There are two parts to my essay.
The first is a conjecture on the forces which are trying to preserve the status quo. The second is some "unthinkable" ideas as to new approaches to take.

To my mind the important part is the first. I see nothing but all sides repeating the same claims over and over again, blindly. This is propaganda, not analysis.

So I think it is important to study the claims and see what is behind them and who gains from what arrangements. Once the forces are better understood then solutions become more plausible.

This is why I wrote my original essay and provided some data which I derived on the distribution of oil resources in the region and the lack of democracy.

I haven't seen much discussion about this (aside from Helen). Put simply, it's all about the oil. Before oil became an important commodity no one in the western world cared about the middle east, except for the occasional forays such as the crusades.

After the rise of the oil economy then the picture changed. Obfuscating this fundamental fact with religious, historical, cultural, political or other overlays only makes getting at the true motivations harder to uncover.

If someone has an alternative theory as to why the forces prefer chaos and dictatorships I'd like to hear them.

As to the proposals for what to do with "Palestine", the impossible often becomes reality. Who would have imagined the break up of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, let alone the USSR 30 years ago?

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape