I doubt it unless you can Shut down Hamas and control the Palestinian Militatis..
I doubt it unless you can Shut down Hamas and control the Palestinian Militatis..
At this stage neither side can claim the moral high ground - both are deep in this mess and both are about as blameworthy as each other. For there to be peace there has to be a viable two state solution - given they are never going to agree and only one party has the ability to unilaterally institute that, it is what I would think Israel should do.
It's all well and good to say stop firing rockets into Israel and I agree they should be stopped, but this is not a one variable system. You've got a large group of people who feel robbed of a state (and all the associated trappings), a hope and a life - it doesn't surprise me that some of them react violently, nor that said violent cause gets popular support.
Seamus,
No, because:
1) Jerusalem is south of the 32nd, thereby giving it to Palestine. Very few Israelis would except that.
2) The good farmland is in the north west of the country. The south is Gaza and the Negev Desert
3) One of the few useful pieces of land in the south is Eliat, which the Israelis are unlikely to giveup because it is useful, one of their larger cities, and there only port on the Red Sea
4) Tel-Aviv is right on that line. They have already hypothetically given up Jerusalem, they will not give their most important city or put it in danger.
5) Water. Access is in the north west. Our little Palestinian state would have to rely on trade and treating salt water.
6) The migration would be terrible. Isrealis from Eliat going north. A good half of the West Bank including Nablus going south. That would be a humanitarian disaster waiting to happen.
There really is not room for a completely independant two state solution.
Sometimes I slumber on a bed of roses
Sometimes I crash in the weeds
One day a bowl full of cherries
One night I'm suckin' on lemons and spittin' out the seeds
-Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers, Lemons
Bookmarks