TED Conversations

Uri Katz
  • Uri Katz
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • United States

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How do we make peace between Israel and Palestine?

Lets take it for granted that both sides are to blame in this conflict, and neither is going to disappear off the face of the earth any time soon.
Answers like "make love not war" would without a doubt work, but I am hoping for a little more substance.
If, like me, you think peace is only achievable in a distant future, but we have to begin working on it now, that is something I would like to hear, especially what we should be doing now.
If you know of a faster track to peace, all the better.

Related Talks:
+3
Share:

Closing Statement from Uri Katz

I would like to personally thank all the participants in this conversation.
I think we all recognized the immense difficulty this problem poses. At the same time, most people acknowledged that there is plenty that can be done, not all hope is lost.
Here are a few answers I collected. This is not a summary, only a list of the suggestions I think have the greatest potential to lead to peace. Each stands on it own, but together they have the most power. If we start implementing these ideas, sooner or later the reality in the region will change and a more direct path to peace will become apparent:

1. Instead of broadcasting yet another suicide bomber, give peace a chance by trumpeting every peaceful attempt by both sides.

2. Deflate the issue so that people see it not as cultural & religious issue, but as a localized dispute over resources and land. Then we can ask what a just division of these would be.

3. Recruit moderate religious leader.

4. Understand the other side as best as possible. How are they different? How we are they similar? Make sure your education is fact based and not propaganda.

5. Teach and practice forgiveness, which is key to all true conflict resolution
Also practice: Tolerance, Compassion, Acceptance, Appreciation

6. Remove all hate, and all us-them mentality, from school syllabuses.

7. Both side need to stop looking at themselves as victims. They are not victims of each other or of the larger world. They should take responsibility for their lives and actions.

8. The blame game does not help.

9. Historical arguments are usually used to advance one sided justification for violence and war, as such they are ineffective in the struggle toward peace.

10. Create joint projects such as competitive sporting events.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • 0
    Feb 5 2013: Muslims and Jews got along quite well together for 1,400 years! Imagine that. One Thousand, four-hundred YEARS. But in one really STUPID decision by England, all that changed.

    That one STUPID decision, with the help of the USA, has led to a global fiscal paradigm that is sustained by war. (We live in a war-based economy).

    That's why the US, which is the economic leader, supports both sides of the ongoing conflict as well as the ancillary conflicts that stem from that tragedy. Conflict is VERY profitable for the military-industrial complex - not to mention the politicians who support it.

    As I see it, there are only three things that could end the problem.

    1) Let the economy fail. It's unsustainable anyhow.
    2) Let the science (that pretty-much disproves the possibility of the existence of the definition of god as understood today - also called "God" or the God of Abraham) be propagated and taught in schools at all age levels.
    3) Withdraw support from all sides. Let the wars begin. Let the survivors establish a different social paradigm that is more sane.

    Of course, the globe could put troops along the Green Line and allow no one to cross that line until a working peace is established, but this would only be a temporary fix for as long as war is so profitable for the few at the expense of the many.
    • thumb

      Uri Katz

      • 0
      Feb 5 2013: I will reply to your points:

      3) The history of Europe is one in which bloodshed reached the limit that humanity can tolerate, and then they made peace and eventually unionized. It seems unfathomable today that England ever invaded France or Germany bombed London.
      However, I do not want more bloodshed. For one thing my family might get wiped out.
      I want to promote a peaceful solution to the conflict. Then, if war wages, run and hide to be honest.

      2) 100% agree. We also need to stop teaching hate at school (which both sides are guilty of), and stop the history lessons from being entirely one sided.

      1) Failing economies usually lead to more war - they go out with a bang rather than a whimper. I think the US economy as a whole suffers from war, even if a few individuals profit. I do not understand this issue enough to comment further.

      • Gordon Barker 10+

        • 0
        Feb 5 2013: On point number two, if I can quote from the web site "BeliefNet" (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/End-Times/On-The-Road-To-Armageddon.aspx#)

        While only 36 percent of all Americans believe that the Bible is God's Word and should be taken literally, 59 percent say they believe that events predicted in the Book of Revelation will come to pass. Almost one out of four Americans believes that 9/11 was predicted in the Bible, and nearly one in five believes that he or she will live long enough to see the end of the world. Even more significant for this study, over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return.

        Never underestimate the power of millions of wing-nuts to fan the flames of intolerance and war

      • shawn disney 10+

        • 0
        Feb 11 2013: Uri I'm afraid that I no longer share your optimism that humanity had reached its limit of toleration of warfare after WW2 . If that were really true, the UN would be more than a Sham organization, and would have outlawed Murder, by anyone, anywhere. Presidents. not excluded. What I see in reality is that the International situation is much like it was in 1914. International Law" is nothing more than treaties., with occasional Vigilante Gangs occurring for restricted whimsical interventions by Big Powers for dubious reasons, and usually bad outcomes.
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • 0
      TED Translator
      Feb 5 2013: you keep mentioning the term "war based economy", but to date, you have never elaborated or explained what would that mean. it sounds like a buzz word, and emotionally conceived phrase that does not actually mean anything. the word "based" implies it is moved by, driven by, requires that thing. however, war is not a source of production, it is a consumer. war destroys value, does not create. so we can not base an economy on war. it is quite the opposite, one needs a strong economy to support war. war is based on economy, and not the other way around.
      • thumb

        peter lindsay 30+

        • +1
        Feb 5 2013: War can be productive if it's being fought elsewhere and you provide the weaponary. I think Tedlover means the US economy is based on other peoples wars.

      • shawn disney 10+

        • 0
        Feb 11 2013: Krisztian: the War based economy is much more than a word. We taxpayers are not permitted to know just how much of our GDP is devoted to the Militiary, but is something on the order of 1/3. I'm a vet , but I consider wars are basically destructive , useless , and bankrupting. You may have noticed that our economy is suffering. I would observe that , as you astutely pointed out, wars are almost all capital destroying. So, unless you lthink that healthcare, etc. have the power to destroy an economy, it would seem that the military budget is what is doing it , right now.
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • 0
      Feb 7 2013: No argument that the U.S. supports Israel, but how does the U.S. support Arab nations in their ongoing war against Israel? Please provide factual support for your claim that ". . . the US, which is the economic leader, supports both sides of the ongoing conflict as well as the ancillary conflicts that stem from that tragedy."

      • shawn disney 10+

        • 0
        Feb 11 2013: One way the US supports the other side is by our ongoing cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, and other marginal Arab "States" . We take their oil, and sell them all kinds of military stuff. Note that these started out as Arab Puppet States of the British Empire. They are not representative of "Arabs", that's why the Briits chose them in 1919.
        • thumb

          edward long 100+

          • 0
          Feb 11 2013: I am willingly nearly totally ignorant of the political side of this issue. What I do tend to believe is that there is a burning hatred for Jews in the belly of some/many/most/ Arabs. I really think that issue should not be summarily dismissed without thoughtful, productive examination. I find it hard to put much, and certainly not the bulk, of the blame for ceaseless hostilities in the Middle East upon England. That seems misguided to me. Besides, what good would it do to pronounce England the cause it all? How would that bring peace?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.