Not in order to argue with your thesis, but just to push back a little in a topical fashion. Here find linked the latest article by the editor of the Palestinian Chronicle, Ramzy Baroud entitled "Time for Israel to Pay: This is How to Prevent a New Nakba in Palestine" from which the closing paragraph:
Not in order to argue with your thesis, but just to push back a little in a topical fashion. Here find linked the latest article by the editor of the Palestinian Chronicle, Ramzy Baroud entitled "Time for Israel to Pay: This is How to Prevent a New Nakba in Palestine" from which the closing paragraph:
"The ‘Gaza Nakba’ must be rejected, not just by words, but through solid Arab and international action, to prevent Israel from taking advantage of the war to expel Palestinians out of their homeland, again. They must also work to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes, past and present, starting with the original Nakba of 1948."
I'm not saying he has provided an ideal solution, but reading his article just after yours made me think: 'sure, Aurelian is right that sometimes there is no solution to Problem X, but what if the problem is seen as Y instead of X?' In this case, what if the problem is seen as 'the ongoing blatant ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes' not 'how to resolve the conflict between the two peoples'? In the former case, solutions abound. None of them easy but all quite feasible. Whether they will be applied is another question but it doesn't mean that the problem is not resolvable only that there is insufficient resolution to do so.
Immediately, for example, international military forces could flood into Gaza and the West Bank and then impose a bilateral ceasefire. That is a bare minimum but at the least a ceasefire could be imposed following which a longer-term solution could be attempted but meanwhile an intervention can be effected by the world community, or the Middle Eastern States, to prevent an ongoing war crime.
It is a war crime. It must be stopped. This is simple. It is unequivocal. And there is a solution, at least to that aspect of the wider issue. Some might argue this is a partial, not a whole, solution, but when a partial solution can be done, better to do that than nothing at all making the perfect the enemy of the good. Moreover, providing that solution will change the parameters of the problem after which new solutions might be found that were not perceivable before the current incremental solution.
Not in order to argue with your thesis, but just to push back a little in a topical fashion. Here find linked the latest article by the editor of the Palestinian Chronicle, Ramzy Baroud entitled "Time for Israel to Pay: This is How to Prevent a New Nakba in Palestine" from which the closing paragraph:
"The ‘Gaza Nakba’ must be rejected, not just by words, but through solid Arab and international action, to prevent Israel from taking advantage of the war to expel Palestinians out of their homeland, again. They must also work to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes, past and present, starting with the original Nakba of 1948."
I'm not saying he has provided an ideal solution, but reading his article just after yours made me think: 'sure, Aurelian is right that sometimes there is no solution to Problem X, but what if the problem is seen as Y instead of X?' In this case, what if the problem is seen as 'the ongoing blatant ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes' not 'how to resolve the conflict between the two peoples'? In the former case, solutions abound. None of them easy but all quite feasible. Whether they will be applied is another question but it doesn't mean that the problem is not resolvable only that there is insufficient resolution to do so.
Immediately, for example, international military forces could flood into Gaza and the West Bank and then impose a bilateral ceasefire. That is a bare minimum but at the least a ceasefire could be imposed following which a longer-term solution could be attempted but meanwhile an intervention can be effected by the world community, or the Middle Eastern States, to prevent an ongoing war crime.
It is a war crime. It must be stopped. This is simple. It is unequivocal. And there is a solution, at least to that aspect of the wider issue. Some might argue this is a partial, not a whole, solution, but when a partial solution can be done, better to do that than nothing at all making the perfect the enemy of the good. Moreover, providing that solution will change the parameters of the problem after which new solutions might be found that were not perceivable before the current incremental solution.