ok, let's play the mediator game :-)
There's a term you don't mention. Religion. Well, it's a problem, isn't it?
I mean, I'm perfectly convinced that Hebrews and Muslims (and Christians, of
course...) should and can live in peace together, but it's a fact that
fundamentalism *on both sides* works to increase the conflict claiming some
divine right. Especially over Jerusalem.
A possible solution for the city could be borrowed from the Vatican city.
When Italy became one nation about 150 years ago, the Church had to renounce
to many lands (about 25% of current Italy) it owned since more than 1000
years. The creation of the Vatican City state has been IMO a high quality
solution in oder to avoid religious problems: Italy, renouncing to a small
portion of its capital city, demonstrated that the spiritual value of the
Pope was not under discussion.
Here it is a bit more complex as we have two religions involved (not to
mention the variants of Christianity), but I think that both states could
renounce Jerusalem (at least a part of it) that could become an independent
state like the Vatican city is. Why not, with UN guards protecting the
temples and the pilgrims, like the Swiss guards in Vatican city. Don't you
think it could be a good message to rule religion out from the conflict? And
wouldn't the city, certainly destination of pilgrims of all sorts, become
the beacon of a peaceful closeness of all religions?
Ciao,
Marco
p.s.
just a note on antisemitism. Arabs are semitic too.
-----
From: <RISKYBIZ9@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: MD Middle East -- What is an MOQ Solution?
> Thank you Rasheed, Jonathan, Lawry and Gav for your comments. I have
> addressed them below.
>
> ROG PREVIOUSLY WROTE:
> As for MORAL solutions to the issue of Palestine and Israel, may I suggest
> that:
>
> 1) Israel needs to consider that its long term survival is very
questionable
> due to the large contingent of people and cultures dedicated to
exterminating
>
> it in Palestine and the broader Mideast. It is highly likely that over
the
> next 20 to 30 years that these antisemitic factions will develop the means
of
>
> mass destruction. To assume they won't use these means is absurd. The
only
> hope the Israelies have is to have better neighbors when the technology
> arrives. Time is critical...
>
> 2) I believe the Palestinian question has always been a red herring. The
> broader issue is not about them and never has been. However, they are
> certainly a critical part of the current problem. They are a cruelly
abused
> and mistreated people, by not just the Israelis, but by their fellow
Arabs.
> Furthermore, they have been positioned into the situation where their own
> interests have been hijacked and replaced with a mandate -- or at least a
> subculture -- to destroy Israel. I suggest that Israel immediately create
an
> independent Palestinian State using -- as an example -- the borders
refused
> by Arafat in 2000. Israel needs to either get her settlers out of these
> areas, or let them take their chances as a part of the new Palestine.
>
> 3) Once Palestinians have a home again, they will need to build their own
> infrastructure, government, etc. The UN -- and the US and UK in
particular
> -- should help fund and sponsor this process. My guess is they will still
> bicker with their neighbor over borders, but it seems to me better to get
> something started rather than wait for everyone to agree (especially when
> Arafat doesn't even want to agree). Violence and terrorism should be
dealt
> with harshly -- very harshly (by the Israelies.) Once they have their own
> land, the Palestinians will begin to have something to lose. It seems to
me
> that the only way to divert popular attention away from hate and toward
the
> future is to give them a chance for one. Perhaps the haters will still
> prevail -- perhaps not.
>
> 4) The US must stop providing financial or military aid directly to
Israel --
>
> the Israelies need to make it alone, and current assistance just incites
> animosity.
>
> 5) The US must stop giving any aid OF ANY TYPE to the dictators and
> theocracies of the middle east. They have some answering to do to their
> people. This could create unrest and anarchy, it could affect oil
supplies,
> but until these countries go through the growth pains toward modernity and
> self rule, they will drag the whole world down with them. The UN and US
> should support any fledgling democracies in the area (with the exclusion
of
> Israel).
>
> 6) A coalition needs to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not
built
>
> in this area. Furthermore, the international coalition needs to ensure
that
> none of these turbulent states encroaches on any neighbor's borders.
>
> I believe the above fits in with the MOQ. It allows people and nations
the
> freedom to have a chance to evolve and build a healthy, sustainable
society.
>
> Also, it removes the safe but disfunctionally static and archaic,
> exploitative low-level dictatorships and theocracies from these people.
>
> Thoughts? Corrections? Insults? Better ideas? I am sure some people
know a
>
> lot more about the situation than I do, so feel free to attack with both a
> pencil and an eraser.
>
> JONATHAN RESPONDED:
> Finally ROGER has unveiled something that looks like a positive idea. I
> support the ultimate goal (Israel and Palestine peaceful neighbour
> states), but think that the implementation is problematic, especially
> now.
>
> ROG NOW ADDS:
> The greater problem is not rising to the task. The situation is
destroying
> both cultures.
>
> RASHEED RESPONDED:
> I thought these solutions were practical and would provide a starting
point
> for peace in the area. The only thing I directly object to is forming the
> state of Palestine on the offer of Barak in 2000. This land was not one
> solid piece, but divided into sections and still did not get rid of the
> Israeli checkpoints between cities and left Israel in charge of the
highways
> between cities. This is one of the major problems with the Palestinian
> struggle now.
>
> ROG NOW ADDS:
> It was just an example. The point is to start with something. The
solution
> and borders must of course be contiguous for the West Bank, and Israel
must
> withdraw any military presence. Anything less is not creating a true
> Palestinian state.
>
> GAV RESPONDED:
> so one approach is to move away from oil dependency....less demand for
> oil = less oppression in the mid-east,
>
> ROG NOW ADDS:
> I agree that oil is the root problem here. It has allowed the governments
to
> establish disfunctional regimes, it has bought complicity from Western
> nations and it has allowed a major section of the world to avoid coming to
> grips with modernity.
>
> LAWRY RESPONDED:
> I was delighted to see Roger's post offering his view of a solution, and
the
> reasons for it. I will leave aside his supporting analysis (it has
several
> mistakes, IMO. E.g. the myth that the Palestinians have been mistreated by
> other Arab countries -- we can take this up later if you wish to), but I
> want to concentrate on where it takes him; he offers several critical and
> useful propositions:
>
> ROG NOW ADDS:
> I would love to hear why you believe the Arab nations' mistreatment of
> Palestinians is a myth. I do agree that there are powerful hardline
positions
> on both sides that DO NOT WANT TO SEE A PEACEFUL RESOLUTION.
>
> Any other comments?
> Rog
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST