with the side you're negotiating with .... the Palestinians view Sharon with all the same venom, hate and distrust that the Israelis viewed Arafat ... he's a war criminal as far as they're concerned.

As long as Sharon and whatever government follows him remain committed to large settlements remaining in the West Bank and sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, I can't feel much sense of optimism. Giving back most of Gaza won't be enough to do it. If it's a first step, great ... if they think they can get a lasting piece for just that, I really doubt it.

[tharkûn]

While that's true, when you're a negotiator there has to be at least some level of trust with the side you're negotiating with .... the Palestinians view Sharon with all the same venom, hate and distrust that the Israelis viewed Arafat ... he's a war criminal as far as they're concerned.

Sure, but hopefully they trust their elected leader enough that he can conduct the negotiations and then manage to beat it through their skulls that while Peres might be a more palatable negotiator, Sharon is the only one who can hope to keep the hawish right behind any type of withdrawal. Negotiating with a dove, at this point, is futile. A dove has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a withdrawal through the Knesset.

Sharon is a bastard, but that is part of the reason why he can sell a limited peace to the hawkish right. Nobody is going to accuse Sharon of being weak willed or not calculating.

Frankly I hope the Palestinian leadership is wise enough to see that near term demographic trends mean that the longer they wait to do anything the harder it will become to forge an Israeli government willing to compromise whatsoever at all.

As long as Sharon and whatever government follows him remain committed to large settlements remaining in the West Bank and sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, I can't feel much sense of optimism. Giving back most of Gaza won't be enough to do it. If it's a first step, great ... if they think they can get a lasting piece for just that, I really doubt it.

I'm optimistic that Sharon can build a big bloody wall, have half the world scream bloody murder over it, and then reduce the level of violence. I'm optimistic that Abu Mazen will take power away from Hamas and Islamic Jihad and reign in the Martyrs Brigade while starting to tone down the villification of Israel by Palestinian organizations. My most wildly optimisitic hopes are that metric tons of concrete, razorwire, and maybe landmines will keep the assholes on both sides from killing too many of the innocent.

True peace will require a miracle, a bloodbath, or a large asteroid impact.

[Beowulf]

There will be peace if one of two things happens;

1) the Israelis leave, or

2) the Palestinians get rid of their extremist groups, like tharkun said.

Never gonna happen.

Solution 3: Peace of the grave. Not the most palatable of the three...

[Darth Wong]

Now that Israel and Palestina meets for the first time in 4 years I wonder if peace between them is possible.

Do you think that its possible in the next 10-20 years?

If Israel can keep its rabid expansionist "living space" assholes in line and Palestine can keep its suicide-bombing assholes in line, there might be peace. The problem is that neither of those two groups has a history of going along with peace plans.

[Chmee]

While that's true, when you're a negotiator there has to be at least some level of trust with the side you're negotiating with .... the Palestinians view Sharon with all the same venom, hate and distrust that the Israelis viewed Arafat ... he's a war criminal as far as they're concerned.

Sure, but hopefully they trust their elected leader enough that he can conduct the negotiations and then manage to beat it through their skulls that while Peres might be a more palatable negotiator, Sharon is the only one who can hope to keep the hawish right behind any type of withdrawal. Negotiating with a dove, at this point, is futile. A dove has a snowball's chance in hell of getting a withdrawal through the Knesset.

Sharon is a bastard, but that is part of the reason why he can sell a limited peace to the hawkish right. Nobody is going to accuse Sharon of being weak willed or not calculating.

Frankly I hope the Palestinian leadership is wise enough to see that near term demographic trends mean that the longer they wait to do anything the harder it will become to forge an Israeli government willing to compromise whatsoever at all.

As long as Sharon and whatever government follows him remain committed to large settlements remaining in the West Bank and sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, I can't feel much sense of optimism. Giving back most of Gaza won't be enough to do it. If it's a first step, great ... if they think they can get a lasting piece for just that, I really doubt it.

I'm optimistic that Sharon can build a big bloody wall, have half the world scream bloody murder over it, and then reduce the level of violence. I'm optimistic that Abu Mazen will take power away from Hamas and Islamic Jihad and reign in the Martyrs Brigade while starting to tone down the villification of Israel by Palestinian organizations. My most wildly optimisitic hopes are that metric tons of concrete, razorwire, and maybe landmines will keep the assholes on both sides from killing too many of the innocent.

True peace will require a miracle, a bloodbath, or a large asteroid impact.

As long as the wall passes through a bunch of property that used to be somebody's Uncle Ahmed's olive groves, it will be an obstacle to peace, not a promoter of it. If they build the wall along the legal borders of Israel, hey, no problemo .... if they annex a bunch of Palestine with the walls, problemo.

[Darth Wong]

As long as the wall passes through a bunch of property that used to be somebody's Uncle Ahmed's olive groves, it will be an obstacle to peace, not a promoter of it. If they build the wall along the legal borders of Israel, hey, no problemo .... if they annex a bunch of Palestine with the walls, problemo.

The Palestinians have to just accept that they got screwed out of a shitload of land in various steps over the last 50 years, they're not getting any of it back ever, and they should strike a deal now to keep it from getting even worse in future. Unfortunately, that's a pretty bitter pill to swallow, although the "Amen Chorus" of Israel-supporters in the US doesn't seem to understand that.

[Chmee]

As long as the wall passes through a bunch of property that used to be somebody's Uncle Ahmed's olive groves, it will be an obstacle to peace, not a promoter of it. If they build the wall along the legal borders of Israel, hey, no problemo .... if they annex a bunch of Palestine with the walls, problemo.

The Palestinians have to just accept that they got screwed out of a shitload of land in various steps over the last 50 years, they're not getting any of it back ever, and they should strike a deal now to keep it from getting even worse in future. Unfortunately, that's a pretty bitter pill to swallow, although the "Amen Chorus" of Israel-supporters in the US doesn't seem to understand that.

Although they might even get a majority of Palestinians, weary of conflict and economic ruin, to agree with this, the hardcore minority that will just hold onto that grudge for the land they lost will, imho, be too big for them to get 'peace' out of that kind of deal. Peace will have to come by each side giving up something it has heretofore considered non-negotiable .... if one side comes out feeling totally screwed, we know how history plays that out .....

Just my opinion, but I don't think either side yet has the political will to give up that thing they would never give up before. For the Palestinians, it's right-of-return .... they have to give up on everything within the '67 borders of Israel, that's just gone. For Israel, it's the West Bank at least, and probably Palestinian sovereignty over some section of Jerusalem.

I'm not hearing either side talking about giving up on those things, because they don't want to talk about the hard things. Hey, that's good, negotiation should start with what you *can* agree on. But frankly, neither side is talking today about giving up things that they weren't ready to give up 20 years ago (or hadn't taken yet). The hard stuff is being ignored, and it's the hard stuff that will drive militant resistance if it's not resolved.

[MKSheppard]

Solution 3: Peace of the grave. Not the most palatable of the three...

The Samson Option.

[tharkûn]

Although they might even get a majority of Palestinians, weary of conflict and economic ruin, to agree with this, the hardcore minority that will just hold onto that grudge for the land they lost will, imho, be too big for them to get 'peace' out of that kind of deal. Peace will have to come by each side giving up something it has heretofore considered non-negotiable .... if one side comes out feeling totally screwed, we know how history plays that out .....

You are forgetting that the hardcore minority literally want want all of Israeli territory. There is a large bloc of morons who wouldn't be happy even with the '67 borders and likely would still reject the original UN partition.

Just my opinion, but I don't think either side yet has the political will to give up that thing they would never give up before. For the Palestinians, it's right-of-return .... they have to give up on everything within the '67 borders of Israel, that's just gone. For Israel, it's the West Bank at least, and probably Palestinian sovereignty over some section of Jerusalem.

Getting Israel out of the West Bank isn't going to happen. The demagraphics just aren't there. The segment of the population that supports them is outbreeding those who don't, and that ignores the hundreds of thousands of people who would need to be evicted. In the longterm you might convert the settlers and their supporters, in the short term they, the religious nutters, and the hawks control the government.

I'm not hearing either side talking about giving up on those things, because they don't want to talk about the hard things. Hey, that's good, negotiation should start with what you *can* agree on. But frankly, neither side is talking today about giving up things that they weren't ready to give up 20 years ago (or hadn't taken yet). The hard stuff is being ignored, and it's the hard stuff that will drive militant resistance if it's not resolved.

20 years ago Israel was willing to give up the West Bank, indeed Jordan repitively refused to take it back. The Israeli electorate is becoming less and less willing to trust that they can compromise their way to peace. Every time they view themselves as having sacrificed something, the Palestinian militants have gone and upped the anty. However farcical the earlier peace deals might have been, they at least were viewed as a step towards compromise and the outcome was viewed as a step backward towards security and safety.

As long as the wall passes through a bunch of property that used to be somebody's Uncle Ahmed's olive groves, it will be an obstacle to peace, not a promoter of it. If they build the wall along the legal borders of Israel, hey, no problemo .... if they annex a bunch of Palestine with the walls, problemo.

As I said I'm not expecting it to bring peace. I'm expecting to turn a hot conflict cold. The number one thing driving this conflict right now is not land grievances or old title claims ... it is the fact that Israeli civillians are being intentionally killed by Palestinian militants. Once that event occurs, passions are roused, political will moves for retaliation, and everything spirals out of control. If a wall means that it becomes increasingly hard for militants to effectively kill civillians then it means that there will be less clamor for IDF intervention in the territories, fewer target killings, and less collateral damage. It is damn hard to have reasonable discussion when people are getting killed at a staggering rate.

Frankly taking people's land isn't all that uncommon. We routinely condemn land to build roads, schools, and all manner of things that don't stop people from killing each other. Build the damn wall, offer to pay off Uncle Ahmed, let half the world scream bloody murder over illegal exproprtiation of land ... and then sit for several years while said wall stops people from killing each other.

Mike is pretty much right, the deals the Israelis have offered have consistently been less generous since '67, and demographics make it look like they will only get worse. Every now and again there will be a blip where you might get an upswing in the offer, like say right now that Arafat finally died, but beyond those few changes it is all downhill from here.

[Chmee]

Frankly taking people's land isn't all that uncommon. We routinely condemn land to build roads, schools, and all manner of things that don't stop people from killing each other. Build the damn wall, offer to pay off Uncle Ahmed, let half the world scream bloody murder over illegal exproprtiation of land ... and then sit for several years while said wall stops people from killing each other.

Maybe that's what Saddam thought when he took some Kuwaiti land .... it frequently works out poorly, whether it's uncommon or not.

[tharkûn]

Maybe that's what Saddam thought when he took some Kuwaiti land .... it frequently works out poorly, whether it's uncommon or not.

Or maybe it was what the US was thinking when it went into Mexico. Or perhaps it was what the Greeks and Turks thought when they seized multiplicatively more land. Or it might just be what Bismark thought when he seized all of Germany.

But let's play along with your BS analogy. Who is going to do dick about Israel building the wall? The US? Europe? Sure the Muslim world will be angry, but then again they already are. Sure there will be some new problems, but newsflash there are already bloody huge problems and the odds that the new problems are going to be worse than the old set isn't all that high.

Yes maybe it will set the cause of peace back 20 years, so instead of peace in 2150 it happens in 2170 In the mean time there will be fewer killings, fewer reasons for retaliation, and fewer flareups of major hostilities.

[Chmee]

Maybe that's what Saddam thought when he took some Kuwaiti land .... it frequently works out poorly, whether it's uncommon or not.

Or maybe it was what the US was thinking when it went into Mexico. Or perhaps it was what the Greeks and Turks thought when they seized multiplicatively more land. Or it might just be what Bismark thought when he seized all of Germany.

But let's play along with your BS analogy. Who is going to do dick about Israel building the wall? The US? Europe? Sure the Muslim world will be angry, but then again they already are. Sure there will be some new problems, but newsflash there are already bloody huge problems and the odds that the new problems are going to be worse than the old set isn't all that high.

Yes maybe it will set the cause of peace back 20 years, so instead of peace in 2150 it happens in 2170 In the mean time there will be fewer killings, fewer reasons for retaliation, and fewer flareups of major hostilities.

That's certainly how some Israelis want to roll the dice, I'd agree with that. Wouldn't put my money on it working.

[tharkûn]

That's certainly how some Israelis want to roll the dice, I'd agree with that. Wouldn't put my money on it working.

And this comes back to an age old question: how would it make things worse? Maybe it pisses more people off, but it most certainly makes it a damn cite harder to bomb a Sbarros.

And we already have some data to look at here, thus far the wall that has already been built correlates well with decreased attacks.

Maybe I'm a cynic, but peace is impossible, so barring that the next best alternative is to keep both sides from killing each other. Concrete, razorwire, and maybe landmines certainly won't be foolproof but will make a substantial dent.

[Chmee]

That's certainly how some Israelis want to roll the dice, I'd agree with that. Wouldn't put my money on it working.

And this comes back to an age old question: how would it make things worse?

I didn't say it would make things worse, but its not a solution in my view, just a perpetuation of one of the root causes of the conflict. If you put the wall up and just say 'we're keeping it because our tanks are on it,' that's the same situation that's existed for decades, it's not progress.

If the goal is not having to be in a semi-permanent state of war, I don't think that gets you away from the status quo.

[tharkûn]

I didn't say it would make things worse, but its not a solution in my view, just a perpetuation of one of the root causes of the conflict. If you put the wall up and just say 'we're keeping it because our tanks are on it,' that's the same situation that's existed for decades, it's not progress.

If the goal is not having to be in a semi-permanent state of war, I don't think that gets you away from the status quo.

The difference here is going to be that the ability of the militant asshats on either side to to go off a dozen people and feed the cycle of violence is greatly diminished.

Going from a conflict in which many people are dying to a conflict in which few people are dying is DECIDED progress.

[Chmee]

I didn't say it would make things worse, but its not a solution in my view, just a perpetuation of one of the root causes of the conflict. If you put the wall up and just say 'we're keeping it because our tanks are on it,' that's the same situation that's existed for decades, it's not progress.

If the goal is not having to be in a semi-permanent state of war, I don't think that gets you away from the status quo.

The difference here is going to be that the ability of the militant asshats on either side to to go off a dozen people and feed the cycle of violence is greatly diminished.

Going from a conflict in which many people are dying to a conflict in which few people are dying is DECIDED progress.

It's a wall .... not exactly the first time one has been used ... Maybe it will have that result of reducing casualties, I tend to think it will only cause a change in tactics.