|
Edited on Sun Feb-01-04 05:05 PM by Darranar
That first one you cite makes it a non-starter, both from the standpoint of being legally sound and also in the practical aspect of will it fly on the street.
As long as both parties agree on the border modifications, it is perfectly legal. The plan enjoys majority support among both peoples, and once peace is achieved few will want to end it. They will have too much to lose.
If what is sought is a short-term photo-op kind of thing for US elections, pretty much anything you can get people to sign will do.
I don't think these people were working for the US. It seems possible that they were genuinely interested in peace.
If the goal were a lasting and peaceful solution,) which of course, it's not, in Palestine or anywhere, because that would not be supportive of business interests) then the Geneva Accord 'ain't nothin' but shit.'
For the US, it's not. For the people involved, it is. How is is it "nuthin' but shit"?
Even if the geography were ok, which it's not, in the absence of military parity, any language about Palestinian right to self-defense is meaningless. Either arm the Palestinians to the teeth, and end up with Little Twin Weapons Dumps for the US, or disarm Israel and let both be peaceful, productive countries. If Palestine is to have adequate defense of its borders, and the country next door has the arsenal Israel does, adequate defense is a lot different than if the country next door has minimal weaponry.
There are plenty of nations that coexist peacefully without military parity. The US hasn't invaded Canada or Mexico in quite some time (unless you count NAFTA).
Both sides would have too much to lose in pursuing war. There is certainly no military parity right now, but the Israelis are certainly suffering greatly.
One of the problems with all of the various accords and agreements is that they have all started with "what Israel will accept." and have generally ignored what the Palestinian people will accept, as well as the long-term effects on the Israeli people.
The palestinian people will accept a two-state solution. I have seen nothing to indicate that they will not, and much to indicate that they will. The Israeli people will also accept such a solution.
The long or short term effects of war on any people is death, economic harm, and misery. The goal now should be stopping that war, and a one state solution will not do such a thing.
I know that you and I do not agree on this, but the creation of Israel itself was a cruel trick, and was not done for the altruistic and warmfuzzy reasons enshrined in popular mythology.
We do agree that the great powers were not being altruistic by supporting it. We don't agree on exactly why they did.
Today, Israel is accepting almost a quarter of its people living without enough food, a government run by a man who belongs in the custodial care for the criminally insane wing of the Hague, and is engaged in a serious national debate about whether to be a democracy or South Africa, all to make a few rich men richer.
The situation needs to end, the sooner the better. At the moment, Israel will not accept a one-state solution. Both sides will accept a two-state solution, so that should be the current goal.
It would have been possible, in 1948, to negotiate a state of Israel without the Naqba, without creating a gaggle of client states, without carving up this and that and buying up the sleaziest sheiks in the desert. That was not done, however, and even if there were a genuine desire to correct the situation, it would not be easy, and both Israelis and Palestinians would have to make what sharon calls "painful concessions."
One concession that neither side should accept is being a giant prison camp with a flag on top, existing by the grace and favor of the other, or of a third party.
We pretty much agree here.
|