Mycroft’s thread on finding out what we agree on gave me an idea. Perhaps we should find out what the consensus is on other issues. I have a silly hope that finding some points of agreement will lesson the venom in future threads.
I will attempt to tackle the most contentious area – the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Here are the things we agree on:
1) With the current attitude of the inhabitants of the area, the best short term solution is a two state solution. Some of us might prefer a single state but because of the current hostility this is not possible. The borders are not obvious.
2) Aiming attacks at civilians is wrong.
3) Israel should not build any more settlements.
4) As part of a two state solution most (all?) of the far flung settlements will be given to the Palestinians.
5) The leaders of both groups should publicly commit themselves to a peaceful, two-state solution.
6) The leaders of both groups should publicly denounce the racism that some of their people have.
7) The governments of both groups should not in anyway (especially via the media) promote racism or hatred.
8) The governments of both groups should condemn attacks aimed at civilians.
9) The security wall that Israel has built is partly a method to prevent terrorism, partly a message/punishment to Palestinian. The ratio of the two is clearly disputable.
10) The Palestinian Authority under Arafat was corrupt.
11) Both Palestinian and Israeli police/soldiers have made inappropriate attacks on the other side. It is contentious whether the had the support of the government and whether the government have acted appropriately in the aftermath.
Contentious Issues:
1) Borders of the two states.
2) Is attacking soldiers/police/militants/terrorists acceptable?
3) Is attacking soldier/militants/ terrorists/strategic target acceptable if there is likely to be civilian casualties?
4) Is assassinating leaders who have committed (or aided) criminal acts acceptable?
5) Are Abbas or Sharon committed to a real two-state solution?
6) Is Abbas corrupt?
7) Is Abbas capable of controlling the Palestinians?
8) Are the Palestinians as a whole committed enough to a two-state solution to make it a possibily?
9) Are the Israelis as a whole committed enough to a two-state solution to make it a possibily?
10) Does it make sense to try to engage groups that are currently terroristic in nature (e.g. Hamas) or this hopeless?
11) Are all the members here committed to their stated claims? In particular, are there some pro-Palestians/pro-Israeli people who are closet bigots?
12) Has the Palestinian authority ever been complicit in terrorism? Has this changed under Abbas?
13) Is it acceptable for Israel to expand some of the current settlements?
14) Because suicide murderers are dead, they cannot be punished in typical legal methods. Is there some atypical form of punishment that would be appropriate?
I am sure that I have missed some of issues of agreement and contention but it is a start.
CBL
I will attempt to tackle the most contentious area – the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Here are the things we agree on:
1) With the current attitude of the inhabitants of the area, the best short term solution is a two state solution. Some of us might prefer a single state but because of the current hostility this is not possible. The borders are not obvious.
2) Aiming attacks at civilians is wrong.
3) Israel should not build any more settlements.
4) As part of a two state solution most (all?) of the far flung settlements will be given to the Palestinians.
5) The leaders of both groups should publicly commit themselves to a peaceful, two-state solution.
6) The leaders of both groups should publicly denounce the racism that some of their people have.
7) The governments of both groups should not in anyway (especially via the media) promote racism or hatred.
8) The governments of both groups should condemn attacks aimed at civilians.
9) The security wall that Israel has built is partly a method to prevent terrorism, partly a message/punishment to Palestinian. The ratio of the two is clearly disputable.
10) The Palestinian Authority under Arafat was corrupt.
11) Both Palestinian and Israeli police/soldiers have made inappropriate attacks on the other side. It is contentious whether the had the support of the government and whether the government have acted appropriately in the aftermath.
Contentious Issues:
1) Borders of the two states.
2) Is attacking soldiers/police/militants/terrorists acceptable?
3) Is attacking soldier/militants/ terrorists/strategic target acceptable if there is likely to be civilian casualties?
4) Is assassinating leaders who have committed (or aided) criminal acts acceptable?
5) Are Abbas or Sharon committed to a real two-state solution?
6) Is Abbas corrupt?
7) Is Abbas capable of controlling the Palestinians?
8) Are the Palestinians as a whole committed enough to a two-state solution to make it a possibily?
9) Are the Israelis as a whole committed enough to a two-state solution to make it a possibily?
10) Does it make sense to try to engage groups that are currently terroristic in nature (e.g. Hamas) or this hopeless?
11) Are all the members here committed to their stated claims? In particular, are there some pro-Palestians/pro-Israeli people who are closet bigots?
12) Has the Palestinian authority ever been complicit in terrorism? Has this changed under Abbas?
13) Is it acceptable for Israel to expand some of the current settlements?
14) Because suicide murderers are dead, they cannot be punished in typical legal methods. Is there some atypical form of punishment that would be appropriate?
I am sure that I have missed some of issues of agreement and contention but it is a start.
CBL
