So make a place a global trade hub in theory can be as simple as saying it is so and watching every country trade there, only in one’s imagination.

So now the region is going to be made into a great Singapore for the Mediterranean using billions of dollars of tax money from nations including Egypt, Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, etc?

That’s not a global trade hub. That’s a globally subsidized tax haven. Whose long-term stability Congress from the whim of nations like the USA, China, Russia, the EU, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc…

With that, it would be infinitely easier and more attractive for any nearby nation to create a special economic area to handle regional trade & take the jobs, and the best part? This would be funded by the respective nation itself.

This is almost an appealing idea in a parallel universe where religion doesn’t exist, but unfortunately that’s not the one we live in. This conflict is one that extends to nearly every avenue, but at it’s core, it’s a religious one. Unless we’re ready as a global community to finally denounce religion and call the practice of it a silly and fruitless endeavor, which to be clear, we aren’t, then we’re never going to get anywhere pretending we can ignore the religious aspect of it. And that includes your utopian suggestion, which aside from all of its other very real problems would also likely enrage an enormous religious segment of the world who would see some of their holiest lands reduced to mere merchants dens. Even if you perhaps try to protect the religious sites, now you’re effectively enforcing a concept of religious sanctity on the global community, which is no less likely to offend.

Your idea is well-intended and nice to think about, but unfortunately unrealistic for many reasons, starting on the ground floor with problem of religion.

That’s why you remove all the sides. Corporations already act without boundaries. They actually benefit from country boundaries ie: manufactured in China for cheap and sold in America for massive profit. Corporate interest is what is against no country boundries.

I agree. But downvotes to a legitimate solution without criticism or suggestions is pointless and contributes nothing to the discussion. I don’t care if you even suggest nuking the entire area. Just own it and defend your opinion.

Forced migration, which this would be, is a bad idea, as has been born out repeatedly through history.

• if it’s to many countries, it splinters communities.
• if it’s to just one country, few are open to taking even small numbers of people in, let alone five and a half million.
• if one was open to it, none have the infrastructure in place to receive so many people.
• people get attached to land, and the idea of it.

To that last point, that land is not interchangeable, and any assumption that it is is remaining ignorant of some of the desires of the parties involved.

I could go on, but I don’t think that would add to discourse. This is a hard problem, renewed with every moment of violence. I don’t believe we should expect any of the grievances each side has stacked up to be let go of without honouring their non-violent desires.

I’d just take Israel paying for their relocation.

The problem is asshole leaders are being petty little brats. There is a solution, but both parties involved are being selfish assholes and the citizens end up dying and suffering. There are easy solutions to everything when you remove the angry assholes.

A child knows right from wrong until they are corrupted by an adult. The answer is easy. The evil ones who benefit are making it hard.

While you armchair genius. No insight. No congregation of minds to develop even a strategy of a path forward. Just criticism for those who want to make the world better. Pathetic. I assume you’re commenting from Gaza because you went over there to help.

Edit: That was reactionary and uncharacteristic. Some of us want to learn from each other and try to understand the situation to build a consensus for what a solution might look like.