Quote:
Originally Posted by Axil
This just seems like a cluster#### in the making. Do you really think such a thing will work? It seems to me sort of solution will just make it easier for Palestinians to kill Israelis, and after a circus act in the UN ask for a new "compromise".
If you believe that the primary motivation of Hamas is the death of Jews and destruction of all things Jewish, why would you work towards compromise at all?
|
I think the only workable structure is a "max-min" deal. That is, an agreement that includes a maximum of territory going to the Palestinians - say the 67 borders with land swaps + joint sovereignty over Jerusalem - with specific penalties for future attacks on Israel: the first attack removes Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem and makes it a wholly Israeli city; the second requires the turnover of additional land to the Israelis, and so on down to a minimum Palestinian state comprised of, say, something less than the Taba offer.
In other words, the Palestinians get the maximum Israel can give (anyone who thinks there will ever be a deal in which Israel has no sovereignty over the Old City is as nuts as anyone who thinks there will ever be a deal under which the Palestinians say "you know what, let's just go live in Jordan, you can have it), and they can keep it so long as they keep their commitments. If not - if "land for peace" becomes "land for slightly less war" (which, let's be frank, is likely) - then the Palestinians still have a state of their own but a vastly smaller one, and the Israelis get full, internationally recognized control over key pieces of disputed territory (including Jerusalem).
This should be a no-brainer for anyone who supports the Palestinians and truly believes the key to peace is Israeli withdrawal, btw; the only downside from the Palestinian perspective is if "peace" wouldn't really be "peace".
And if that's really a concern, how dare you ask Israel to agree to a "peace" deal in the first place?