Geneva Accord

[wat0n]

Originally Posted by Kachah

There is and the Israeli sovereignty is the best one - and better still - it's already in place!

Well that comes with a price (a high one if you ask me).

[bararallu]

Originally Posted by wat0n

Well that comes with a price (a high one if you ask me).

The foundations of Israel came with a price, we were almost annihilated. The price of carrying on as Jews comes with a price the world over, and has been so since our inception.

[Kachah]

Originally Posted by wat0n

Well that comes with a price (a high one if you ask me).

True, but Israel can afford it. Giving Jerusalem away will bear the price tag which Israel will not afford.

[wat0n]

Originally Posted by bararallu

The foundations of Israel came with a price, we were almost annihilated. The price of carrying on as Jews comes with a price the world over, and has been so since our inception.

Originally Posted by Kachah

True, but Israel can afford it. Giving Jerusalem away will bear the price tag which Israel will not afford.

Yes, that's true. But I still think there's a way for having Jerusalem's holy sites respected and at the same time giving up part of the city... And let's face it, doing this is necessary for having the Palestinians giving up on the refugee issue. We can't have the cake and eat it too.

[Kachah]

Originally Posted by wat0n

Not even shared custodianship or something like that?

wat0n, it's not about the custodianships of any kind (by the way, who do you think would be able to take custody? Scandinavian peacekeepers? UN Bangladeshi contingent? For G-d sake, they can't bust Hizbulla out of its bases in Lebanon).
It's about the rationale of Arabs' fight. They are not fighting "for", they are fighting "against". THey don't care about Jerusalem or Al-Quds, it's never been a place of any importance for them. But as all the want is the destruction of Israel they - rightfully - are targeting the assets of high value to their enemy. Jerusalem is the highest of those. It's not that it is a vital port or a conglomerate of essential arab industry or anything like that. It's not that they would take Jerusalem and pronounce eternal peace as all their aspirations are fulfilled. Nothing of a kind!
There is absolutely not an iota of a doubt that should Jerusalem be given to the Arabs they would recognize it as a call to the next war to get rid of Israel and the Jews altogether since they've been so successful at the previous step.
Just look at Gaza, man...

[wat0n]

Originally Posted by Kachah

wat0n, it's not about the custodianships of any kind (by the way, who do you think would be able to take custody? Scandinavian peacekeepers? UN Bangladeshi contingent? For G-d sake, they can't bust Hizbulla out of its bases in Lebanon).
It's about the rationale of Arabs' fight. They are not fighting "for", they are fighting "against". THey don't care about Jerusalem or Al-Quds, it's never been a place of any importance for them. But as all the want is the destruction of Israel they - rightfully - are targeting the assets of high value to their enemy. Jerusalem is the highest of those. It's not that it is a vital port or a conglomerate of essential arab industry or anything like that. It's not that they would take Jerusalem and pronounce eternal peace as all their aspirations are fulfilled. Nothing of a kind!
There is absolutely not an iota of a doubt that should Jerusalem be given to the Arabs they would recognize it as a call to the next war to get rid of Israel and the Jews altogether since they've been so successful at the previous step.
Just look at Gaza, man...

Obviously any concessions on Jerusalem should be part of a final treaty.

As for security issues, I think NATO and Egyptian and Jordanian troops should play the role the IDF has for now in the WB (i.e. make Israel be safe... And well they will also help the gov't to deal with the opposition, I doubt that they will have a democratic state right after having statehood if they get it anyway), the big problem with the Gaza withdrawal is that Israel didn't just dismantle settlements, Israel also ended its military presence in there.

Keeping the above in mind, probably it could be a joint Israeli-Palestinian custodianship, especially on the security of the holy places.

[Yala]

Originally Posted by wat0n

Keeping the above in mind, probably it could be a joint Israeli-Palestinian custodianship, especially on the security of the holy places.

I think you need to read up on how the Palestinian security forces (who were fighting alongside Israeli forces for years during Oslo) started acting during the start of the intifadeh. The truth is it doesn't take much to get these people riled up and when they do all **** the fan and before you know it they have destroyed 4,000 year old relics, synagogues, etc.

I think you should also read up what happened to Joseph's Tomb, which during Oslo was also under joint Israeli-Palestinian control.

Whether you are religious or not, and I'm not, I think you have to keep in mind that these ancient structures are part of our people and history and very important to even secular people, just like the Parthenon is important to the Greeks, etc.

[wat0n]

Originally Posted by Yala

I think you need to read up on how the Palestinian security forces (who were fighting alongside Israeli forces for years during Oslo) started acting during the start of the intifadeh. The truth is it doesn't take much to get these people riled up and when they do all **** the fan and before you know it they have destroyed 4,000 year old relics, synagogues, etc.

I think you should also read up what happened to Joseph's Tomb, which during Oslo was also under joint Israeli-Palestinian control.

Whether you are religious or not, and I'm not, I think you have to keep in mind that these ancient structures are part of our people and history and very important to even secular people, just like the Parthenon is important to the Greeks, etc.

You are right.

Yet I still think a way should be found for dealing with this. I guess we can agree that Israel and the Palestinians really need to sign a deal and any deal should include protection of and the right to worship in holy places.

And yes, there should be a mechanism so this is enforced, another mechanism could be (maybe) Israeli custodianship only (yet not necessarily sovereignity, depending on the borders agreed)?

[Kachah]

wat0n, the so called Palestinians don't want no state of theirs. In fact they they don't give bleeding rat's ass. It's too Western - let's establish the state, agree on the borders and live in peace and respect minding our own business. It's the Westm all these Americas and Europes who are pushing them to the weird 2-state solution which will never work.
Just look at the poor Afghans who are now going to the ballot booth - again! - for the sake of entertaining the Western idea of "democracy". What would they care? free elections? give me a break.
The Arabs openly and honestly - and we should thank them for being so honest! - declined the UN Resolution for one simple reason - it's better not to have their state than to agree to the Medinat Yisrael next door.
What's changed? The Jews kicked their asses in battle, fair enough. How would that soften their position on the State of Israel? It wouldn't and it didn't. First chance they get - they elect Hamas. Second chance - withdrawal from Gaza - the Kassam launching pads can now be brought closer to the Israeli population centers.
Jimmy Carter might be talking about 2-state or this black guy in the White House. But reasonable people like us?
Phew.

[Dorothy]

watOn
On a very simple level it's about equalizing the wealth between Israelis and Palestinians. Ordinary Palestinians want what they see as Israeli wealth. Nothing will stop their coveting as long as one Israeli has something that every Palestinian doesn't have. They think if they have Israeli land they will also have the Israeli ability to achieve, something proved impossible in Gaza. That's how the Palestinians are kept riled up and will be kept riled up even after a division of the land could be made. While their own are manipulating them and acquiring wealth, such as Arafat did, they don't care because it's their own who are getting what they hope they will also get in the future.

Military control of any area will be useless unless it is extremely harsh. Tolerance only breeds contempt among those who are consumed by greed.

What does Israel get out of the deal? Obviously not peace. Well, it gets sweet talked by Solana.
Israel closer to EU than candidate Croatia: Solana
Wed Oct 21, 2009

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...59K39Q20091021
Solana says Palestinian state should be established along '67 lines -- Earth Times October 19, 2009

Does Solana matter? It looks like he isn't retiring. At least not in October.
" WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. President Barack Obama will meet with the European Union's leaders next month in Washington, the White House said Friday."

What else does Solana offer? Business, money, opportunity for the big money makers or the threat of cutting them off from the EU.

Did it happen before?
http://www.swans.com/library/art15/saslav10.html
Well, if this information is correct, then we may see it happen again when the Socialists will sell out the Israeli money-makers after they make a deal with Peres and Solana to the detriment of the average Israeli and the Jews worldwide. We are now seeing this happen in the US when Jews overwhelmingly supported Obama only to see him turn on Israel now.

[Aliyah1995]

Originally Posted by wat0n

So you think that there are no possible enforcement mechanisms to make sure the Arabs respect the holy places?

Been there; done that....no thanks

[Mediocrates]

I think that if you need a permanent contingent of so called peacekeepers on station then you really haven't solved much except as a salve to your own shame and guilt. Arab countries contribute next to nothing, have expressed zero interest in helping their b brethren. The US isn't going to be put in a position of 'protecting the Jews.' UN troops are worse than useless. And therefore, what?

[dayag]

Originally Posted by Dorothy

...Does Solana matter? It looks like he isn't retiring. At least not in October...

Evidently Solana's retirement is linked to the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

Soon, the most complicated role in the world may come to an end: with the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty- the constitutional document of the European Union, the EU will appoint, for the first time, a foreign minister, who will head a European diplomatic service. Solana will step down.

source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1123034.html#

[dayag]

Update: The Lisbon Treaty is now "likely to come into force on Dec. 1."

The Lisbon Treaty passed its last major hurdle on Tuesday and looks set to become law within weeks. Czech President Vaclav Klaus conceded defeat and signed the treaty at Prague Castle following a ruling by the country's Constitutional Court that said it was compliant with Czech law.

source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...659213,00.html

[dayag]

Solana's replacement has been named. I hope Lady Ashton is friendlier to Israel than Solana was.

Belgian Premier Herman Van Rompuy (vahn rohm-POY) – a soft-spoken technocrat who shuns the public eye and has written haikus about European unity – will be the EU's new president. EU Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton of Britain, recognized by few in her home country and never elected to public office, was named foreign policy chief...

Ashton, 53, has barely caused a ripple during her year as EU trade chief and has little foreign experience. She signed a trade pact with South Korea, worked to revive the stalled global negotiations at the World Trade Organization and defrost trade relations with the U.S. after President George W. Bush left office.

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_364107.html