Skip to main content

View Diary: U.S. CENTCOM General: If Kerry-led Peace Talks Fail, Israel May Become an "Apartheid" State (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  meh. (0+ / 0-)

    I don't believe the term 'near-unconditional surrender' means what you believe it does.

    •  So what terms would Israel be held to? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo

      What do the Palestinians get from Israel other than a cessation of attacks and blockade?

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:21:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Their own state with a signed peace treaty. n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  A state isn't a state if it lacks sovereignty (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Flyswatterbanjo, corvo, PrahaPartizan

          And a Palestinian state would be half run by Israel, and that solution is an unconditional surrender. Israel will have it's expanded borders and face no attacks and Palestinians have gotten nothing except a smaller land to live in. And Israel keep their side of the treaty until the right wing is in power again and a settler group decides to start a new settlement, and without an army the Palestinians can do nothing.

          That isn't a solution. It's disarmament by an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. Surrender.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:32:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Around the issue of sovereignty (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            there will be a build up of the armed forces over time. As our own experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq can attest it takes time to make an effective army.

            Not an unreasonable path then to my eyes.

            Which is also in part why some have proposed a peacekeeping force for an interim.

            I would expect Palestine to have full control over its sovereignty and this would be implemented along with many other critical issues within the framework of an agreement.  

            •  I think that a peace keeping force (0+ / 0-)

              under international control securing the border would probably deal with the issue of a secure border, but the issue was that an agreement would bar Palestine from having armed forces. Relying on international troops is also a lack of sovereignty.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:13:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I do not believe a final agreement will contain (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                such a prohibition against having armed forces.

                Relying on international troops will be necessary in the beginning as it is highly unlikely that a future state will have a formal military ready before statehood.  There will need to be time to build such a force and an international peacekeepers will fill that void as the state puts together its infrastructures including armed forces.

                •  I guess I've just seen people here (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JNEREBEL

                  often act as if that's some sort of inevitable part of an agreement. It's good to hear that it isn't necessarily.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 11:38:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site