What would happen if...

[pampango]

In 2009 with a Democratic president and congress, the US tells Israel that it must withdraw to pre-1967 borders (gives West Bank back to Jordan and the Gaza Strip back to Egypt), but if and only if:

1. All major Muslim nations in the region (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, etc.) recognize Israel's right to exist;
2. Jerusalem is "internationalized" under UN jurisdiction;
3. The Palestinian right of return is compensated by an international fund.

I can understand Israel's sense of insecurity in 1967 after two decades of invasions attempting to eliminate their country, but times are different now. Their military is preeminent in the region, without taking their nuclear weapons into consideration. International law should not allow a country to hold onto land captured by war.

Israel was established as a Jewish homeland, so the Palestinian right of return will have to be fairly compensated in a manner that does not threaten the nature of the state. I realize that there are religious beliefs on each side that make this a more emotional and volatile issue.

Obviously, there are a million reasons (at least) why this will not happen. My guess is that each side of the discussion will assert that their side could compromise, but the other side never will. I would be interested in hearing if either side can show a little introspection and discuss what would be the most difficult part of such a compromise from their point of view.

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. And if you dont,

you're not getting your milk and cookies before supper.
With our lack of "standing" in the world right now because of monkeyboy, it would be hard to TELL anyone to do anything. Its not like amerika is going to withhold those billions if they dont.

[pampango]

2. True. I was assuming (hoping against hope;)

that a president with a "D" after his or her name with congressional support would restore some of our "standing" and show some backbone and be willing to withhold those billions. We both know that that is not really going to happen even with the presidency and congress, but I can always dream can't I?

It seems like a viable nonviolent strategy for either side to preemptively accept such a compromise, thereby putting the other side on the total defensive without lifting a sword.

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. My hope is that we would start

talking again, rather than bombing the shit out of everyone in the region

[Phx_Dem]

4. your scenario

if you give the west bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt where does Palestine fit in?

[pampango]

5. My thinking was that the West Bank was part of Jordan

and the Gaza Strip belonged to Egypt, so I was just advocating a return to the condition before Israel's military conquest. If Israel shouldn't gain anything from military conquest, should Egypt and Jordan lose something for the same reason?

Of course, a Palestinian state could be established rather than returning land to Jordan and Egypt. I was mainly thinking of returning things to the way they were before 1967, but negotiations would have to resolve this issue.

[SheilaT]

6. The problem is that I can't

even begin to imagine Israel being willing to go back to pre-1967 borders. Not without being on the losing side of a vicious war.

[pampango]

8. There are a lot of things I can't imagine happening there.

For either side alone to do something unimaginable probably would require that side to lose a vicious war, as you say. My thought was that absent such a war for the unimaginable to happen one side, either side I don't care which, would take the initiative and accept the above compromise (or something similar) and put the pressure on the other side to accept it.

I realize that in the "real world" this is not going to happen. Too many politicians and other leaders on both sides have a vested interest in continuing the conflict into the indefinite future. For them a solution of any kind, other than winning a vicious war, is bad news. (What's your platform now?) But wouldn't the people from either side ultimately benefit from their side taking the initiative in an unimaginable way.

[SheilaT]

11. Wouldn't people from either

side ultimately benefit? You are absolutely right. But what we're faced with the Israel situation is the intransigence of those on both sides who feel absolutely justified in whatever they do, who feel that their wrongs are so terrible that no wrong done to the other side matters.

Who is right and who is wrong isn't, as you clearly realize, the issue. But whether or not the leaders are willing to behave in good faith is. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of good faith behavior.

I so wish it could be different. I so wish that people wouldn't get so caught up in wanting to avenge ancient wrongs (sometimes real, sometimes imagined) that they can't begin to see a solution.

Is the question about platform directed at me? If so, I'm not running for anything right now.

[pampango]

12. No, the platform question was one for the politicians and

other leaders, if peace suddenly broke out. When your long term platform is war/resistance, what happens to a leader/politician when asked "What do you believe in now that peace has come?" Most would have no answer and no political base, so they understandably resist any real progress toward peace.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

9. holy sites

the holy sites in jerusalem are already shared and governed by the respective religions at their sites.

[Tom Joad]

10. You are misrepresenting the Muslim faith.

[pampango]

13. Could you elaborate?

Response #9 was that "the holy sites in jerusalem are already shared and governed by the respective religions at their sites."

I know you were responding to #7, but I would appreciate your insight to either response or to the OP.

[Lithos]

14. Locking per I/P guidelines

Not based on a recent news or op-ed article.

Lithos
DU Moderator