Does anyone think this is a good idea?

[Apeofman]

Year after year the war continues between Israel and it's neighbours. No reasonable solution to resolve the conflicting issues between Israel and it's neighbours exists.

 

It has occured to me, that a solution might be arrived at, if the conflicting requirements of each side could be incorperated into a board game. The game could be played on the web by Palestinians, Israelis, and others.

 

The game would consist of many boards, each board having at least two opposing players.

 

The players of each board would negotiate/barter real issues, and respond to events.

 

The game winners would be the players of the board that arrives at sustainable peace in a short time, and is polled best solution by players and onlookers.

 

Does anyone think this is a good idea? Maybe there is an existing game that can be adapted?

 

Apeofman say's..

May the desert bloom by a living sea when all minds turn to peaceful pursuit

..

[Phi for All]

It would keep everyone busy just figuring out the rules.

 

But I doubt anyone would allow the fate of their country to be decided by a game. The loser would claim the winner cheated and they would attack.

 

Good idea in theory, though. In a perfect world... oh, I guess it wouldn't be necessary in a perfect world. Of course, I think I would HATE living in a perfect world.

[Pangloss]

Well let's see, we've already got World Cup Soccer. How's it working out so far?

[timo]

Well let's see, we've already got World Cup Soccer. How's it working out so far?

Too bad that afaik neither Israel nor Libanon and especially not the federal republic of Hisbollah managed to qualify for the tournament.

[Apeofman]

It would keep everyone busy just figuring out the rules.

I know what you mean, but i reckon you could start off the game with a limited rule set, and update it as circumstance or reason requires.

 

But I doubt anyone would allow the fate of their country to be decided by a game. The loser would claim the winner cheated and they would attack.

 

I am not suggesting the imposition of the winning games result on the governments of nations.

 

If sufficient people played such a game' date=' it would at least provide an insight as to what trade offs would be politically acceptable to their people.

 

It seems to me that if you are warring, all your mental effort goes into defeating your enemies, without any consideration of their desires whatsoever. A winning game played by people of opposing views, requires mutual consideration and compromise. A chance to think about being a good neighbour, perhaps.

 

When each side is determined to give way a little more than the other.

Of course, I think I would HATE living in a perfect world.

Me too.