Jailbreak in Gaza

**Rodion Romanovich** · 01-24-2008, 10:02

Originally Posted by Papewaio

'Their land'? Why any more so than third-generation Israelis living there now? Whatever it was sixty years ago, it's not theirs now.

vs

Consider that there are reports of Palestinians tending Olive trees that there ancestors planted and that some of these tress are dying from old age, methinks they may be firmly rooted to their land.

How about a third option: giving Rome/Latium to either the Palestinians or Israelis? The romans have been the major cause of anti-semitism since the roman era (being partially or indirectly involved in almost every single instance of persecution up to the 19th century), they have never been punished for it, and never attempted to repair the damages they caused. I think there's greater chances of forming a successful new state out of nothing in a place where there is a casus belli against the current holders of it, than where it is currently located. This is a struggle between two parties where both have (also from an outside objective point of view) very good reasons to kill the other party, and with both sides having very good reasons to refuse to ever give up. Such a conflict is both impossible to mediate in and impossible to end, no matter how much support is given to either or both parties. Choosing to support either is about as objective as choosing which football team to support in the leagues. Both sides aruge that the other is demonic because of their choice of weapons to fight with, rather than because of the moral substance of their actions, which is quite equal (or else, one side would eventually accept surrendering, as demonisation of an opponent stops working when you realize you are worse AND have suffered greatly - the latter has already happened, the former not). Not to mention that neither side can tolerate being economically weaker than the other after a peace treaty, since they can't trust each other after so many years of fighting, and thus have a very difficult chance of living peacefully next to each other forever, even if peace would come - a bad peace unacceptable to either side would be followed by new war. Neither side could trust a 3rd party neutral peace keeping force from the UN either, since all so-called neutral parties have always supported one side slightly more than the other. The borders are also hard to defend, the terrain favors offense and preemptive striking over defense, making war more likely if trust can not be established. The involvement of the rest of the world is also absurd - both sides get huge sums of money to keep creating more weapons to slaughter each other: a Nash equilibrium putting us back at the same result as if neither side was supported in relative measures, but with more weaponry and death on both sides in absolute measures. That little piece of dirty soil is not worth risking a world war over, not to mention how many neutrals and outside parties that have already been killed by both sides for saying "the wrong things", not to mention the civilians on both sides that die every week. Only way to end the conflict is to find another piece of land for either side, land which is acceptable to the one who receives it, and there's a good excuse to take it from the current holder. Would be nice to see anyone with sufficient power having the guts to do the right thing. As it is now, all who are involved in the conflict are put under too heavy stress to think clearly, and all serious neutral parties trying to mediate have been murdered because on both sides there are smaller militant organizations who don't want peace. Perhaps time to put up an ultimatum, or do as good old Solomon and the baby...