Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Arab-Israelli Conflict

  1. Jun 11, 2008 #1
    Hi, I believe that we can discuss this in a civilized and mature way, after all, this is PF. There is alot to say but please don't repeat what we all know. If this gets out of bounds, we have the good admins and mods to stop it so please mind your words before replying.

    I don't want to go whining about the past. I'd rather look-up to the future, what do you think is to become in the next 10 years of this conflict?

    personally, I think that the proper will and motivation is present for an all-out peaceful AND just solution. All the countries are reluctant to deal with the issue for any more time and are saying "lets end this once and for all". We simply need more negotiations and time.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 11, 2008 #2
    What would YOU like to see in the next 10yrs?
  4. Jun 11, 2008 #3
    I like to see the Palestinians and Israelis living together peacefully. No hamas and no militant groups, nothing but the Palestinian official force and the Israeli official force.
    Moreover, Jerusalem must be divided between the two states which is an important roadblock that the negotiations are facing.
  5. Jun 11, 2008 #4
    My solution was to build a giant temple in geosynchronous orbit above Jerusalem for each of the 3 Abrahamic religions, where they could sit in a triangle.

    My friends thought that wasn't very viable, though. I can't imagine why. They each have frickin God on their side. You'd think he'd do something that simple just to make them stop fighting.
  6. Jun 11, 2008 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How would you like to see it divided?
  7. Jun 11, 2008 #6


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yeah, I don't see any way to divide it that either would ever be happy with.
  8. Jun 11, 2008 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OK, this idea is a bit out there. It's an idea from a friend of mine (no seriously, if it were mine I would claim it - I swear!).

    Make Jeruselem a place that is a non-state; rather, it would be a "City of the World." Move the UN headquarters from the New York to Jeruselem.

    Pros? Cons?
  9. Jun 11, 2008 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hmmm... Interesting idea... but not one I'm sure either side would be happy with. Jeruselem seems to be the biggest point of contention - it's 'sacred' to nearly EVERYONE of faith...

    AmedEzz, do you have any suggestions for how you think it should be divided?
  10. Jun 11, 2008 #9
    Along the pre-1676 boarder would be the obvious place to divide it. We do have international laws which are supposed to prohibit the annexation of territory by force. Unfortunately, those laws aren't doing any good as long our government here in the US keeps using our Veto power in the UN to keep the rest of the world from enforcing them.
  11. Jun 11, 2008 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hmmm...North America would look quite different, if we reverted to the maps of 1676...!

    Edit: So would just about *every* map!
  12. Jun 12, 2008 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah, I was wondering about that, too... :biggrin:
  13. Jun 12, 2008 #12


    User Avatar

    Already done under UN resolution 194 (article 8)which called for demilitarization and UN control over Jerusalem. Israel formally agreed to abide by this resolution as a condition of it's acceptance into the UN. The resolution also called for the return of refugees and free access to Jerusalem.

    Needless to say Israel never had any intention of actually honouring their agreement and in fact later invaded and occupied East Jerusalem.
  14. Jun 12, 2008 #13
    Well, there's already a vision of the city after being divided on the negotiations table between the Israellis and the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who I think by the way should be backed by the US, EU and the rest of the world because if there's anyone who can end this and bring peace, its him.

    I think that there's an area of 'Eastern Jerusalem' that interests the Palestinian side, they want it to be their capital. Moreover, Israel's capital is already Tel Aviv.

    On the other hand the suggestion by lisab's friend is a good one given that both sides agree on it. That way, we can preserve the holiness of the city and keep it neutral. Although I find it very hard for both Israeli's and Palestinians to accept it, but from my side, I support it if it will bring peace.

    There's another major issue, should the Palestinian people all over the world and the refugees come back or not? Israel opposes and Palestinians insist.
  15. Jun 12, 2008 #14
    Given the discrimination that Jews faced in visiting holy sites in Jerusalem before Israel captured it during the six day war, I really doubt that any peace agreement is going to work with an Arab state or government administrating the city.

    Another major problem is the rise of Hamas to power in Palestine. Even though the Bush administration chose not to negotiate with Arafat, he was seen as a legitimate leader by most of the world community. No one is going to negotiate with Hamas, which has refused to renounce terrorism and its call for the destruction of Israel.

    Another major roadblock is the obstinance of both sides to compromise. Israel will refuse to remove many of its colonies and Palestinians will insist on the return of many millions of Palestinian diaspora and their descendants, neither one of which is realistic if a compromise is to work.

    And an additional problem has been the United States. While previous Presidents have viewed a peaceful resolution to hostilities in the region as an important US foreign policy goal, our current administration has mostly ignored the issue entirely. The United States is, realistically, the only nation that can broker a lasting peace agreement. Without strong US participation and support for a compromise, it will never happen, and it is unknown what kind of stance the next US president will take.

    Attitudes are also important. When polls show that the majority of Palestinians support terrorist attacks to murder Israeli civilians, one must wonder if peace is actually going to be possible so long as the current generation is alive. What may end up happening is that Israel finishes building a wall, then cuts the Palestinian territories loose to self-governance. After all of todays' generation, with hatred in their hearts have died, a true reconciliation may be possible.
  16. Jun 12, 2008 #15
    I too would like to see Palestinians and Israelis living together peacefully. Moreover, Cairo must be divided between the Egyptians and the Sudanese.
  17. Jun 12, 2008 #16
    Jerusalem was taken from Jordan and illegally annexed. However, Jordan says they don't want it back. That seems to close the issue.
  18. Jun 12, 2008 #17
    Seems peaceful enough with what they have in place now. Why cannot it work for the best? Altruistic intentions and good beliefs and utopias do not have their place in this world.
  19. Jun 12, 2008 #18
    I say cut out that land they're fighting over, place it in deep space and let them squabble over there.
  20. Jun 12, 2008 #19
    When the Israeli army kills your mother, father, sister,brother, and friends you may have and slaughters your people, I don't think you will have anything but hatred in your heart. When the Israeli force stops destroying innocent people's houses and stops killing children, maybe then they will stop supporting terrorism.

    It really depresses me to see such ignorant and single-minded replies. Are you seriously saying "why the Palestinians hate Israelis so much?" or are you saying " Why can't the Palestinians just love their Israeli counter-parts?" both are silly questions that could only come from someone who is trying to elude himself that Israelis are angels and the others are terrorists who provoke them to do what they do. This is 60 years worth of war, what possibly could it generate other than depression, terrorism and hatred?

    Do you have any other reason for peace? we want to stop the bloodshed and end this...but there you are making fun of what we are trying to accomplish.

    I have nothing more to say.

    How is this unrealistic? Would you accept to leave your people divided and scattered all over the globe when there's a peace treaty being signed? What is so hard about allowing people to get back home?
  21. Jun 12, 2008 #20
    The cons are that the UN is acknowledging some sort of "holy land" and I really am not comfortable with that. It would be like if a US president came out saying "I believe God chose me to become president."

    Oh wait.
  22. Jun 12, 2008 #21
    Which is exactly why a unilateral solution may be the only possible way to peace. Palestinian's and Israeli's value recrimination over peace. Terrorists murder innocent Israeli civilians, and Israel responds by attacking Palestinian terrorists, who tend to operate in heavily populated areas, usually resulting in collateral civilians being killed.

    The only solution may be for Israel to draw up a border, build a fence, around the border, and let the Palestinians have their state. It may not be an ideal solution, but it is looking more and more like the only workable one. In fifty or one hundred years, when things have cooled down and all the Palestinian terrorists and Israeli hawks are dead, then perhaps the wall can come down and there can be some true reconciliation.

    Actually, I am saying, how can you have peace with a people who support the deliberate murder of innocent Israeli civilians. And before you try to equivocate it to Israeli actions, like me remind you that terrorist attacks against civilians is illegal. Israel bombing Hamas members is legal (and therefore not murder).

    Most any "Palestinian" who was born in what is now Israeli territory and was forced, or chose to leave is dead. Israel is not going to accept allowing all their decedents back, to become Israeli citizens. Some kind of compromise needs to be reached, like just compensation for those Palestinians who can prove that they were wronged.
  23. Jun 12, 2008 #22
    How about a multinational militarization of Jerusalem, consisting of most of the worlds military powers? Once things settle down there, the UN headquarters could be moved there, and any attack on the city be viewed as an attack on all member nations.
  24. Jun 12, 2008 #23
    Actually, when you look at it from a pragmatic perspective, the veto power is a good thing, because it helps lend the UN more legitimacy.

    At the end of the day, getting the most votes on the UN security council is a completely meaningless accomplishment. What actually matters is the military power of an individual nation and its allies. China annexed Tibet in violation of the UN charter, the Russians invaded Afghanistan, the Americans took control of Iraq. All three of these instances (and I could probably think of many more), were done in direct violation of the UN charter, which only authorizes such military force in the event of a direct threat or UN Security Council.

    If these five nations did not have veto power, nothing would really change except that the most powerful nations would either ignore UN Security Council resolutions or withdraw completely from the UN, either of which would severely weaken the United Nations and further delegitimize it.
  25. Jun 12, 2008 #24
    AhmedEzz, you obviously have a strong dislike for Israel, your comments in this thread {as well as others} has shown this. Why do you keep asking questions that provoke answers that you do not agree with and then get all upset when people express differing opinions?

    ..and, your statement works for both sides of this conflict. I am not taking sides, but I feel that both the Palestinians and Israeli's share in the blame. Until the day comes that both sides are willing to put down their weapons, nothing will be resolved.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2008
  26. Jun 12, 2008 #25
    On the contrary, it can also be said that Israel kills the Palestinian civilians in the first place (Which, of course, would be rarely mentioned in Western, especially US, media) and when they respond violently (Which would become instant headlines in US media), they are labeled as terrorists and attacked in the name of defense.

    And who's going to draw and decide the borders of that Palestinian state?

    Exactly. Terrorist attack on civilians in illegal, carried on by Israel or Palestinians, and Israel is responsible for this crime far more than Palestinians.

    I guess in some of your previous post you mentioned that terrorists hide in common people. As a matter of fact, common people are the very people who resist against Israel and turn violent against the interests of Israel when they are terribly wronged by IDF and all.

    BTW, are you saying that Palestinians are allowed to keep a 'uniformed' force/army?

    In other words, Israel is not going to give a damn about what world says including the UN resolutions.

    Israel, my friend, should learn to respect the UN resolutions and if not, it should not expect anyone else to do so!

    A good solution would be that Israel return to it's original state of pre-1967 war as per the UN resolution, allows those Palestinians to return to their homes who were forced into exile and as for Jerusalem (Or pay them for their losses), I agree that it should be made an independent city, open for the people from all faiths.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2008
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook