Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
well miles, i wouldn't handle the peace process. i don't see it as america's place to do so. we didn't create israel, and we don't have a stake in it. basically, what i wouldn't do, is what every president HAS done. we come in and make public demands of both sides, backing everyone into a corner, and ruining any chances of success.

Nice avoiding of the question there :-P

Ok, so how about this: if you were to be asked how would you handle the peace process, regardless of who actually does the implementing, what solutions would you come up with/suggest  to try to bring about peace in the region, with "peace" being defined as "both an Israeli and a Palestinian state co-existing with semi-cordial relations, and no-one shooting/bombing/launching rockets at anyone else". Bear in mind the "co-existing" can be a long-term goal, as in it being reached in years/a decade/more as opposed to weeks/months, with the "no-one shooting each other" happening a bit sooner.  

(and this isn't just directed at Dod, anyone can chip in here)

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

well, miles, i could come up with a wishlist of fanciful things that i would like to happen, but i just don't see "peace" as a real option, short of some radical breakaway from thousands of years of history and tradition.

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
fine, you won't take no for an answer.
[/QUOTE]

What, you expected me to? Have you not learned anything about me after all this time we've been bouncing off each other? :-P

first, on the palestinian side, there has to be a complete rejection of hamas, (which wouldn't happen at this point, without a palestinian civil war), and israel's right to exist must be recognized. also, the political leadership must show enough control over its militants so as to bring a complete halt to any and all attacks on jewish land, for a meaningful amount of time. also, the right of return issue is a nonstarter, so that would have to be given up. the palestinians must demonstrate that they are serious about building up their own country, rather than taking israel over. they must show that they are willing partners in a peaceful two-state solution, before any real discussions can begin.

on israel's side, i think it would be highly beneficial to declare no future settlements. if the israelis want to expand, they will have to do it upward. as for a border, i think it should be based on demographics. jewish majority areas go to israel, arab majority areas go to palestine.

Here's a shock, I agree with you on nearly all those points... One thing to watch out for though on the demographics thing is that as soon as it's agreed the borders are laid down straight away - if there's any time period between there'll be a rush of Israeli settlement building to "bulk up" the population on the good land so they get it (or the other way around).  I also think that dividing it out along demographic lines could end up with an indefensible border as you'd end up with little enclaves of Israeli settlements stuck in the middle of Palestinian territory. One of the bits from Obamas "1967 borders" speech that everyone seems to leave out is the part about "land swaps" to ensure a somewhat contiguous border that doesn't have little bits of Palestine stuck in Israel and vice versa.

and obviously something would have to be done about jerusalem, but i dunno what yet.

Here's an idea: neither side gets it.

This is something I read in a Tom Clancy book ages ago, "The Sum of All Fears" I think it was. Jerusalem becomes a "city-state" of its own (like the vatican), independent of both Israel and Palestine, with religious debates/issues (like access to the holy places) determined by a troika of clerics, one muslim, one jewish and one christian (the Patriarch of Constantinople in the book I think), and policed by the Swiss Guards (backed up with US military equipment). You'd have to read the book to get all the details, is a while since I read it.


Sounds implausible and fantastic I know, but then again, in his next book Tom Clancy had a 747 take out the Capitol building in Washington, and everyone thought that was far-fetched and implausible at the time too.....

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:
This is something I read in a Tom Clancy book ages ago, "The Sum of All Fears" I think it was. Jerusalem becomes a "city-state" of its own (like the vatican), independent of both Israel and Palestine, with religious debates/issues (like access to the holy places) determined by a troika of clerics, one muslim, one jewish and one christian (the Patriarch of Constantinople in the book I think), and policed by the Swiss Guards (backed up with US military equipment). You'd have to read the book to get all the details, is a while since I read it.

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Actually that sounds like a decent idea!    Not sure either side would agree as they claim them as Holy.  And while the Jews might allow people to visit the Holy sites, the Muslims would never agree to infidels entering the Dome of the Rock.

But a good idea nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Actually that sounds like a decent idea!    Not sure either side would agree as they claim them as Holy.  And while the Jews might allow people to visit the Holy sites, the Muslims would never agree to infidels entering the Dome of the Rock.

But a good idea nonetheless.

Let the Buddhists run the holy places so, no-one can get angry at the buddhists, it's be like getting pissed off at the Andrex puppy..... :-P  

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

well, accept al qaeda. they like to blow up buddha statues.

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Same difference anyway I guess...

basically. that's why i laugh at the idea of fighting al qaeda as opposed to the taliban. same difference basically.

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:
This is something I read in a Tom Clancy book ages ago, "The Sum of All Fears" I think it was. Jerusalem becomes a "city-state" of its own (like the vatican), independent of both Israel and Palestine, with religious debates/issues (like access to the holy places) determined by a troika of clerics, one muslim, one jewish and one christian (the Patriarch of Constantinople in the book I think), and policed by the Swiss Guards (backed up with US military equipment). You'd have to read the book to get all the details, is a while since I read it.

Actually that sounds like a decent idea!    Not sure either side would agree as they claim them as Holy.  And while the Jews might allow people to visit the Holy sites, the Muslims would never agree to infidels entering the Dome of the Rock.

But a good idea nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:
This is something I read in a Tom Clancy book ages ago, "The Sum of All Fears" I think it was. Jerusalem becomes a "city-state" of its own (like the vatican), independent of both Israel and Palestine, with religious debates/issues (like access to the holy places) determined by a troika of clerics, one muslim, one jewish and one christian (the Patriarch of Constantinople in the book I think), and policed by the Swiss Guards (backed up with US military equipment). You'd have to read the book to get all the details, is a while since I read it.

Actually that sounds like a decent idea!    Not sure either side would agree as they claim them as Holy.  And while the Jews might allow people to visit the Holy sites, the Muslims would never agree to infidels entering the Dome of the Rock.

But a good idea nonetheless.

Wasn't there an agreement after one of the crusades that provided for safe pilgrimage to the Temple Mount?  Such agreements have been made before under very polarizing circumstances.

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
The only way I could see an idea like that working is if the UN operated all the holy sites.  Of course, since non-Muslims are infidels, the Palastinians would begin throwing rocks and Hamas would begin lobbing shells into Jerusalem as soon as the UN walked in.  They'd probably show their outrage by killing a bunch of Jews.

So....