major areas under Israel rule (this rule is slowly being transferred to Palestinian rule) where they claim to have unequal rights and poor treatment. Despite the hand-over of parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Palestinian control, a "final status" agreement has yet to be reached.
             "Final status," though a long way off, has come about as a result of years of peace talks and trying to make changes through the system (government and negotiation). The reason it hasn't been successful is not because Israel or the Palestinians want to be at war, but rather because the needs of each conflict with each other. Granted, the Palestinian needs have changed a great deal since 1947 (they wanted to push the Jews into the ocean) and today both sides are more willing to compromise than they once were, but their needs still clash. The needs of land and water, sovereignty and control, and economical and political status, not to mention the existing unequal rights and hatred, are such complicated problems that peace has seemed almost overwhelming. However, for leaders from the UN, the US, and Russia, who have been trying to change these issues in the Middle East to more livable situations, the first steps have always been to do so from within the legal structure.
             Socrates believed in this method of change. Speaking of options a lawful city has for those who disagree with its rule, Socrates said, "We give two alternatives, either to persuade us or to do what we say." (Plato, The Trial and Death of Socrates, page 52) The peace talks between Yasser Arafat (the recognized Palestinian leader) and the Israeli leaders, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak (the two most recently aggressive peace-seeking leaders) have used this method of persuasion. In addition, within the Israeli government, Arab-Israelis can and do sit on the Parliament (known as the Knesset) as another form of persuasion from within the legal limits. And ...