April 30, 2008
Top 10 Pros and Cons - Israeli-Palestinian ProCon.org
The Israeli-Palestinian crisis has been ongoing for much time now. It has been a war over ideologies and land. It is often described as a religious war when it is much more complex. The moral reasoning from the leaders and their followers are causing suffering on both sides. At the same time Israel and Palestine consider themselves the oppressed one. They both are depicting theoretical aspects of prima facia ethics and utilitarianism in their ceasing to entertain peaceful resolutions to the constant problems these two countries control. No side wants to give in to the other yet maybe wants peace and sovereignty eventually at the cost of peace now. It might be difficult to convince Palestine to have the US as the primary peace broker so it might be in best interest to invite some neutral party or parties to partake in the negotiations. Respected current or past leaders from either the United Nations or NATO would be better to bridge the gap between the sides instead of an all US coalition. All though the road map solves major problems that caused this mess it refrains from resolving the ego and pride factors that disable any real transition to a peaceful state.
An excuse for why these issues are not resolved is because they involve complicated aspects that directly contradict the others stance. The strong ideologies intertwined in the ethnic identity, territorial, boundary and sovereignty issues make matters almost impossible. If the territories that these people wanted were on different sides of the world then this could maybe be resolved over night. It is as almost they refuse to live next to each other even for their own God's sake. The two-state solution theoretically is a very good solution to make them be at peace yet there seems to be a need for prior altercations that bring all the player's leaders to a table of commonalities. They have to realize from their own perspective that they are dealing with the same problems from a different place and really desire the same outcome.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is ongoing and complicated for many reasons. Being that Israel and Palestinians seem to not be able to agree to peace-out, it is often confusing for outside parties to agree on terms. Many different countries have different concerns at stake. For instance the US currently invests a very significant amount to Israel’s economy. It is as though Israel would not be able to support itself without this high monetary infusion support. When different economical systems and resources are on the table countries have a way of trying to set negotiations to better suit themselves. To bring the parties to the table the US would have to prove that they have taken their hand out of Israelis’ depository to build some trust and lead the sovereignty movement
A strong refugee influx would be an issue of concern to both sides. Palestinians would want their people back as soon as possible whereas Israel would want that migration to be highly sanctioned. Israel does not trust the Palestinians authority to control its own people to stop terrorist attacks and vice-versa. Palestine would want to set up a sovereign state right away with its entire displaced people. If the road map had a way to resolve the terrorism issues to the most degree then Israeli forces might be more at ease of stepping down their stance somewhat. They are building more and more settlements on territories that are considered occupied territories. So Palestinians find that to be irresponsible. America has dealt with huge refugee influxes in the past. The US could lead a way to get refugees appropriated to spot that would not be a determent to any country.
It is impossible to hold people hostage as refugees before their emotions get the best of them. With that statement one can see how it is not fair to tell these people to form a democratic government while at the same time telling them who to or not to elect. Doing it the old fashioned way with rigged elections is more viable than telling the Hamas leaders they cannot sit at the negotiations of the people they represent. The US can step in and tell them how not to hold elections because even American savvy is susceptible to misrepresentation.
Also America can step in to give history lessons on walls and how they make people feel. Either protected or out of touch. Economically there is no need for this wall and it creates a line of territory. America has to make sure both sides are coming to equal terms because it supplied fire to the stove at many times throughout the conflict.
When it comes to religion I do not feel they can ever find common ground unless they come to grips on their views on the higher power. They are willing to die for what they believe and nothing smaller can set them off their goal or ideologies. This is warring over nationality, not religion so their God should not be an overall factor in determining who is rightfully owner of the "Holy Land." According to there faith based history both sides claim religious sites throughout the current lands. Unless one can prove one God to be greater than the other than no one can determine whose writing or history is factual. This did not start over religion and it will not end over religiosity.
In essence these people have been through the same thing and then turned around and repeated mistakes on each other. They are killing each other daily in the name of their land God and getting paid to do it. If they truly believed in the core beliefs of their religions they would have come to terms almost as soon as colonial powers lost their control. All though being pessimistic is nothing to relish this road-map is too vague and unclear in the major details of many important issues.