Re: Major conditions - Edit 1
Before modification by Floffe at 19/03/2010 03:05:01 PM
I thought that "winner sets the rules" mentality went away after the results of Versailles. If a deal is to be viable, it'll have to take both sides into account.
Did we let the Germans and Japanese set the rules after WWII? What some seem to want is a switch where the loser sets the rules.
Hence why I stated that both sides would need to be taken into account. And no, the losers didn't dictate the peace deals after WWII but they were also not as harshly treated as after WWI.
But as for what needs to be settled for a peace in the region:
- Israel needs to give up some settlements so that a Palestinian state can be viable (and this state will be less than the 1967 borders, as that's the starting point for negotiations)
- Israel needs to give up some settlements so that a Palestinian state can be viable (and this state will be less than the 1967 borders, as that's the starting point for negotiations)
How many? I have not heard the Palestinians say they would agree to stop the conflict if Israel simply gives up some settlements and that is what we need to hear.
How does "X side hasn't said they'll drop the conflict if one part is solved" equal "This point needs to be fixed if the conflict is to be solved? The Palestinian leadership (including Hamas) is well aware that this is the only way to solve it, even if they don't proclaim it too loudly (as that'd lead to them being viewed as giving up the struggle, and a prompt loss of support). It's a bit like how running on campaign finance reform works in the US
- Refugees need to somehow be compensated for not being able to return
Again I have not heard the Palestinians say they will accept a cash payment. Until they agree to accept money in return for dropping their claim it is a mute point.
Also there comes a point where you stop being a refuge and that point is less then 40 years.
Yes, the surrounding Arab countries need to be in on this, in dropping their use of Palestinians as a way to show Israel as the bad guys and accepting that they have a bunch more citizens. Again, this is one issue that will not be solved until both sides sit down to negotiate in good faith.
- Palestinians need to build up a police/security force and stop attacks on Israel
That would be a good start but until that happens I don't think Israel should give them anything. If Israel gives them what they want while there is still violence it will not be a peace treaty it will be extortion not to mention it won't accomplish anything. The Palestinians have been using these methods for decades now with nothing but misery to show for I see no reason to believe they will abandon them if they start to actually work.
For the Palestinians to be able to build up such a force they'll need support from (or more accurately, to work with) Israel. As the situation stands now, neither Fatah nor Hamas really have an effective such organisation.
- The status of Jerusalem needs to be settled. Remember how it was supposed to be an independent, UN-run area in the 1948 partitioning plan. Both sides need to realise that they can not have it on their own if they want peace.
The UN couldn't run a bake sale and they do not have a history of being pro-Israel. Jerusalem need to open to all three major religions but Israel should not have to hand over control.
No even over the areas that they are, according to international law, illegally occupying? That's where the new apartments announced last week are to be built.