How to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
The problem with violent approaches to conflict such as wars is the destruction and loss of life. Also, since the world is a complex social network, we can never predict in advance whether any proposed war will result in a cycle of continuity that spawns more endless wars, or freeze in peace. Some conflicts come to a dramatic halt, but some just drag on and on without end. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an example where war seems endless. We need constructive rather than destructive problem-solving. It is vital that we have more top engineers providing detailed advice to politicians on how to solve problems in a constructive and peaceful way. How would an engineer go about solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Engineering solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
This is one possible way for a civil engineer to proceed in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Step 1: Estimate the area of Israel = 20,770 km2
Step 2: Estimate the area of water inside Israel = 440 km2
Step 3: Calculate the area of Israel = 20,330-440 = 20,300 km
Step 4: Estimate the area of the Gaza Strip = 360 km2
Step 5: Estimate the cost of reclaiming land from the Mediterranean Sea. In 2003, the Seychelles reclaimed 3.5 square kilometers from the sea for just $50 million. So let's be conservative and say that Israeli-Palestinian reclamation will cost $50 million per square kilometer.
Step 6: Estimate how much more territory Israel-Palestine needs to stop the fighting. The exact number will come out of political negotiation. But as engineers, we can at least calculate the upper and lower bounds. At a minimum, we need an additional 360 square kilometers so that both sides can have territory corresponding to the Gaza Strip. At worst, let's say we don't need more than the land of Israel alone - doubling the area - should create more than enough for both sides to share fairly.
Are these costs reasonable?
$18 billion minimum case:
How much is $18 billion? It's nothing compared to the size of the problem. The US-Saudi arms trade alone was $20 billion in January 2008. The point is that $18 billion is negligible compared to what is generally spent on weapons in the world. Biologist Edward O. Wilson proposed a sum of $50 billion to protect Earth's biodiversity and called this small amount "Chump Change"
$1 Trillion Max Case:
It is unlikely that such a large amount would be needed to resolve the conflict. But let's look at this case hypothetically. Laureate Joseph E. Stieglitz has estimated that the true cost of the US-Iraq war is $3 trillion. So it is reasonable to estimate that well over $1 trillion has already been spent on all Israeli-Palestinian conflicts since 1948. The maximum cost of solution is likely to be less than the cost of destruction.
Bottom Line:
The bottom line is that the economic cost of a peaceful solution is lower than the cost of weapons. When we then consider the human and spiritual costs, we see that military solutions are excessive,
Who should pay?
I'm an engineer/scientist, not a political negotiator. But note that $18 billion is just a fraction of Warren Buffett's fortune. He could donate and still be one of the richest men in the world and become a hero at the same time. I chose the buffet at random to show how little money is. Another sobering thought is that in the period 2001-2007, US military aid to Israel was about $19.5 billion - if the equivalent money had been used for a land reclamation project, he could have had peace of mind. The money could actually be raised through a cooperative agreement between all stakeholders in the Israeli-Palestinian region.
Does soil really solve the problem?
As any therapist can tell you, when a husband and wife are having a conflict, going straight into "problem-solving mode" won't help. One must first get to the heart of the problem and validate one another's feelings before proposing practical solutions. This probably also applies to conflict between nations. A possible objection to the solution of generating more land is that it does not go to the heart of the conflict in terms of values/culture. Land is only a material representation of real intangible matters. My answer is that I do not deny that there are problems with intangibles, however there is clearly a problem with land as well. A creative proposal on the table to create more land at the expense of bombs is an elegant way to build a new solution process. It changes the parameters, the landscape and shows a new vision and hope. The alternative is the status quo, and we know that doesn't work.
The details of how old and new land are divided is also a matter for the political negotiators, not my job as an engineer. Various cake cutting scenarios can be imagined. But one thing is certain, you cannot expect anyone to want a piece of land if there is no attractive infrastructure on it. So for relatively little additional cost we have to look at building schools, hospitals, roads, water desalination plants and a port. We need to bring 30 years of maritime connections to the new port so that the economy in the region can develop. This section could develop into a major hub for the Middle East section.
You must be logged in to post a comment.