what are the implications of a solution to palestine

#1
what geopolitcal reasons for prolonging the conflictin palestine are there? who benefits from the conflict ? which nations? which industries ? which "movements" ? who stands to lose out if peace breaks out ?
 
#2
The Arms industry will lose out, legal or otherwise.

SK
 
#3
who's ? america, russia ? what will the effects on the economy of these countries be ? how big and powerful are there arms lobbies?

what will happen to all the arab organizations that use palestine as an excuse for violence?

who supported the palestinian quest for a state before israel was formed , Actually ,was there a palestinian quest for statehood before israel was formed?

what do the arab nations surounding them gain from the continuation of the conflict
 
#4
such a lot of questions, welldone. You writing a thesis for college and too lazy to do some research on your own? Some of the answers to your queries are bloody obvious if you stopped and thouight for a moment ;d'uh!

as for the big question...peace in Palestine will bring Israel closer to extinction...
 
#5
welldonethengas said:
who's ? america, russia ?
All of them, regardless of country of origin.

SK
 
#6
A few of the neighbouring Arab gvernments would totter, because they use the conflict to keep their people angry wit Israel rather than angry with their own regimes. The Palestine conflict in itself is not geopolitically significant - after all, there's no oil, diamonds or centres of industry there. It matters because all kinds of outside actors project great importance onto it: The Israelis, the Americans, the American Jewish lobby, the Arab states, Al-Qaida, the European Left etc. That is really what prolongs the conflict.
 
#7
Oh I expect this is the international Zionist conspiracy theory popping up its distasteful features again...tin-foil helmets anybody?
 
#8
The Palestine solution should be well mixed and applied to the affected area for a minimum of 10 years, after which if the swelling has not subsided it may be necessary to reconsider traumatic amputation.
 
#9
SKJOLD said:
The Arms industry will lose out, legal or otherwise.

SK
Realistically not really:
A few boxes of 7.62, 5.56 and the odd RPG7 round here or there isn't going to have much impact on the share price of IMI et all and most of the actual weaponry used there is so far beyond the end user mentioned on the original paperwork that makes no odds.

If you want to known the future you must explore the past:

This current shindig has it's roots way back in the 1920's when a number of countries got together to argue the toss about a large are of sand, rock
and flies stretching from the Litani river to Syria and the sea. Despite GB having won this fair and square by treating the locals very roughly the League of Nations stuck their collective oar in and decided to issue a mandate facilitating the immigration of Jews. We were governing the place at the time and receiving al lot of grief for our troubles from the ungrateful 'wogs' .

The War made things worse and things got very nasty for the Army, who had their hands tied by red tape when it came to handing out the necessary.
At the end of the War for reasons known only to the powers that be at the time we tried to prevent the dispossessed Jews of Europe from pitching camp in an area that was meant to be their homeland. This was something of a cock up and eventually the UN took over the whole mess.

The UN fed up with the Arabs and Jews knocking the stuffing out of each other were about to declared partition between the two. At the same time (1948) the State of Israel was created the Arabs (the whole lot of them: Iraq, Syria, Jordan etc.) kicked up and attacked Israel.

This led to a UN brokered ceasefire and the allocation of 'Palestine' - to the victors the spoils. Gaza went to Egypt and the West Bank of the Jordan River got 'taken back' by Jordan.

Palestine had ceased to exist but was still referred to by various politicals
including the PLO but in 'Promised Land' terms rather than anything tangible. They eventually decided in 1988 after much in fighting with the Arab League claimed that a separate state of Palestine, governed from Jerusalem should exist and made it so.

Unfortunately neither the UN nor Israel accepted this, Result: more years of aggro and fighting until once the Cold War had died off other countries stepped in and persuaded both parties (PLO + Israel) to recognize each other's legitimacy. In 1996 both parties were told to play nicely and not argue over The West Bank nor Gaza for a period of no more than 5 years.
This Oslo peace initiative very nearly settled the whole thing.

Unfortunately neither side played by the rules, they blamed each other and ended up with an Intafada - un uprising- rockets fired at Israel, general naughtiness on the part of the IDF, and the worlds press pouring in to be shot at, squashed by M4s, gassed and captured.

In short no-one is trying to keep the thing going. The 'Palestine' conflict feeds on the natural animosities between Jews and Arabs. There is nothing to be gained by this row other than to promote the hate pedalled by few delirious, foaming fundamentalists on both sides.

Who knows? maybe the good old Brits had the right idea when they tried to prevent the 1946 exodus to Palestine........


That pre-trip briefing last time out was not a wasted 2 hours.
 
#10
Ba-athist Arabs, led by Nasser, who wanted to create a pan arab state across the Middle East formulated the policy of keeping the palestinians in refugee camps so that their greivances would be maintained.
 
#11
mushroom said:
Ba-athist Arabs, led by Nasser, who wanted to create a pan arab state across the Middle East formulated the policy of keeping the palestinians in refugee camps so that their greivances would be maintained.
That was before the Oslo agreement and the subsequent few years of calm. Things went tits up again and the blame for the ultimate failure of this mandate can be levied at Jews and Arbs in equal portions .

Historically if the Jews had not killed Lord Moyne in '44, Churchill would not have decided to put the boot into the exodus mob. The fact that they (GB) did not particularly want to upset the Arabs (Egyptians) at the time is also a factor.
 
#12
mushroom said:
Ba-athist Arabs, led by Nasser, who wanted to create a pan arab state across the Middle East formulated the policy of keeping the palestinians in refugee camps so that their greivances would be maintained.
Nasser never lead the Ba'athists, nor was he one himself.
Secondly it was the Arab League not Nasser who collectively ordered that Arab states not grant Palestinian refugees citizenship of their respective states.

Edited for clarity.
 
#13
overpromoted said:
A few of the neighbouring Arab gvernments would totter, because they use the conflict to keep their people angry wit Israel rather than angry with their own regimes. The Palestine conflict in itself is not geopolitically significant - after all, there's no oil, diamonds or centres of industry there. It matters because all kinds of outside actors project great importance onto it: The Israelis, the Americans, the American Jewish lobby, the Arab states, Al-Qaida, the European Left etc. That is really what prolongs the conflict.

I agree with this assessment. Unity over hatred of Israel is really what's keeping many of these countries together. I truly believe that's why Iran is so keen on it.
 
#14
castlereagh said:
mushroom said:
Ba-athist Arabs, led by Nasser, who wanted to create a pan arab state across the Middle East formulated the policy of keeping the palestinians in refugee camps so that their greivances would be maintained.
Nasser never lead the Ba'athists, nor was he one himself.
Secondly it was the Arab League not Nasser who collectively ordered that Arab states not grant Palestinian refugees citizenship.
You do mean Palestinian?

on another note, at this historical stage of the game Palestine was geographically a slightly different place than it is today.
 
#15
Cuddles said:
Oh I expect this is the international Zionist conspiracy theory popping up its distasteful features again...tin-foil helmets anybody?
Its most definatly friday.......i realy should get into the bulk supply of tinfoil
 
#16
bigeye said:
castlereagh said:
mushroom said:
Ba-athist Arabs, led by Nasser, who wanted to create a pan arab state across the Middle East formulated the policy of keeping the palestinians in refugee camps so that their greivances would be maintained.
Nasser never lead the Ba'athists, nor was he one himself.
Secondly it was the Arab League not Nasser who collectively ordered that Arab states not grant Palestinian refugees citizenship.
You do mean Palestinian?

on another note, at this historical stage of the game Palestine was geographically a slightly different place than it is today.
Huh? ...Anyways even under the Ottomans the term 'Arz i Filistin' was in use to describe the sanjaks of Damascus and Jersualem - so what's your point?
 
#17
castlereagh said:
bigeye said:
castlereagh said:
mushroom said:
Ba-athist Arabs, led by Nasser, who wanted to create a pan arab state across the Middle East formulated the policy of keeping the palestinians in refugee camps so that their greivances would be maintained.
Nasser never lead the Ba'athists, nor was he one himself.
Secondly it was the Arab League not Nasser who collectively ordered that Arab states not grant Palestinian refugees citizenship.
You do mean Palestinian?

on another note, at this historical stage of the game Palestine was geographically a slightly different place than it is today.
Huh? ...Anyways even under the Ottomans the term 'Arz i Filistin' was in use to describe the sanjaks of Damascus and Jersualem - so what's your point?
Yes, sorry, that was a bit vague - I was called away briefly.

Did you mean Palestinian or Jewish refugees?

The point I was going to make regarding the geography is that at the time of the intervention of the Arab league, Palestine comprised a much larger area than it does now. The troubles of the two regions, Gaza and the West Bank, that are currently deemed to be 'Palestine' cannot be really be directly blamed on the fuss that was going on in the 1920s.

We now have a separate set of protagonists.


What did you mean by the following statement?

'Anyways even under the Ottomans the term 'Arz i Filistin' was in use to describe the sanjaks of Damascus and Jersualem'
 
#18
It is in the best interest of the " Zionists " to keep the conflict boiling if they want to maintain a Jewish State in Israel and not a secular democracy..

Israel, like most' western' countries is not replicating itself population wise birth rate among ' native ' Israelis is below maintenance levels while the Israeli-Arab population [ Muslim and Christian ] continues to rise.. these citizens of Israel, who supposedly have full status and rights to vote and stature though organized political parties and influence [ however limited ] in the Knesset are gaining.

Jewish interests are falling, this low birth rate coupled with lessening immigration of Jews [ Russia and other places are pretty tapped out as to sources of immigration ] and, as long as there is open conflict American and Western Jews aren't anxious to resettle in the homeland and are content to send cash or buy bonds to support Israel from afar to assuage their guilt..] couple that with the secularization of Jews and their intermarriage issues you get a state of Israel that is less and less Jewish each day..

so, keeping the ' traditional ' rivalries alive and the resolve not to settle the rampant discrimination against Palestinian grievances [ loss of land and the 're-settlement' issues ] both by Israel and the surrounding Arab/Muslim states who aren't anxious to have their Palestinian ' minorities' in their own countries assimilated/integrated of granted any other status than ' refugee' , means that the current situation will continue for the foreseeable future.

Will Palestine ever achieve ' independent ' nation status?
Will Israel lose its Jewishness and cease to be a ' problem '?
Will there be another Crusade and Jeruslalem become an International city [ as was once proposed ]?

who knows? My gut feeling is that the mess of the Middle East will still be there long after I've passed on to Valhalla or Hades or the Great Beyond..
 
#19
rocketeer
i'm a sparky and ex royal engineer, i wash , eat more than cold baked beans and realise there is more than one 6oclock in the day. ergo i aint a fekin student bud.

the reason for this thread is because i was wondering what factors are now pulling that cant blairs chain in his new position , realised it was a bit off in a tangent for the other thread so started a new one . i can do as much research as the next fella but there are men and women in this forum who have walked the walk in terms of conflict resolution and i wanted to see what the list of problems are then what various solutions are given, also i quite like seeing a good slangin match between the usual suspects such as GK, white city,sven stonker etc.
 
#20
Rocketeer said:
It is in the best interest of the " Zionists " to keep the conflict boiling if they want to maintain a Jewish State in Israel and not a secular democracy..

Israel, like most' western' countries is not replicating itself population wise birth rate among ' native ' Israelis is below maintenance levels while the Israeli-Arab population [ Muslim and Christian ] continues to rise.. these citizens of Israel, who supposedly have full status and rights to vote and stature though organized political parties and influence [ however limited ] in the Knesset are gaining.

Jewish interests are falling, this low birth rate coupled with lessening immigration of Jews [ Russia and other places are pretty tapped out as to sources of immigration ] and, as long as there is open conflict American and Western Jews aren't anxious to resettle in the homeland and are content to send cash or buy bonds to support Israel from afar to assuage their guilt..] couple that with the secularization of Jews and their intermarriage issues you get a state of Israel that is less and less Jewish each day..

so, keeping the ' traditional ' rivalries alive and the resolve not to settle the rampant discrimination against Palestinian grievances [ loss of land and the 're-settlement' issues ] both by Israel and the surrounding Arab/Muslim states who aren't anxious to have their Palestinian ' minorities' in their own countries assimilated/integrated of granted any other status than ' refugee' , means that the current situation will continue for the foreseeable future.

Will Palestine ever achieve ' independent ' nation status?
Will Israel lose its Jewishness and cease to be a ' problem '?
Will there be another Crusade and Jeruslalem become an International city [ as was once proposed ]?

who knows? My gut feeling is that the mess of the Middle East will still be there long after I've passed on to Valhalla or Hades or the Great Beyond..
This is any interesting point (You're Not Paddy Ashdown are you?)
However if Palestine (The West bank) was to become a fully autonomous independent state then the influx westwards by disaffected Arabs would adjust the ratio of Arabs to Jews, within Israel proper, to the advantage of the Zionists would it not?

I feel that the flash points of the West Bank and Gaza provide an opportunity for both parties to do what they seemingly have been born to do since biblical times: Give each other a thorough, regular mullering.
 

Top