We all know the Middle East, the conflict has been on for quite some time but one question remains: Will there ever be peace in the Middle East which would not involve bloodshed?

£10 says most of the posters here don't even know why their fighting or how much area "The Middle East" consists of.

Isn't some of the violence in the Middle East area a result from the Jewish annexation of Israel after World War II and the Holocaust?

On the thought of peace, probably not. As long as the USA supports Israel with weapons and such one really can't see an end to the long violence between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East.

I just want to ask for some clarification; how would there be "an end to the long violence" if the USA stopped supporting Israel? 'Cause unless you mean that they'd rush in and kill every living Jew in Israel (Assuming that they somehow can't defend themselves, which is utter bullshit, but bear with me), I really don't see it.

i happen to live in the UAE (united arab emirates)
its situated to the east of saudi arabia, below iran. type UAE or Dubai in google and you see what sort of place it is.

Military tactics arent going to work in the long run , so it doesnt matter if the US supplies isreal with weapons (though i dont see how apache helicopters and armored tanks can be weapons of defence against an unseen, contantly moving enemy)

the real problem is the US's total political surport for isreal which can surport itself quite well. But now that hamas is a political force, we might see more politics rather than violence (though the fatah regime is still being a sore election loser, and a violent one too). Well if hamas realises this, if they dont or things go really stale we should consider the fact that hamas's militia is now the official Palestine army.

The movements by isreal out of ahem "occupied areas" of palestine is a positive step. A small one but at least its better than a bloodshed ridden stalemate common to land disputes (india and pakistan have been fighting over Kashmir for nearly 70 years and have had 2 full fledged wars; though the kashmiris are the ones realy suffering, being between the indian and pakistan line of fire [quite literally most of the time])

Things show a chance of improving but everything could just go to shit very easily.

on a seperate note, WHAT THE HELL IS CHIRAC THINKING!!! NUCLEAR BOMB ANY COUNTRY WHICH ATTEMPTS TO USE TERRORISM AGAINST IT!!
TERRORISM IS FIXED ACCORDING TO COUNTRIES!! IT SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE PLANET like seeds...the "group" is figurative, you wont find an entire terrorist group in one location or terroritory!! Say if Chirac thought Iran was using terrorism on france and he bombed Iran, only a small % of terrorists would be extinguished, while millions of civilians (from all over the world) would be blown into molecules and the inevitable radiation would reach into the country iam living in and eventaually blow over into europe just as it did with chernobel ( the radiation released from that disaster covered the entirety of western europe in 4 days!)

blowing off some...A LOT OF steam, excuse me

Wasn't really referring to the end of the violence as a whole. If all violence would cease because of the USA pulling out and the Jews somehow being miraculously slaughtered like lambs, then that'd be something else. One does not support the weapons being given to Israel simply because when you look at it from the standpoint of the Muslims, the Jews kind of annexed a major chunk of a country.

Nothing against Jews personally, just a believer of George Washington's precedent of "Isolationism".

I'll see your tenner and raise by £30.
Why?
One of my mates, a university graduate, got asked a similar question like this. His answer, 'Dunno, didn't they sort something out in Bosnia around there a while back?'. It was all I could not to slap him.
Anyways, I severly doubt any peaceful resolution will be reached. I don't have a shedload of reasons to back that up, it's just what I think.

Both the palestinians and Isrealis have a completely real claim over what happens to be the same land

and what that happens blood gets gets spilled in explonential amounts over time
read history its full of the stuff (land disputes and such)

I just giggled until I pissed. Thanks.

Assuming Hamas actually legitimizes itself, I still don't see them talking to the Israelis.

I pissed again! Jewish annexation! Oh how I giggle.

The U.N. handed over ANZAC (British territory) for displaced Jews to have a sovereign nation at the end of WWII. Why exactly it seemed like a good idea to dump the Jews in the middle of about a dozen nations that hate their guts is beyond me. Dividing the land between the Arabs and Jews certainly did a lot of good.

In short, no, I don't see an end to hostilities in the middle east unless one party kills the other or itself off.

its the people not the parties

bill. hamas's leader has won the election, so technically Hamas has already legitimized and are talking with the isrealis

where do you get your news?

o ya and what the british didnt know (or didnt care)

was that people were already living on that land for a hell of a long time

Because that worked so SPLENDIDLY after the first World War.

Sorry bo, but Washington is a couple of hundred years dead and his opinion on our involvement in European politics those couple of hundred years ago is hardly a defendable reason for a change in modern foriegn policy.

If the Beeb is anything to believed, they stated they would not deal with Israel because they don't recognize it as a state. Or want to annihilate it. Either or, same difference in the end though.

Meh, just terraform Mars and offer both sides it. Sounds moronic? So does the idea that the two sides will reach a happy peace without wiping out their opposite numbers in a bloody war.

I'd like to give some intelligent input into this whole question, but I'm afraid I can't, really. I am not even aware of how all of this begun. I know that the U.N selected a piece of land to become the state of Israel to... well, I don't even know what they gave it to. The jewish religious community? A council of jewish political leaders? And then, this is me going off into unknown waters, there were already people inhabiting that area, which did not appreciate being shoved aside? A little historical clarification, if someone would please?

remember all those pieces of paper bill gates said fits into a single cd?

well you'll need just about that many cd's to explain all these problems in

sorry iam not touching this post again, i read and see enough of this in the newspapers and news everyday (everyday being since i begun to have cognitive thought)

Well it time to put my opinion since i started this:

Personally i don't see any peace happening, as long as anti-jewish people and anti-arab people are around there is never going to be peace. The problem is Isreal is getting USA Backing which really increased the resentment of the West by the Arabs (might be possible the resentment eventually made Osama Bin Laden's 'heroes' to bomb the Twin Towers due to this resentment?). The thing is the part where Isreal was ACTUALLY belonged to the palastines untill the U.N decided it be quite danady to dump Jewish people there.....yeah real smart. But what the Jewish people did was even more 'smart', how did they repay the U.N for giving them a country? They rebeled against the troops that were guarding Isreal....*sigh*.


Note: Some facts may be wrong and i won't mind people correcting me. I did not research this and just thought it off by my head.

Sooo... if you didn't do the actual research... what are you going off of, there? Hearsay? Rumors? I think I'll ignore you now. Kindly don't set forward information as if it were fact when you admittedly don't have a damn clue about whether it's truthful or not and can't be bothered to check.

Can we get the opinion of someone who's actually, yannow, CHECKED this shit out?

*deleted it* Because i bet i get flamed for it someway or another.