445
edits
Israel-Palestine conflict and globalisation: Difference between revisions
Israel-Palestine conflict and globalisation (view source)
Revision as of 18:00, 16 January 2010
, 18:00, 16 January 2010no edit summary
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''3. From your perspective and experience does globalization have the potential to resolve a conflict not related to this phenomenon, for example, the Israel-Palestine conflict, or to possibly make it worse?'' | '''''3. From your perspective and experience does globalization have the potential to resolve a conflict not related to this phenomenon, for example, the Israel-Palestine conflict, or to possibly make it worse?''''' | ||
=== | ===Jana Hybášková:=== | ||
From my perspective globalization in its overall result is neutral. Certainly, it has great potential to be a positive engine of change. Globalization is kind of river flow, bringing lots of energy. If the energy is used in a sustainable manner, supporting not only foreign trade, industry and financial sector and related parts of societies, but if managed carefully, as inclusive public development, it can also bring great benefit. If not, in some cases geographical as well as “social” places are left behind; they become marginalized and excluded. | From my perspective globalization in its overall result is neutral. Certainly, it has great potential to be a positive engine of change. Globalization is kind of river flow, bringing lots of energy. If the energy is used in a sustainable manner, supporting not only foreign trade, industry and financial sector and related parts of societies, but if managed carefully, as inclusive public development, it can also bring great benefit. If not, in some cases geographical as well as “social” places are left behind; they become marginalized and excluded. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
A short negative scenario: if Syria seriously sues for peace with Israel and signs a unilateral peace treaty with it, then the world donors, and financial and trade support will go in this direction. Syria will earn enormous potential sharing water resources and land with Israel. It will gain a big market and enormous investment. If such a “dream” scenario goes well, Israel can develop the Syrian oil and gas sector. The West Bank would stay occupied, a backyard territory, and left out of any economic opportunity. Hundreds of years of old disputes between Palestinians and Syrians will be resolved. | A short negative scenario: if Syria seriously sues for peace with Israel and signs a unilateral peace treaty with it, then the world donors, and financial and trade support will go in this direction. Syria will earn enormous potential sharing water resources and land with Israel. It will gain a big market and enormous investment. If such a “dream” scenario goes well, Israel can develop the Syrian oil and gas sector. The West Bank would stay occupied, a backyard territory, and left out of any economic opportunity. Hundreds of years of old disputes between Palestinians and Syrians will be resolved. | ||
====Jule Kathinka Plawitzki==== | |||
Hey there, | |||
Before I start with my thoughts about the answers (or at least about a few) I’d like to give a short, personal comment - I hope in this student discussion forum that’s ok. I was really impressed by the answers- lot’s of information about very different topics. I have to admit that I was a little bit disappointed by the original text- it was so general, without a main emphasise… But, as I said before: The answers to the questions made it up J @ all of our tutors: Thank you, for this great opportunity to discuss with a real politician! | |||
To the third answer: “The current Israeli government tries to minimize the public damage of the occupation – or start reconciliation.”; “"economic development" of the West bank.”; “[…] allow for the West Bank to be opened to globalization, and not to be totally left behind, as is happening now. How to achieve it? The issue very much is about time planning.” You think the current Israeli government tries to start reconciliation? Well, but what about the settlers in the West Bank? There is still a consolidation- and it has to do with the structure of the Knesset, doesn’t it? As far as I know there is a very small restrictive clause (just about 2%?), therefore there are much more parties in the parliament than in other democracies- as well radical parties. Therefore there is not a coalition of two parties, there is a coalition of five or more parties- a small radical party has a huge impact. And there are religious parties with a purpose not rational, not willingness to compromise referring to the holy land. Therefore, how can the current government be actually start a reconciliation (with all this hopeful ideas for the economy in the West Bank Jana mentioned) - depending on the party of Liebermann? | |||
Saturday, 5 December | |||
====Jana Hybášková==== | |||
Admition threshold for participation in Knesset is 3 %. Israel is country with incredibly rich historical background: in 60 years time it accommodated holocaust survivals, Jews from Arab countries, Russia, Africa, many coming from US. To ensure the stability of such incredibly fragmented political and historical background of its society, to ensure true representatives of its political election, this threshold is unique solution. Nowhere in modern world was such a high degree of proportionality and representation needed. The true and stable peace can only be reached by adversaries. It can only be Israel’s right wing bringing both societies to settled negotiated peace. | |||
Monday, 7 December 2009 | |||