While there are extremely poor families, villages and towns in the area there will be biased views and finger pointing.

At one time it was sufficient for the Arab farmers to have olive trees, date palms and a well. They could trade their products, grow sufficient for their needs and - to a great extent - survive and be content.

Then came the consumer revolution of the last 150 years, and when this caught up with the Middle East the farming / nomadic life was insufficient for people who wanted light at night, easy ways of cooking, faster transport, entertainment and all the other things that have improved out of all imagining in that time.

What may bring peace, but without which there will never be peace, is, quite simply, prosperity.

If, for instance, Saudi Arabia was to negotiate with all concerned parties (Jordan, Israel, Palestine - maybe Egypt) to construct a pipeline and loading facilities for oil / gas / refined products within the Gaza Strip (assuming there are adequate approaches and berthing available) then there may be a start to some prosperity. Downstream manufacturing in both Gaza and Israel would also help. Desalination and irrigation of the West Bank area may improve farming prospects. There must be much investment over the entire region and a raising of living standards. Peace will probably survive under such conditions, but who is willing to put in that initial, very heavy, investment?

No prosperity = no peace. Very simple statement, very true statement.

But arse-about-face. No peace. No prosperity, So long as investors fear that their investments may be subsumed by aggressive neighbours, they will stay out.

Until the Palestinians are offered a tool other than violence, they will use what they have,

SC

While there are extremely poor families, villages and towns in the area there will be biased views and finger pointing.

At one time it was sufficient for the Arab farmers to have olive trees, date palms and a well. They could trade their products, grow sufficient for their needs and - to a great extent - survive and be content.

Then came the consumer revolution of the last 150 years, and when this caught up with the Middle East the farming / nomadic life was insufficient for people who wanted light at night, easy ways of cooking, faster transport, entertainment and all the other things that have improved out of all imagining in that time.

What may bring peace, but without which there will never be peace, is, quite simply, prosperity.

If, for instance, Saudi Arabia was to negotiate with all concerned parties (Jordan, Israel, Palestine - maybe Egypt) to construct a pipeline and loading facilities for oil / gas / refined products within the Gaza Strip (assuming there are adequate approaches and berthing available) then there may be a start to some prosperity. Downstream manufacturing in both Gaza and Israel would also help. Desalination and irrigation of the West Bank area may improve farming prospects. There must be much investment over the entire region and a raising of living standards. Peace will probably survive under such conditions, but who is willing to put in that initial, very heavy, investment?

No prosperity = no peace. Very simple statement, very true statement.

But arse-about-face. No peace. No prosperity, So long as investors fear that their investments may be subsumed by aggressive neighbours, they will stay out.

Until the Palestinians are offered a tool other than violence, they will use what they have,

SC

It's the classic Staff College essay title:

"No Development without Security. No Security without Development." Using named examples from the last 30 years, assess the accuracy of this statement.

Where angels (and investors) fear to tread, you can bet your bottom $ that place will be underdeveloped economically and socially and a potential/actual security issue within itself and possibly to its neighbours.

While there are extremely poor families, villages and towns in the area there will be biased views and finger pointing.

At one time it was sufficient for the Arab farmers to have olive trees, date palms and a well. They could trade their products, grow sufficient for their needs and - to a great extent - survive and be content.

Then came the consumer revolution of the last 150 years, and when this caught up with the Middle East the farming / nomadic life was insufficient for people who wanted light at night, easy ways of cooking, faster transport, entertainment and all the other things that have improved out of all imagining in that time.

What may bring peace, but without which there will never be peace, is, quite simply, prosperity.

If, for instance, Saudi Arabia was to negotiate with all concerned parties (Jordan, Israel, Palestine - maybe Egypt) to construct a pipeline and loading facilities for oil / gas / refined products within the Gaza Strip (assuming there are adequate approaches and berthing available) then there may be a start to some prosperity. Downstream manufacturing in both Gaza and Israel would also help. Desalination and irrigation of the West Bank area may improve farming prospects. There must be much investment over the entire region and a raising of living standards. Peace will probably survive under such conditions, but who is willing to put in that initial, very heavy, investment?

No prosperity = no peace. Very simple statement, very true statement.

But arse-about-face. No peace. No prosperity, So long as investors fear that their investments may be subsumed by aggressive neighbours, they will stay out.

Until the Palestinians are offered a tool other than violence, they will use what they have,

SC

It's the classic Staff College essay title:

"No Development without Security. No Security without Development." Using named examples from the last 30 years, assess the accuracy of this statement.

Where angels (and investors) fear to tread, you can bet your bottom $ that place will be underdeveloped economically and socially and a potential/actual security issue within itself and possibly to its neighbours.

And constructively, there is the option of alternatives or genocide.

SC

Until the Palestinians are offered a tool other than violence, they will use what they have,

They have been offered a tool other than violence over and over again and long before 1948. They have always chosen war or terrorism instead. When free and fair elections were held, they chose a terrorist group sworn to the destruction of Israel to lead them. They are largely responsible for their own situation.

People will then say "they have already been brainwashed since they were kids to hate Israel". That is true to a degree, but simply being told "Israel is evil" isn't enough for a Palestinian youth to want to give his life to kill Israelis.

Baloney. Religious hatred was enough to start murdering civilians long before the founding of Isreal, when all the Jews wanted was to live on land that they had bought legally. The Arabs started the violence in the first place - long before there were any disputed settlements - and the Arabs have refused to make peace for over a century.

Its not baloney, its reality. The settlements are the no.1 obstacle to peace between both sides. I recognize the importance of historical context, but lets remember we are several generations past 1920-48, just as Thais have a terrible understanding of their country in the first half of this century, the Palestinian generation Israel is living next to now are also oblivious to the mistakes their forefathers made.

How can you claim to be serious about a two-state solution when every time "negotiations" start or something goes against Israels wishes, they expedite illegal settlement expansion?

So now we have actual talk going on, the first time in years, and AGAIN THE SETTLEMENTS....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23569537

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/04/us-palestinians-israel-settlements-idUSBRE97306V20130804

how much longer is the US going to let Israel spit in its face (remember the settlement acceleration after Obama specifically asked for scaling back 1.5 years ago?)

Sure the prisoner release was a nice gesture, but it is nothing but a footnote with this latest round of settlement expansion. Releasing prisoners means nothing vs. the importance of steps towards 2 states and the Israeli govt knows this, so it was an easy way to put on appearances ahead of the "Kerry negotiations".

Having worked for many years in the Middle East, , often with Palestinian engineers and managers within my group, there is one thing I can assure you of - that every Palestinian I have known has one blind spot - Israel. I tried to avoid the subject, but it always seemed to crop up sooner or later and the guy(s) I was talking with, maybe about something immediately important such as a shortage of pipe fittings, would go into some sort of robotic daze, spouting nonsense about Israel and completely forgetting about the subject under discussion. It is brainwashing. It is scary.

These guys I was working with are educated men. Most have spent many years in the US, UK or France / Germany studying at the best universities, working for top engineering firms. But this one subject flicks a switch that cuts off all reasoned thought and replaces it with slogans that are seen as the eternal truth.

Israel stole their land

Israel refuses to allow food to their families

Israel caused 9/11

Israel will steal the rest of their land

Israel killed their antecedents

Etcetera, etcetera

It is worse than Northern Ireland ever was, and for many in NI the slogans and hatred will never die. How do we expect the Israelis and Palestinians to solve their relationships?

Until the Palestinians are offered a tool other than violence, they will use what they have,

They have been offered a tool other than violence over and over again and long before 1948. They have always chosen war or terrorism instead. When free and fair elections were held, they chose a terrorist group sworn to the destruction of Israel to lead them. They are largely responsible for their own situation.

Yes, they have been offered an alternative, but it's not the one they wanted. Both sides wanted the holy sites in Jerusalem, and only one could have them. The consequence? The losers, the Palestinians, continue to be disgruntled.

Since 1948, every time an offer was made to the Palestinians, it was less than the previous one.... since 1967, the obstacle was always the settlements, and it always will be while Israel continues to cock a snook at the rest of the world.

Kblaze was quite right; the moment talks start, Israel starts helping (I think expanding) the settlements. The US is trying, as it so often has, to help, but its friends the Israelis are stabbing it in the back.

The number one problem is the Palestinians refusal to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state (even with 20 percent Arabs).

Of course for their state, if they ever get one, they demand a Jew free zone.

Who's worse? You know what I think.

Until the Palestinians are offered a tool other than violence, they will use what they have,

They have been offered a tool other than violence over and over again and long before 1948. They have always chosen war or terrorism instead. When free and fair elections were held, they chose a terrorist group sworn to the destruction of Israel to lead them. They are largely responsible for their own situation.

Yes, they have been offered an alternative, but it's not the one they wanted. Both sides wanted the holy sites in Jerusalem, and only one could have them.

That is not correct. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert extended a peace proposal to Abbas that would have created two nations. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn from almost the entire West Bank and partitioned Jerusalem on a demographic basis. Olmert agreed to forgo sovereignty of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaisms holiest site, and proposed that in the framework of a peace agreement, the area containing the religious sites in Jerusalem would be managed by a special committee consisting of representatives from five nations: Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, the United States and Israel. Olmert has already offered the Palestinians pretty much everything that they have been asking for and - once again - they said NO and did not even bother to make a counter offer.

Israel has dismantled numerous settlements in the past when exchanging land for peace. The settlements are just the latest excuse to refuse to sign a peace deal and start building their own country. The Palestinians are in the position that they are, because they are their own worst enemies.

What's all this talk of "Palestinians?" There is no such thing as a Palestinian people historically, and historically Palestine was a huge area that took in what is today many Middle Eastern countries.

They are Philistines and their history goes back thousands of years. They were nomadic wanderers which no country wanted, not even Arab Muslim countries, and those countries still don't want them or this problem would be solved.

After WWII and the problems for Jews in Germany and elsewhere, an international settlement body gave Israel the land that it occupies. Israel was both patient enough and stupid enough to let the Philistines occupy some of that territory.

The Philistines themselves adopted the name Palestinian to give themselves more legitimacy. The Philistines had never owned any land.

Now they continually harass Israel by firing rockets into Israel, setting off bombs in Israeli buses and what not. Why Israel doesn't just blow them off the map is beyond me.

What's all this talk of "Palestinians?" There is no such thing as a Palestinian people historically, and historically Palestine was a huge area that took in what is today many Middle Eastern countries.

They are Philistines and their history goes back thousands of years. They were nomadic wanderers which no country wanted, not even Arab Muslim countries, and those countries still don't want them or this problem would be solved.

After WWII and the problems for Jews in Germany and elsewhere, an international settlement body gave Israel the land that it occupies. Israel was both patient enough and stupid enough to let the Philistines occupy some of that territory.

The Philistines themselves adopted the name Palestinian to give themselves more legitimacy. The Philistines had never owned any land.

Now they continually harass Israel by firing rockets into Israel, setting off bombs in Israeli buses and what not. Why Israel doesn't just blow them off the map is beyond me.

Here is a perfect demonstration of why the 'Palestinian' problem will drag on and on and on....

"against the Jews as early as 1920 in Jerusalem"

That was nearly 100 years ago. How far back in history do you want to go to solve problems that are happening in 2013?

What's all this talk of "Palestinians?" There is no such thing as a Palestinian people historically

Of course, but these Arabs continue to refuse to make peace, no matter how fair the terms. That is the real problem NOW and it is self inflicted.

What's all this talk of "Palestinians?" There is no such thing as a Palestinian people historically

Of course, but these Arabs continue to refuse to make peace, no matter how fair the terms. That is the real problem NOW and it is self inflicted.

Very true. And the terrorist supporting countries who don't want these Philistine nomad refugees in their own land, are more than happy to supply them with arms and rockets and explosives to attack Israel as their surrogates.

There is no Palestine as it is called, and there are to true Palestinians. Palestine was an ancient and very large area and the name was hijacked by the Philistines in modern times much to the delight of terrorist supporting nations.

What's all this talk of "Palestinians?" There is no such thing as a Palestinian people historically, and historically Palestine was a huge area that took in what is today many Middle Eastern countries.

They are Philistines and their history goes back thousands of years. They were nomadic wanderers which no country wanted, not even Arab Muslim countries, and those countries still don't want them or this problem would be solved.

After WWII and the problems for Jews in Germany and elsewhere, an international settlement body gave Israel the land that it occupies. Israel was both patient enough and stupid enough to let the Philistines occupy some of that territory.

The Philistines themselves adopted the name Palestinian to give themselves more legitimacy. The Philistines had never owned any land.

Now they continually harass Israel by firing rockets into Israel, setting off bombs in Israeli buses and what not. Why Israel doesn't just blow them off the map is beyond me.

Here is a perfect demonstration of why the 'Palestinian' problem will drag on and on and on....

Do you mean because some nomadic wanderers who no one wants settled on Israel's land, and now fires rockets into Israel and blows up its buses filled with civilians?

Yeah, I'd say that will cause the problem to drag on and on.

Palestinians, Philistines.... you've got to call them something. I don't think the name really matters very much.

OK, UG, you knew better than I did about Olmert's offer. I suppose what it is is that the Palestinians feel themselves boxed into a corner, and they simply don't trust the Israelis.... who, in their turn, don't trust the Palestinians.

Going back into history? Doesn't the whole matter go back into history? Until 1948, there hadn't been a free Jewish state since the Roman empire.

Palestinians, Philistines.... you've got to call them something. I don't think the name really matters very much.

OK, UG, you knew better than I did about Olmert's offer. I suppose what it is is that the Palestinians feel themselves boxed into a corner, and they simply don't trust the Israelis.... who, in their turn, don't trust the Palestinians.

Going back into history? Doesn't the whole matter go back into history? Until 1948, there hadn't been a free Jewish state since the Roman empire.

They are only "boxed in a corner" because they are not sincere about making peace. They are "boxed in a corner" because they are being offered what they supposedly want, but they will not accept as all they really want to to push Israel into the sea. They have made their own bed and now all they do is whine about it. They are responsible for their own plight.

That Jewish State during the Roman Empire was called Palestine and they had their own language, their own capital and their own leaders - everything that was missing from the Philistines mythical state.

Palestinians, Philistines.... you've got to call them something. I don't think the name really matters very much.

OK, UG, you knew better than I did about Olmert's offer. I suppose what it is is that the Palestinians feel themselves boxed into a corner, and they simply don't trust the Israelis.... who, in their turn, don't trust the Palestinians.

Going back into history? Doesn't the whole matter go back into history? Until 1948, there hadn't been a free Jewish state since the Roman empire.

They are only "boxed in a corner" because they are not sincere about making peace. They are "boxed in a corner" because they are being offered what they supposedly want, but they will not accept as all they really want to to push Israel into the sea. They have made their own bed and now all they do is whine about it. They are responsible for their own plight.

That Jewish State during the Roman Empire was called Palestine and they had their own language, their own capital and their own leaders - everything that was missing from the Philistines mythical state.

I for one wish the US had never got involved with Israel's bid for statehood.

The US' relations with Arab nations pre-WW2 were considered "neutral", with ups and downs. But it seems to be agreed upon that the US was viewed in a much better light compared vs. the Europeans after the latter brought down the Ottomans.

Can we agree that the real hate of America began with its sponsoring of Israel statehood?

What does the US get from its "protector of Israel" status? Is it worth having an entire region hate them?

What if the US had never got involved with Israel and its relations remained "neutral"?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial economically, militarily, etc, to be on better terms with the rest of the middle east at the expense of not being butt-buddies with Israel?

The US bends over backwards for Israel; what does Israel do for the US?

33 countries voted for Israel to become a state, including the Soviet Union. The main reason that some have turned on them now is Arab oil. The US did not start "protecting" Israel until they had won three major wars on their own and proved themselves to be a valuable ally in a region where no one else could be trusted.

Thanks to technology, soon the USA and Israel will have more usable oil than Israel's enemies and that will end OPEC's power. They will be just a bunch of backwards countries with one successful, Western-style democracy in their midst.

There is no Palestine as it is called, and there are to true Palestinians. Palestine was an ancient and very large area and the name was hijacked by the Philistines in modern times much to the delight of terrorist supporting nations.

if i'm not mistaken there were certain nomads running for 40 years in circles in a desert till the LORD himself issued a title deed and told them to steal all the "promised" land and kick out those who lived there:

Genesis 15:18-21

"On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram (Abraham) and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the the great river, the Euphrates.."

Exodus 23:31 - And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.

Having worked for many years in the Middle East, , often with Palestinian engineers and managers within my group, there is one thing I can assure you of - that every Palestinian I have known has one blind spot - Israel. I tried to avoid the subject, but it always seemed to crop up sooner or later and the guy(s) I was talking with, maybe about something immediately important such as a shortage of pipe fittings, would go into some sort of robotic daze, spouting nonsense about Israel and completely forgetting about the subject under discussion. It is brainwashing. It is scary.

These guys I was working with are educated men. Most have spent many years in the US, UK or France / Germany studying at the best universities, working for top engineering firms. But this one subject flicks a switch that cuts off all reasoned thought and replaces it with slogans that are seen as the eternal truth.

Israel stole their land

Israel refuses to allow food to their families

Israel caused 9/11

Israel will steal the rest of their land

Israel killed their antecedents

Etcetera, etcetera

It is worse than Northern Ireland ever was, and for many in NI the slogans and hatred will never die. How do we expect the Israelis and Palestinians to solve their relationships?

It's not just the Palestinians, the Egyptians are just as bad, remember the shark that attacked a tourist next to an Egyptian resort was blamed on Israel using electronics to remote control the shark in order to sabotage the Egyptian tourist industry? It is not surprising that all the arab nations have similar views as they all share a common ideology, which has antisemitism at the core of it's operating system. The obsession on settlements is a device to appeal to western liberals in a manner they might comprehend, or at least support more than the not so hidden agenda to annihilate Israel.

Yeah, but if there is any chance at peace Israel is going to have to close SOME settlements. I think they could potentially do that but not for nothing.

Yeah, but if there is any chance at peace Israel is going to have to close SOME settlements. I think they could potentially do that but not for nothing.

Israel has good record on closing settlements in an exchange of land for peace. Israel evacuated its settlers from 18 Sinai settlements and all 21 settlements in Gaza and four in the West Bank. Most of these settlements had existed since the early 1980s, some were over 30 years old. The hoo-hah over settlements is just another lame excuse for the Palestinians to refuse to negotiate for a cessation of hostilities and their homeland in good faith.

Well, I for one think the Palestinians have LEGITIMATE grievances. But so do the Israelis. Honestly, yes I'm obviously biased more towards Israel, but I think the Palestinian grievances rate as more severe. However that's balanced out in my mind considering the Palestinians are overall more racist than the Israelis. What they teach to their children is MUCH more disgusting. Their no Jews at all in our Palestine meme makes me sick!

There is no Palestine as it is called, and there are to true Palestinians. Palestine was an ancient and very large area and the name was hijacked by the Philistines in modern times much to the delight of terrorist supporting nations.

if i'm not mistaken there were certain nomads running for 40 years in circles in a desert till the LORD himself issued a title deed and told them to steal all the "promised" land and kick out those who lived there:

Genesis 15:18-21

"On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram (Abraham) and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the the great river, the Euphrates.."

Exodus 23:31 - And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.

Read the Book of Joshua, Naam, and you'll find that the Jewish takeover was nothing short of divinely-inspired genocide. They didn't so much drive the inhabitants out as slay them in multitudes.... and boasted about it.

This should have nothing whatsoever to do with the modern Israeli/Palestinian divide. Of course both sides have grievances.... my admiration goes to the Israelis for all they have done to create a modern state with not very much to build on; my sympathy goes to the rather less efficient local Arabs (and Philistines and whatever) for having a highly efficient state planted on their doorstep. They'd got on perfectly well with the Jews living there over the past centuries, but to have millions of them suddenly plonked in their midst was too much. The whole ongoing dispute stems from that.

Well, I for one think the Palestinians have LEGITIMATE grievances. But so do the Israelis. Honestly, yes I'm obviously biased more towards Israel, but I think the Palestinian grievances rate as more severe. However that's balanced out in my mind considering the Palestinians are overall more racist than the Israelis. What they teach to their children is MUCH more disgusting. Their no Jews at all in our Palestine meme makes me sick!

I am neither pro- nor anti- either side, just in common with many from my previous career, pro-peace, having seen what the alternative actually looks and feels like.

To achieve success it requires a genuine desire for peace by both sides, the willingness to compromise on objectives, and the requirement to hold one's breath and deal with people many would regard as murdering vermin. Both sides will have objectors and active attempts to prevent a settlement.

This has come to pass in N. Ireland after almost a 1000 years of hostilities ( which continue today albeit on a mercifully low level, and will probably be a feature for another generation).

The only Jews who could HONESTLY say they don't have some bias towards Israel are anti-Zionist Jews and as the vast majority of Jews support the existence of Israel as a state homeland for the Jewish PEOPLE, that means not very many.

if i'm not mistaken there were certain nomads running for 40 years in circles in a desert till the LORD himself issued a title deed and told them to steal all the "promised" land and kick out those who lived there:

Genesis 15:18-21

"On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram (Abraham) and said, "To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the the great river, the Euphrates.."

Exodus 23:31 - And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee.

Read the Book of Joshua, Naam, and you'll find that the Jewish takeover was nothing short of divinely-inspired genocide. They didn't so much drive the inhabitants out as slay them in multitudes.... and boasted about it.

This should have nothing whatsoever to do with the modern Israeli/Palestinian divide. Of course both sides have grievances.... my admiration goes to the Israelis for all they have done to create a modern state with not very much to build on; my sympathy goes to the rather less efficient local Arabs (and Philistines and whatever) for having a highly efficient state planted on their doorstep. They'd got on perfectly well with the Jews living there over the past centuries, but to have millions of them suddenly plonked in their midst was too much. The whole ongoing dispute stems from that.

Read the Book of Joshua, Naam, and you'll find that the Jewish takeover was nothing short of divinely-inspired genocide. They didn't so much drive the inhabitants out as slay them in multitudes.... and boasted about it.

what makes you think that my knowledge does not extend that far IB?

I'm sure it does, Naam.... but I'm equally sure that doesn't apply to all posters on this thread.

They'd got on perfectly well with the Jews living there over the past centuries, but to have millions of them suddenly plonked in their midst was too much. The whole ongoing dispute stems from that.

Actually, Arabs started attacking the Jews well before Hitler, World War 2 or mass immigration. They were resentful because the Jews could afford to buy land. When large numbers did arrive, it just became easier to fight back.