Comments on: News From the Israeli and Palestinian Front: March 30th

By: runasim

runasim — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:07:56 +0000

The suggestion to tackle Jesusalem first would be great, IF it worked.
Seeing that this is the home of so many reigious sites, I have grave doubts, however.
This isn;t a conflict merely between two civil societies. It involves religious convictions and Biblical prophecy on both sides, and Jerusalem is where everything collides most dramatically.
If dividing Jerusalem worked, it would oil the wheels for the rest of the agenda.
If it failed (and I foreee violence galore), however, it would doom the rest of the agenda.

I think I understand Israel's machinations regarding settlements on the West Bank. They re understanfably studying projections of future demographics with increasing alarm and outright fear. As a tactic, however, it is a bad mistake, IMO, because it gives such heavy ammunition to the enemies of Israel and to its international critics. It may be done in an effort to safeguard Israel's sucurity, but the effect is one of undermining it., as critics multiply and allies fall away.
Laying aside the right or wrong of it, the settlement policy is just a huge tactical mistake.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:37:41 +0000

Adherence to the 1967 borders is an impossibility in the short term, although I think it's still an effective and somewhat fair goal and basis for peace.

Splitting Jerusalem should and could be the first big step to creating the conditions for peace. It'd be a token of good faith from the Israelis and would show the world they are serious about actually pursuing a two state solution with the Palestinians.

By: Jeb

Jeb — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:20:25 +0000

Why do you say that?

By: Holly_in_Cincinnati

Holly_in_Cincinnati — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:03:01 +0000

Neither full adherence to the 1967 borders nor division of Jerusalem can be justified.