[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

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?

I'm confused on your concept of Joint Sovereignty. I'm assuming you are referring to the Old City in Jerusalem. West Jerusalem is a large scale Israeli City. It could never be under joint Sovereignty. East Jerusalem by contrast is a large scale Arab Palestinian enclave and should be considered as something that can be given to the Palestinians in a future statehood agreement. The Old City has been under Israel's stewardship for the past 40+ years. It is not a large population center by any stretch. I consider it more of an Archaeological and spiritual treasure trove for Christians and Jews. Making that in to a joint custody situation would not be ideal but the terms you presented essentially insure that the Israelis would maintain control as the chance of a Palestinian State being peaceful with Israel is zero.