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
Demand that the Israeli government end all military operations now underway and participate in an effort to reconstruct their society as a pluralistic, inclusive democracy. When they don’t comply, end all US financial aid. Then, if they don’t comply, sanction them. Then, if they don’t comply, blockade them. Then, if they don’t comply, assemble and international coalition and invade them. Depose the current leadership, arrest them and try them at the ICC. Establish an interim government that is designed to reconstruct their society as a pluralistic, inclusive democracy. Set milestones that gradually return local control as they achieve and demonstrate stable, responsible, and moral civic character.
Maybe like an ice cream party or something?
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.
I don’t have a serious idea, so let me tell you about my flights of fancy.
I zap the current Israeli administration’s family members with a de-aging ray to turn them back into babies. Then I travel back in time ten years and adopt them into Gaza families. Then I let them know what I did.
If you could back to the past why not try to convince Herzl’s parent to not give birth to him
Or just hit Balfour with a pipe wrench until he agrees to not be a racist shithead.
The Zionists would still have done when they done even without Balfour . Eliminating the source of the supremacist ideology makes more sense
Herzl was influential, but he was hardly the only Zionist.
Theodor Herzl is the only individual mentioned by name in Israel’s Declaration of “Independence”. The declaration refers to him as the spiritual father of the Jewish State
Ok but Herzl was against Jews
There is the Saif al-Islam Gaddafi Isratin proposal:
The Gaddafi Isratin proposal intended to permanently resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict through a secular, federalist, republican one-state solution, which was first articulated by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, at the Chatham House in London and later adopted by Muammar Gaddafi himself.
Its main points are:
-
Creation of a binational Jewish-Palestinian state called the “Federal Republic of the Holy Land”;
-
Partition of the state into five administrative regions, with Jerusalem as a city-state;
-
Return of all Palestinian refugees;
-
Supervision by the United Nations of free and fair elections on the first and second occasions;
-
Removal of weapons of mass destruction from the state;
-
Recognition of the state by the Arab League.
Similar to the Binational State Solution advocated by the Palestinian leadership and some others prior to the Nakba.
Partition was used to justify Setter Colonialism and Ethnic Cleansing
The Zionist position changed in 1928, when the pragmatic Palestinian leaders agreed to the principle of parity in a rare moment in which clannish and religious differences were overcome for the sake of consensus. The Palestinian leaders feared that without parity the Zionists would gain control of the political system. The unexpected Palestinian agreement threw the Zionist leaders into temporary confusion. When they recovered, they sent a refusal to the British, but at the same time offered an alternative solution: the partitioning of Palestine into two political units.
- Pg 132 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
On 31 August 1947, UNSCOP presented its recommendations to the UN General Assembly. Three of its members were allowed to put forward an alternative recommendation. The majority report advocated the partition of Palestine into two states, with an economic union. The designated Jewish state was to have most of the coastal area, western Galilee, and the Negev, and the rest was to become the Palestinian state. The minority report proposed a unitary state in Palestine based on the principle of democracy. It took considerable American Jewish lobbying and American diplomatic pressure, as well as a powerful speech by the Russian ambassador to the UN, to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the Assembly for partition. Even though hardly any Palestinian or Arab diplomat made an effort to promote the alternative scheme, it won an equal number of supporters and detractors, showing that a considerable number of member states realized that imposing partition amounted to supporting one side and opposing the other.
- Pg 181 of Ilan Pappe - A History of Modern Palestine
This ongoing Settler Colonialism annexing the West Bank continues to make a Two State Solution less possible, it has already divided the West Bank into hundreds of isolated enclaves. This Apartheid State needs to end as a binational state for all Palestinians and Israelis.
Here are resources by Historians about a One-State Solution. In many ways, it’s already a One-State, an Apartheid State, this change would be the emancipation of Palestinians to bring forth a One-State with equal rights.
The settlements represent land-grabbing, and land-grabbing and peace-making don’t go together, it is one or the other. By its actions, if not always in its rhetoric, Israel has opted for land-grabbing and as we speak Israel is expanding settlements. So, Israel has been systematically destroying the basis for a viable Palestinian state and this is the declared objective of the Likud and Netanyahu who used to pretend to accept a two-state solution. In the lead up to the last election, he said there will be no Palestinian state on his watch. The expansion of settlements and the wall mean that there cannot be a viable Palestinian state with territorial contiguity. The most that the Palestinians can hope for is Bantustans, a series of enclaves surrounded by Israeli settlements and Israeli military bases.
- Avi Shlaim
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
-
My serious solution is: I got none, more intelligent people have tried, and people who come up to solutions over there, tend to get killed.
The silly solution: give the whole place to San Marino, which will managed to upset everyone
Judging through the lens of history? A common enemy, and time. If there was another workable solution to the larger problem, they would have found it by now, as many people considerable smarter than me have tried.
No outside factor can build a durable peace, unless that peace is desired from within. Strong-arm tactics from the outside lead to cease fires, not peace. The lid goes back to the pot, but the fire is still there.
In 67 the west could have isolated israel and forced them to return the land minus israel proper to palestinians
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.
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.
Give them something other than each other to hate. Nothing brings people together like mutual hatred.
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.
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.
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.
Stop funding israel and fund a moderate palestinian party instead
