Silly answer not serious but.
That entire area of the world is obviously cursed and doomed to eternal conflict. Therefore we should just make it a wildlife preserve so that the only people fighting over it are animals.
Because smarter people than me have tried but did not quite put the effort in. Therefore I, a random self proclaimed expert on the Internet, will solve it taking into account what the people living there want, all the foregin interests and of course reality and the fact that people tend to hate and blame anyone different than them as soon as anything goes even slightly wrong. This will all be summarised in an easily understood text that is two paragraphs long.
Simple build a freezer over the entire area and let the Chinese decide in 2099.
Is this just random or from an actual piece of media?
Random, freezing the conflict should be kinda obvious in meaning, 2099 and letting the Chinese sort it out is a reference to the actual hand over of Hong Kong from the British to the Chinese
joke reply
I’m sure this makes perfect sense geopolitically.
Perhaps we could even enact the Treaty of Tordesillas:
Palestinians get their land back, and they get to decide the details. Simple as that.
Sooo genocide, but now going the other way?
If Jews committing a genocide doesn’t clue you in that anyone is capable of it, I don’t know what will. That includes Palestinians, who are understandably pissed right now.
If that’s the first thing that you think of, it says more about you than it says about them.
It’s realistic. Palestinians aren’t born “terrorists”, but they aren’t born saints either.
I mean, they actually did get a chance for a few hours a couple years ago, and they added torture and rape on top of it all.
giving people their stuff back thats been stolen from them is now genocide?
So if I go make an illegal “settlement” in your back yard and you want to get me out, and I say “nope, I’m not moving, you’ll have to kill me” then telling me to leave means you are committing genocide against me?
Thats a complete disavowal of all property law and basic human rights, isnt it? Why do you get to do this?
No, the genocide part would be where all the Israelis are lined up and killed out of revenge for what they just did to Palestine.
Well. Seems I replied to the wrong person. Sorry bud, and appreciate you not calling me out for it.
Oh, okay. I couldn’t even tell, lol. Which maybe says something about how dumb the debate can get.
israel wants an iron dome. We should build a huge iron dome to go over israel and it should be thick enough to keep god out.
and the israelis in.
Give them something other than each other to hate. Nothing brings people together like mutual hatred.
automated turrets run by the UN general assembly (not the security council) to enforce the boundaries Israel agreed to before the nakba. If Israel wants to use bribery, fne, but they should be made to buy off half the world, not just the US.
Conflict between groups of rich people are less common than between poor people or poor vs rich people.
My examples are europe, that was at constant war until most countries reached a high living standard. Even with Israel, many countries that were at war with it have stopped since they became richer.
So my solution is making everyone in palestine rich (israel is already rich enough), and I’m pretty sure that the conflict will start to disappear.
If you also remove religion from the region, both Islam and Judaism, and the support for atheism increase will be one less irrational conflict drive and one less differentiating fact between the two groups.
If you look at it invasion to a rich country is far less common than invasion to a poor country. So I think is something that may work.
Not only for Israel Palestine. Is a solution for most armed conflicts I think. Let’s make the word rich so there’s no economical differences between countries, and everyone will have a high standard of living and let’s see if conflict get reduced.
Depends. How much are we bending reality to make the question work? I’m going to need the resources of a superpower at absolute minimum. If I can change geography it obviously gets really easy, they’re both on separate islands now.
A one-state solution with a robust diplomatic and internal affairs structure to support claims of hostility and bigotry, run by a nonpartisan and multiethnic Arab-Israeli human rights coalition. Dismantle the Gaza wall and blockade, and integrate Hamas as a political party (if the Likud are fine, then the Knesset has no god damn excuse.) Maintain a UN-managed board of human rights as counsel and a referee in matters concerning integration. Review the arrest of every political prisoner in Israel, and release nonviolent offenders. Extend a formal apology to conscientious objectors. Revoke the mandatory IDF draft policy and switch to volunteer primacy. Take every step and every measure to ensure that Palestinians ARE, IN EVERY WAY, equal in a state that is no longer an ethnocracy. REBUILD GAZA, with Gazans in charge, starting with homes and hospitals.
Furthermore, extend right of return to Palestinians, irrevocably and in perpetuity.
I’m nowhere near educated or even smart enough to have one. So I’ll go with Tom Clancy’s. This was in… shit. One of the later Jack Ryan books. Long story short, Jack Ryan is a history teacher who gets recruited by the CIA to do something. Terrorists (the Irish, then) attack his family, he gets in deeper with the CIA. He climbs the ranks (mostly without meaning to) and somehow winds up president (of the US). He retires and his son ends up a soldier in foreign wars. This is over the course of like 20 books Clancy wrote.
In one of those books, they pretty much solved the Middle East situation. The UN came in and basically cleared out Jerusalem, which they decided was the crux of the issues in the area. The Christians, the Jews, and the Muslims all claimed it as their holy city. So the UN kicked all of them to the curb. It then redistricted the city into a Christian district, a Muslim district, and a Jewish district, with that holy temple Christ used as a fourth, neutral district policed by Swiss (or Swedish, I forget — the “neutral” one) that any of them could enter but none could claim. It was like international waters in a sense.
I’m sure there was more to it and I’m sure Clancy had ideas that didn’t go into the book.
Whenever a country is surrounded by enemies, they have only two choices, conquer them, or be conquered. There are no other alternatives, maybe delays to the eventual outcome, it has to go one way or the other. Everything else is just delaying the ending.
By that logic there would never be a border between a weak and strong country. So reality itself disproves your idea.
We have tried a two state solution for more than half a century, it doesn’t seem to work.
What about a single state solution, lead by a government representing both jews and muslims?
As you may realize, I am not a diplomat nor a politician, I am just an IT guy who don’t know shit.
We have tried a two state solution for more than half a century
No. small bits of it were tried for very short amounts of time-- but there was never a state for Palestine that was free of Israeli dominance and was self determining. Israel itself fought the secular Fatah government that the Palestinians briefly set up for themselves and created and funded Hamas (at great cost) to overthrow Fatah and create exactly the situation we are in now. Fatah was explicitely secular by the way. Israel insisted that Hamas be created to be religious.
Theres just no way to make any sort of peace with hardcore supremecists. And Israelis are supremacists. At their very core they dont want peace, they want the dominance they see is their due, which is stated in a even moderately conservative reading of their religious books-- that non-jewish souls are fundamentally different and lesser than jewish ones-- regular humans souls can never be equal to jews-- we are closer to animals, and many of us are simply incapable of being “good”. (do we need quotes for that? Say the word) So of course they feel no need to be honest in their dealings with lesser beings. And their books also outline that they should have a seperate set of moralities for dealing with jews and nonjews. Its trivially easy to read their books as an entire religious philosophy based on ‘rules for thee and not for me’.
If you were a black skinned family and had a KKK chapter house move literally in your back yard and claim the land for their own, what would you do? Appeal to their sense of common humanity? Share the land that was yours? Try to appeal to the more moderate KKK voices? Not “slander” the good name of the KKK since only 90% of them are openly advocating for violence, rather than 100%? Cant judge an entire people on what just 90% of them say, eh? How unfair that would be! They might just be good people who happen to live in a KKK house!
This is their claim on the land of that region, and the reason they feel they can kill every lesser being on it. “To your descendants have I given this Land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River.” (Genesis 15:18)
They will cheerfully destroy the world seeking to assert their “right” from the book they wrote.
All that really needs to happen is for the US to drop their support for Israel. I think if that happened, the rest of the western world would follow suit.
Sure.
The question is, what are the general public going to feel and demand when the countries who hate Israel attack it and start killing large numbers of civilians.
Because the last time that happened, it resulted in the current support for Israel.
It’s like people forget history.
deleted by creator
The vast majority of Israeli citizens are all in on this genocide. They love it! Let the Arabs overrun the place. I no longer give a fuck. They have forfeited their underdog card.
And so you’re okay with a genocide against them instead?
Great logic there.
Not really. The NYT ran an interesting article a couple years ago on generational support for Israel. [This is from memory, so don’t get down on me for history or generation errors.] The people who reached adulthood in the 1940s and early 50s supported Israel wholeheartedly; they saw Israel as the underdog. The people who reached adulthood in the 60s and 70s saw the 1967 war and saw a militarized grown-up state holding it’s own. The 80’s and 90’s adults saw them as over-weaponized and aggressive. And people reaching adulthood after 2000 saw them as overly aggressive, oppressive and approaching genocide (that opinion forming before the current genocide, obs).
The Israeli government knows the US opinion had been generationally changing as well. It’s why they’ve invested so much money in AIPAC, news organizations and US politicians, and why they’re constantly supporting older-generation politicians.
Not really what?
If the US government drops support for Israel, it’s going to get attacked by Iran.
Iran has stated this publically, and it’s not some idle threat, they’ve been attacking Israel even with the support in place.
If you think that the US population is mad about Palestinians dying in gaza, just wait to see how upset they will get when the people dying are white and being killed by an Islamic state invading.
The reason the adults from the 40s supported Israel is because… That’s when it got invaded by multiple Islamic states.
And Israel would richly deserve it. Israel has attacked Iran how many times? How many murders on Iranian soil? For Iran its a matter of self defense.
Iran started that fight the moment they had their Islamic revolution and started funding militias to fight against Israel.
They were allies up until that revolution in Iran.
Why does everyone think Israel started that beef?
Iran funded militias to fight Israel because of what israel did to Palestine. Iranian revolution was 1978. Nakba was 1948.
Israel was created as a state by the UN after the other people who lived in that region (Formerly the Ottoman Empire) fought for the Axis and lost in the world wars.
There were other territories that were also carved up and handed to other countries, and you don’t see the same issues there because their neighbors didn’t invade them because they were unhappy with the borders drawn by the UN.
Israel has quite literally been under attack by multiple other countries since it was created.
