A Possible Solution for the Palestine/Israel Issue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25983130

I came across this story and thought I'd post my opinion on the matter, after reading something that disturbed me. It involved a difference of opinion between a Jewish resident and a Palistinian resident in the city of Jaffa. The contentious point is on whether or not Palestinians should be forced to accept Israel as a Jewish-state.

Really? Jews essentially want to force Palestinians to accept being dominated? I don't agree with that. Not at all. But, I'm open to opinions. I like to use it as a tool to help me understand complicated issues. I like to listen to a point and a counter-point, something that basically sums-up the general issue of the moment.

One opinion: "I think Bibi [Benjamin Netanyahu] should totally ask for that because that's the important point: it's a religious fight, it's not about land," says Janine, who is Jewish. "Hardcore Muslims aren't able to recognise Jewish people as human beings with the right to be in this country. The Western world thinks it would be nice to take this point away but you can't."

The counter-opinion: At a nearby table, Mahmoud strongly disagrees with Mr Netanyahu's approach. He fears the impact it will have on him and other members of Israel's Arab minority. "Every week we hear new reports that this is a Jewish state, there will be a transfer of the Arab population, we will be sent into exile. We ignore them. We are staying steadfast in our land," he says.

After carefully considering each opinion, the tone of each in particular, the accuracy of them (these are just opinions, mind you) I can say with certainty that such a "declaration" is unjust. That is my opinion, given the knowledge I have on various arguments between the two sides over the course of thousands of years. Both have claims to the land that is now known as "Israel", as well as certain surrounding regions. Both have lived and died there, for eons. Stating that this is a religious argument, while somewhat true, isn't the core-argument I see. The land itself is in contention, or to be more precise: The control of that land and it's resources.

Furthermore, Palestinians are being driven out of lands that, in recent times, and for some considerable time, has been theirs. Yes, ownership of land is temporary, and both Jews and Palestinians have exchanged control over specific areas of that land over the millenias, but I am not in agreement with the Jewish people's assertion that the land is theirs and theirs alone. For one thing, they are ignoring all other religions, Christianity in particular. For another, religion doesn't last anywhere near as long as land does. For example: Religions change over time, and eventually what they began as becomes something entirely different. That's just the nature of the creative mind at work, as every era has it's own influences in the religious dogma of their time. The Jewish people cannot claim ownership, not in the sense that they have more rights to it than the Palestinians do.

The argument is old, but I do see a few ways to solve the issue, once and for all even. The one I prefer is the co-mingling of families. By having children together on a semi-wide-spread scale, the "enemy" is no longer "them", it's "you", and hostilities decrease. When enough co-mingling has occurred, peace can be achieved. The truth is, this has occurred in the past, on a smaller-scale of course, and there are indeed people today, quite a few actually, who are the result of that intermingling. An argument could be made that all people are actually the result of co-mingling, and that it's desirable, but for now I'm focusing on the core-issue of today, control of territory, as well as possible solutions to that particular issue.

Another, far less desirable solution is the contamination of the land by use of nuclear technology. The Israelis have nukes, but are not about to nuke themselves. Neither are countries like the U.S. or Russia...asterisk. It's just not in either countries best interest to do something like that, and neither is likely to change their minds on it. Other countries in the region are not so worried about such things, some of them are almost entirely focused on simply attacking Israel any way they can, and if they are foolish enough, they just may do so. I don't see that happening anytime soon...asterisk, but what about individuals and small groups, hell-bent on Israel's "destruction"? Some of those groups may be able to succeed in setting off a nuke or two in the heart of Israeli-controlled lands, and may not understand what'll happen to that land, and the people afterwards, particularly if they target nuclear-power facilities. If they did that, they wouldn't even need a nuke, the nuke is already there, and is far, far, far more dangerous to the land than any single nuke is. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima all provided that particular lesson. If a power plant were to explode, even by accident, the fallout would make certain parts of the land uninhabitable by humans for decades, even hundreds of years. Neither nukes or accidental radiation exposure would solve the issue though, as parts of land would still be fought over...and there's the mass-deaths issue, of course...which isn't desirable by many in the World, except perhaps extremists.

Natural disasters are not out of the question either, they happen all the time. I personally do not even like the thought, but there are various ways that could occur: Earthquakes, tsunami, meteor impact, etc are not particularly selective in what they destroy. Neither are pandemics and such. I really do not see those as options, or at least desirable options, as they would cause horrible suffering, and do not not solve the issue entirely. The land would still be fought over by the survivors, for example.

I have considered various ideas that come from various incidental players, the various U.S. administrations that have attempted peace-agreements, for example, and find all of them insufficient, and almost entirely pointless. Our governments made the attempts, and continue to make the attempts, for political reasons: To court Jewish voters. Yes, they want peace to exist there, but they simply can't do it, it just isn't going to happen. I'm as certain of that as I am certain that I am writing this sentence. Politics isn't the solution here, not in the sense that it will solve the basic issue of land rights. It just isn't going to happen. I don't blame them for trying. I understand the necessities of it. They know their attempts will fail, but they need to court voters, they need to appease the Jewish segments of our society in order to win elections. That's true for both republicans and Democrats, but most of us already understand that, already consider it a "given" that they'll try, even if it's mostly ceremonial in nature.

Nope, the only real lasting solution is to @#$% each other. They do anyway, on some small scale. At some point in the future they'd have no good reason to argue about it anymore. My suggestion to each group is to set aside their differences for a moment, perhaps at a neutral celebration commemorating this or that, or at universities, or anywhere they see fit, and look each other in the eyes without anger and hatred in their hearts. Then again, sometimes a quick glance into each other's eyes is all it takes to remove that anger and hatred. We all enjoy @#$%ing, don't we? Well, don't we? It's a universal thing, you know, to...enjoy each other's company, so-to-speak. That said, there are exceptions to that rule, a disability or disease for one, but in general, and almost universally, we do indeed enjoy it.

Eh, I have a feeling it'll work it's way out without any dramatic incidents happening. I'm confident that, given enough time, and maybe some porno, these two amazingly similar groups (from my perspective) will know what to do to solve this rather insensitive issue.

 

What you're describing is something that has become common place in this country. An intermixing of ethnic populations. Dutch settlers intermarried English settlers and their identity changed to become uniquely American. This has continued and it is not uncommon now to cross racial barriers. However this only works when people can relate to each other on common ground. As long as the political and social divide remains, it becomes near impossible. Both sides need to let go of something that is seated in the core of their identity. The "Jewish State" is based in the concept that Jews in Israel would never be subjected to being declared non-citizens and the isolation and abuse that had been placed upon them in centuries past. Politically it is not a Jewish State with Arabs/Palestinians serving in the Knesset. The Palestinians need to understand that they lost the British promise of a Palestine when they attacked the Jewish settlements in 1949. Have you ever seen a map of Israel circa 1949. It was a scattering of settlement in the middle of what would have been Palestine. Both sides have a long way to go and outside political interest need to quit feeding both sides of the frenzy. Equal right will also need to be established for both sides and prejudiced overcome.

 

I've seen that map, and consider it a mere moment in time, a miniscule piece of info. I prefer to look at all available maps (and other info) throughout historical times so that I can have a more complete understanding of the issue.

But, yes, the general attitude of both is one of conflict, but small groups of people can make a big impact on that. It'll take time, of course, but @#$%ing really is the only way these two groups can coexist in that land.

They'll never allow the other to have control of the lands, and I don't blame them. Their history is somewhere along the lines of "He said, she said", and both are more-or-less correct in the accusations, so....who has more right? My opinion is that neither has a greater right, and so they should start @#$%ing each other, whenever and wherever they can.

Granted, that's hard to do when someone is trying to kill you, but there are moments, many many moments, where the two groups actually do stop hating each other, and @#$%ing can occur, has occurred... at celebrations, at universities, at McDonald's in a restroom, etc, etc, etc.

If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Just don't expect me to take a map from 1949 as the solution. That map is the result of one group aligning with another to grant title where it wouldn't otherwise be granted. True, they attempted to negotiate with Palestinians, but for what, 3 seconds, before declaring the title was legal?

Hell no. The Jewish people can't complain about attacks from the Palestinians when they ignored them and forced them to be lesser subjects. You want peace? I see no other solution than @#$%ing.

I never said it'd be easy, an instant solution to a thousands-years argument, I only say that it's the only solution I can see that will work, other than annihilation of one or both groups, which isn't reasonable or rational at all, considering how much fun @#$%ing is. But maybe that's just me. If you think you have a better solution, I'm listening.

 

Having done extensive research into turmoil in the Middle East, I've come to the conclusion that your proposal is the only viable option for peace in the Middle East. A team of highly trained UN sex therapist will be required to get these folks to loosen up and could be headed by a Swedish contingency. Linguist are currently working to find a safe word that translates into both Yiddish and Farsi since the potential to go kinky is high. The US military has developed a topless berka that produces "shock and awe" in fundamentalist males. Research has also proven that it lowers levels of bad testosterone while elevating levels of good testosterone in regions below the waist. Advantage should also be taken of Israel's long coast line extending from the Gaza Strip to Lebanon by declaring it to be an International Nude Beach. A clothing NOT optional policy should be enforced to combat initial inhibitions. Homeland Security is concerned with the proliferation of suicide condoms containing a small undetectable pin prick in the tip rendering them no longer safe for sex. Dow has been task with developing the prick-less condom, which seems like an oxymoron, and Jenna Jameson has been asked to consult.
Outstanding work IQless1, this has the potential to springboard and may bring about world peace.

Sincerely,
C Jay

 

Too many radicals on both side of the divide, they need to remove religion from the political arena first

 

You can't, because everyone has religion in the sense that everyone has belief.

That said, you're not entirely wrong. What needs to be highlighted is the common themes, the common GOOD themes that they share. Most people believe in a God, or "higher being". I myself am positive of it now, but it took me a hell-of-a-long time to admit it, since I suffer so much. It's a similar thing there, they are suffering from a constant state of War, of hate for each other.

In my case, I need an immense amount of $$$ to solve my issues, the heart issue in particular. I doubt I'll get it in time, but that's really not up to me, as I can't get the $$$ myself, I just don't have the energy, the health, and/or healthy amount of greed, to do it, not in the time I sense I have left. I'm not discouraged, but I'm settling my affairs anyway, just in case I can't find a way to survive any more.

In their case, they need to find those things they can agree on, even the smallest things can lead to bigger things, so-to-speak, so...given enough time...they'll find they really are so similar to each other that it really isn't worth fighting over, really isn't in their best interests to continue fighting. Having kids is one way, and it's happening anyway. lol...I mean, which is better: Killing each other or @#$%ing?

Just sayin'.