Why I believe third party binding Arabitration is needed to break the Mid-east issues

[Lemon law]

I reference an very good link found in the NYT, on the 16 years of progress of lack of it after 16 plus years of negotiations between Israel and Palestinoan people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/world/middleeast/15jerusalem.html?ref=middleeast

The whole point is that peace negotiations are going on in two parallel lines that by definition will never meet. But at least the NYT article mentions, the water issues that are seldom mentioned and the amount of disputed land Israel will retain if it basically returns to 1967 borders. And we all have to wonder why Israel should be ceded control of the Eastern Jordon River valley, which would, IMHO, give Israel the ability to strangle any Palestinian economy.

In terms of Israeli security, the hope in any peace deal would be that violence and hatreds would gradually vanish, even though security guarantees for either side are impossible to guaranty.

But the forty some year track record proves both sides can't come to an agreement, and that is why issues like borders, security, water rights, and similar issues must be imposed on both sides with a deadline certain.

Rather than wait forever for both sides, to keep haggling forever.

 

[glenn1]

Binding arbitration? How exactly do you enforce this with a sovereign nation and a terrorist organization struggling to take on the role of a legitimate government?

I'm amused by the infinite naivete of progressives who think that all men are fundamentally rational and conflict adverse, and that agreement could always be reached if only the liberal was there to lead them to an enlightened state.

 

[Throckmorton]

Binding arbitration? How do you enforce any bounds on Israel without being called an anti-semite?

And even if you were OK with that, what do you do? Send in troops? You can do that to Palestinians but you'll never do it to Israel

 

[JEDIYoda]

Binding arbitration? How do you enforce any bounds on Israel without being called an anti-semite?

And even if you were OK with that, what do you do? Send in troops? You can do that to Palestinians but you'll never do it to Israel

Actually you opened your mouth and inserted your foot!!!

Notice I didn`t call you an idiot??

The problem with lemon laws idea and profound wish is if Israel agreed they would keep their word!!

But how do you reign in the likes of Hamas....Fatah.....and who knows what other groups are out their that don`t give a rats ass about the palestinian people!!

Hell they Palestinians don`t give a rats ass about their own plight.
They are their own worsr enema!!

 

[Throckmorton]

Actually you opened your mouth and inserted your foot!!!

Notice I didn`t call you an idiot??

The problem with lemon laws idea and profound wish is if israel agreed they would keep their word!!

But how do you reign in the likes of Hamas....Fatah.....and who knows what other groups are out their that don`t give a rats ass about the palestinian people!!

Hell they palestinians don`t give a rats ass about their own plight.
They are their own worsr enema!!

You can reign in Hamas by killing them, no problem there

 

[Lemon law]

With Binding arbitration to settle the major issue roadblocks, it becomes possible do three basic things.

1. With a settlement agreement mainly fleshed out, both sides can go on and make various compromises to make the deal more acceptable to both sides.

2. Submit the settlement to both Israel and the Palestinian people as a popular vote referendum.

3. With the will of the international behind such a non-negotiable settlement, let both sides know, that either sides voting down the settlement may start facing economic embargoes or other international pressure. In terms of Hamas, those in Gaza get to vote, but its part of the non negotiable deal that the unified Palestinian people recognize the Israeli right to exist. Failing that, Hamas can't be any part of the future Palestinian government.

 

[piasabird]

You cant force a person with a gun to do anything that they dont want to do.

The Romans thought that a person or a group of people that were willing to die for what they believe in to be more dangerous than anything else.

The Jews completely wiped out two legions of Rome after the Death of Christ. Of course then then Romans came back turned the Jordan into a river a blood for revenge. The Romans gave up, but the Jews did not. Dont expect the people of Israel to give up.

Reagan knew that peace comes through strength. The problem is you may have to be willing to do things that may not be popular to achieve it. Isreal had a big war with arafat then because it was a Jewish custom they let them go free after the war. Ask yourself; if the tables had been turned would Arafat had let all the Jews go free?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lemon Law. I'm going to subject you to binding arbitration.

Did that work?

There is no such thing as binding arbitration and no one wants that can of worms opened. That is a surrender of sovereignty and no nation is going to accept that unless you mean at the point of a gun, and even then no one is going to want that to happen to them.

What we really need is for everyone to buy each other a coke and furnish their nations with love. Cheaper and just as likely.

 

[Zebo]

lol what a fool. Might makes right - always has always will. Iran and other need to give Palestinians some nukes if you want concessions or alternatively like you're always dreaming about everyone blockades Israeli.

 

[glenn1]

With Binding arbitration to settle the major issue roadblocks, it becomes possible do three basic things.

1. With a settlement agreement mainly fleshed out, both sides can go on and make various compromises to make the deal more acceptable to both sides.

2. Submit the settlement to both Israel and the Palestinian people as a popular vote referendum.

3. With the will of the international behind such a non-negotiable settlement, let both sides know, that either sides voting down the settlement may start facing economic embargoes or other international pressure. In terms of Hamas, those in Gaza get to vote, but its part of the non negotiable deal that the unified Palestinian people recognize the Israeli right to exist. Failing that, Hamas can't be any part of the future Palestinian government.

This sounds like the underpants gnome joke but with "solve Palestine issue" being the punchline instead of "profit".

 

[nageov3t]

who is in a position of enough authority that they can negotiate on behalf of Palestine and clamp down on the factions that will not be satisfied until Israel is wiped off the map?

 

[Lemon law]

Lemon Law. I'm going to subject you to binding arbitration.

Did that work?

There is no such thing as binding arbitration and no one wants that can of worms opened. That is a surrender of sovereignty and no nation is going to accept that unless you mean at the point of a gun, and even then no one is going to want that to happen to them.

What we really need is for everyone to buy each other a coke and furnish their nations with love. Cheaper and just as likely.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there is such a thing as binding arbitration, its why every country has a court system to fairly resolve the issues between individuals that cannot agree.

All binding arbitration does is to extend that simple court concept to disputes among countries.

 

[Kanalua]

Do you also believe that there is such a thing as binding international law?

 

[ModestGamer]

these people have generational memorys. that will not soon forget. Eventually they will just out populate the Isreali's and kick them back off the land. they have done it several times before.

I reference an very good link found in the NYT, on the 16 years of progress of lack of it after 16 plus years of negotiations between Israel and Palestinoan people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/world/middleeast/15jerusalem.html?ref=middleeast

The whole point is that peace negotiations are going on in two parallel lines that by definition will never meet. But at least the NYT article mentions, the water issues that are seldom mentioned and the amount of disputed land Israel will retain if it basically returns to 1967 borders. And we all have to wonder why Israel should be ceded control of the Eastern Jordon River valley, which would, IMHO, give Israel the ability to strangle any Palestinian economy.

In terms of Israeli security, the hope in any peace deal would be that violence and hatreds would gradually vanish, even though security guarantees for either side are impossible to guaranty.

But the forty some year track record proves both sides can't come to an agreement, and that is why issues like borders, security, water rights, and similar issues must be imposed on both sides with a deadline certain.

Rather than wait forever for both sides, to keep haggling forever.

 

[Greenman]

When dealing with Nations, the only binding arbitration is pounding them into submission, or the very real threat of doing it. Anything else is wishful thinking, and somewhat foolish wishful thinking at that.

All government is based on the threat of force, you can add layers of courts and "guaranteed" protections, but when push comes to shove, it always boils down to rough men with guns kicking your door down. It's the same on the national level, you can't enforce anything if you don't have the firepower to back it up.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

these people have generational memorys. that will not soon forget. Eventually they will just out populate the Isreali's and kick them back off the land. they have done it several times before.

Various Arab nations have already tried it multiple times and failed. Besides, the Palestinians can't even get along amongst themselves. How many of their own has Hamas killed since they came into power?

As far as binding arbitration, the OP seems to want to disregard that both sides must first agree that any arbitration will be binding in the first place. Neither side is going to agree to anything of the sort.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there is such a thing as binding arbitration, its why every country has a court system to fairly resolve the issues between individuals that cannot agree.

All binding arbitration does is to extend that simple court concept to disputes among countries.

Not in the context of nations. What supernational organization would have the power to force this? Not the UN, it hasn't the authority (read might) to make it so.

That simple court concept has no meaning internationally unless you are suggesting some country act unilaterally and declare violent action if they do not. Again the UN needn't apply. No one will surrender their sovereignty and if you think the US will surrender it's rights to such a body, effectively putting the Constitution in second place, you have quite a disappointment.

No one will set this precedent which one day may come back to haunt them. The only possible way is if nations surrender their rights and submit to a one world government. I don't see that happening soon.

 

[joebloggs10]

"I agree to submit to binding arbitration."

"What, I lost?"

"I guess I'll just go back to blowing you the fuck up now."

 

[Genx87]

You can reign in Hamas by killing them, no problem there

Sure you can, just ask Israel /rolleyes

 

[Genx87]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there is such a thing as binding arbitration, its why every country has a court system to fairly resolve the issues between individuals that cannot agree.

All binding arbitration does is to extend that simple court concept to disputes among countries.

The court systems have the force of govt behind them to enforce arbitration. How do you force arbitration between Israel and Hamas? You willing to plop thousands of US marines on the ground?

 

[MJinZ]

Binding arbitration? How exactly do you enforce this with a sovereign nation and a terrorist organization struggling to take on the role of a legitimate government?

I'm amused by the infinite naivete of progressives who think that all men are fundamentally rational and conflict adverse, and that agreement could always be reached if only the liberal was there to lead them to an enlightened state.

I'm a progressive and liberal, and actually I *know* that most men are fundamentally irrational and love conflict. See religion and wars.

 

[JEDIYoda]

lol what a fool. Might makes right - always has always will. Iran and other need to give Palestinians some nukes if you want concessions or alternatively like you're always dreaming about everyone blockades Israeli.

hahaha your the fool...........
Who do you give the nukes to??
Hamas...Fatah...who??

spit it out youi idiot....who in the hell do you give the nukes too.......

 

[ModestGamer]

Various Arab nations have already tried it multiple times and failed. Besides, the Palestinians can't even get along amongst themselves. How many of their own has Hamas killed since they came into power?

As far as binding arbitration, the OP seems to want to disregard that both sides must first agree that any arbitration will be binding in the first place. Neither side is going to agree to anything of the sort.

Really ? which time ? when they controlled the region from say 0 AD to the 1930's.

that period of time ?

 

[ModestGamer]

No and yes. but most men fight over resources and power. so they can get the pussy.

why humans are obliveous to there own base motivations is astounding.

I'm a progressive and liberal, and actually I *know* that most men are fundamentally irrational and love conflict. See religion and wars.

 

[MotF Bane]

Utter lunacy. Binding "Arabitration" will do nothing.