quote:

What peace dividend do you think the US is going to reap?

Tell me, precisely, why you think this agreement is good for the US. Not for the EU, not for Iran, not for Russia. For the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

What peace dividend do you think the US is going to reap?
Tell me, precisely, why you think this agreement is good for the US. Not for the EU, not for Iran, not for Russia. For the US.

The agreement means that the option of a US and/or Israeli military attack on Iran is no longer on the table. The US has successfully resisted and outflanked persistent Israeli attempts to manoeuvre it into a war with Iran. For the first time in several decades, there is a prospect of the US-Iran antipathy ending, and of a era of cordial relations which can only benefit both parties.
Agreement means that the US has successfully avoided entanglement in yet another expensive military adventure in the ME. After the thousands of US lives lost and the trillions of US taxpayer dollars wasted on the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos, the merit of avoiding another military entanglement with unknown consequences ought to be self evident.
The agreement brings the region a step closer to a lasting peace, Peace in the ME is in the interests of all who live there, and all who live on this planet. The only people who lose out are the war mongerers and belligerents such the US neocons and the Israeli Right. That you need to have the benefits of peace pointed out to you ought to be enough on its own to cause you to reflect upon and reconsider your views. Any world view that cannot see the benefits of peace as a given is a potential disaster for the planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I doubt the UN will draw lines, since Israel is already on occupied territory, there is no clamour to make these areas part of Israel, since that would oepn the whole issue to israels civillian courts. There is no sign of the building of settlements in East Jerusalem halting, or even slowing, all the time this continues there will be problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

What peace dividend do you think the US is going to reap?

Tell me, precisely, why you think this agreement is good for the US. Not for the EU, not for Iran, not for Russia. For the US.

The agreement means that the option of a US and/or Israeli military attack on Iran is no longer on the table. The US has successfully resisted and outflanked persistent Israeli attempts to manoeuvre it into a war with Iran. For the first time in several decades, there is a prospect of the US-Iran antipathy ending, and of a era of cordial relations which can only benefit both parties.

Agreement means that the US has successfully avoided entanglement in yet another expensive military adventure in the ME. After the thousands of US lives lost and the trillions of US taxpayer dollars wasted on the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos, the merit of avoiding another military entanglement with unknown consequences ought to be self evident.

The agreement brings the region a step closer to a lasting peace, Peace in the ME is in the interests of all who live there, and all who live on this planet. The only people who lose out are the war mongerers and belligerents such the US neocons and the Israeli Right. That you need to have the benefits of peace pointed out to you ought to be enough on its own to cause you to reflect upon and reconsider your views. Any world view that cannot see the benefits of peace as a given is a potential disaster for the planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


What do you mean by, "Israel is already on occupied territory?"

I'm not saying that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are going to be part of Israel, but that they are separated, so there can't be a "2 state" solution, but will require 3 states.

And, if the UN were to come in and draw the lines in as equitable fashion as possible, that could have an impact on the building of settlements outside of Israel.

It seems like, the longer this goes on, the more likely it's going to have to be like parents (the UN and the rest of the World community) coming in and telling the children (Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the players) how it's going to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

When we had a reset with Russia, the peace dividend was a draw down of us troops.

There was no significant drawdown of troops because of the end of the cold war, they were just shuffled around.

Minor outposts like Iceland and whatever were shutdown sure, but that was about it.  There was attrition due to the draft being over and vietnammers getting retirement age simultaneously, but it was no big deal.

So, the rest of the post is dismissed due to the first fundamental and glaring flaw.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What do you mean by, "Israel is already on occupied territory?"
I'm not saying that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are going to be part of Israel, but that they are separated, so there can't be a "2 state" solution, but will require 3 states.
And, if the UN were to come in and draw the lines in as equitable fashion as possible, that could have an impact on the building of settlements outside of Israel.
It seems like, the longer this goes on, the more likely it's going to have to be like parents (the UN and the rest of the World community) coming in and telling the children (Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the players) how it's going to be.

Exactly that...... Gaza and the West Bank havent been annexed by Israel but are only under military rule. Thats why they have no right of appeal in civil courts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What do you mean by, "Israel is already on occupied territory?"
I'm not saying that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are going to be part of Israel, but that they are separated, so there can't be a "2 state" solution, but will require 3 states.
And, if the UN were to come in and draw the lines in as equitable fashion as possible, that could have an impact on the building of settlements outside of Israel.
It seems like, the longer this goes on, the more likely it's going to have to be like parents (the UN and the rest of the World community) coming in and telling the children (Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the players) how it's going to be.

Exactly that...... Gaza and the West Bank havent been annexed by Israel but are only under military rule. Thats why they have no right of appeal in civil courts.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure Gaza and the West Bank are considered "countries" yet, though. And, that's why I think the UN and the world community are going to have to go in and draw the lines, in as equitable a manner as possible. Israel won't be fully satisfied and neither will the Palestinians, but the goal has to be creating the maximum satisfaction for both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What do you mean by, "Israel is already on occupied territory?"
I'm not saying that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are going to be part of Israel, but that they are separated, so there can't be a "2 state" solution, but will require 3 states.
And, if the UN were to come in and draw the lines in as equitable fashion as possible, that could have an impact on the building of settlements outside of Israel.
It seems like, the longer this goes on, the more likely it's going to have to be like parents (the UN and the rest of the World community) coming in and telling the children (Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the players) how it's going to be.

Exactly that...... Gaza and the West Bank havent been annexed by Israel but are only under military rule. Thats why they have no right of appeal in civil courts.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure Gaza and the West Bank are considered "countries" yet, though. And, that's why I think the UN and the world community are going to have to go in and draw the lines, in as equitable a manner as possible. Israel won't be fully satisfied and neither will the Palestinians, but the goal has to be creating the maximum satisfaction for both.

This leaves a few issues unresolved.

One of the unresolved issues is the matter of over half a million Israeli colonists now inhabiting land that will be part of a Palestinian State. It is estimated that c20% of those colonists/settlers (or roughly 100,000) have taken part in the colonist project for ideological reasons. IOW they are fanatics who will resist leaving or being forced to leave the land they have stolen from Palestinians.

The primary goal of the colonist/settler movement is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian (according to the colonists/settlers themselves). These people are most unlikely to accept living under Palestinian rule in a Palestinian State. There doesn't appear to be any peaceful resolution of this problem under a Two State Solution.

Indeed, many observers are convinced that the level of colonist/settler appropriation of the West Bank is already so high that implementing a Two State Solution is impossible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What do you mean by, "Israel is already on occupied territory?"
I'm not saying that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are going to be part of Israel, but that they are separated, so there can't be a "2 state" solution, but will require 3 states.
And, if the UN were to come in and draw the lines in as equitable fashion as possible, that could have an impact on the building of settlements outside of Israel.
It seems like, the longer this goes on, the more likely it's going to have to be like parents (the UN and the rest of the World community) coming in and telling the children (Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the players) how it's going to be.

Exactly that...... Gaza and the West Bank havent been annexed by Israel but are only under military rule. Thats why they have no right of appeal in civil courts.

Thanks for the clarification.
I'm not sure Gaza and the West Bank are considered "countries" yet, though. And, that's why I think the UN and the world community are going to have to go in and draw the lines, in as equitable a manner as possible. Israel won't be fully satisfied and neither will the Palestinians, but the goal has to be creating the maximum satisfaction for both.

This leaves a few issues unresolved.
One of the unresolved issues is the matter of over half a million Israeli colonists now inhabiting land that will be part of a Palestinian State. It is estimated that c20% of those colonists/settlers (or roughly 100,000) have taken part in the colonist project for ideological reasons. IOW they are fanatics who will resist leaving or being forced to leave the land they have stolen from Palestinians.
The primary goal of the colonist/settler movement is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian (according to the colonists/settlers themselves). These people are most unlikely to accept living under Palestinian rule in a Palestinian State. There doesn't appear to be any peaceful resolution of this problem under a Two State Solution.
Indeed, many observers are convinced that the level of colonist/settler appropriation of the West Bank is already so high that implementing a Two State Solution is impossible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Upon what basis do you suppose the UN would act to do that?
Heres the logic.
1. If the US didn't veto that:
a. Democrats would lose elections so fast it wouldn't be funny.
Ergo, US veto.
Ergo - no detemination of borders by the UN, in the near future.

quote:

If the UN and world community were to draw the lines and create the nations of Israel and Palestine, it might turn out that Palestine would immediately have an immigration problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What do you mean by, "Israel is already on occupied territory?"
I'm not saying that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are going to be part of Israel, but that they are separated, so there can't be a "2 state" solution, but will require 3 states.
And, if the UN were to come in and draw the lines in as equitable fashion as possible, that could have an impact on the building of settlements outside of Israel.
It seems like, the longer this goes on, the more likely it's going to have to be like parents (the UN and the rest of the World community) coming in and telling the children (Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the players) how it's going to be.

Exactly that...... Gaza and the West Bank havent been annexed by Israel but are only under military rule. Thats why they have no right of appeal in civil courts.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not sure Gaza and the West Bank are considered "countries" yet, though. And, that's why I think the UN and the world community are going to have to go in and draw the lines, in as equitable a manner as possible. Israel won't be fully satisfied and neither will the Palestinians, but the goal has to be creating the maximum satisfaction for both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


If the UN and world community draws the lines and what is currently called an Israeli colony is on what is now the nation of West Bank, those colonists will have to make a choice. Either they retain Israeli citizenship and spurn West Bank citizenship, or they gain West Bank citizenship (may or may not require denouncing of Israeli citizenship). What is currently called an Israeli colony would not be a West Bank neighborhood, or a city of the West Bank.

If the UN and world community were to draw the lines and create the nations of Israel and Palestine, it might turn out that Palestine would immediately have an immigration problem.

My reliance on the nebulous phrase, "as equitable as possible," does leave things unresolved (ie. dual nation claim of Jerusalem), but that would be resolved within the details of the "as equitable as possible" plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


If the UN and world community draws the lines and what is currently called an Israeli colony is on what is now the nation of West Bank, those colonists will have to make a choice. Either they retain Israeli citizenship and spurn West Bank citizenship, or they gain West Bank citizenship (may or may not require denouncing of Israeli citizenship). What is currently called an Israeli colony would not be a West Bank neighborhood, or a city of the West Bank.

If the UN and world community were to draw the lines and create the nations of Israel and Palestine, it might turn out that Palestine would immediately have an immigration problem.

My reliance on the nebulous phrase, "as equitable as possible," does leave things unresolved (ie. dual nation claim of Jerusalem), but that would be resolved within the details of the "as equitable as possible" plan.

DS, your points are sensible and rational ones, and in most situations would apply automatically. However, the fanatical colonists at the core of this problem are neither sensible or rational. Here is a BBC documentary on these people if you need to know more about the kind of person a fanatical settler is

These ultra-Zionists insist that the Palestinian land they have stolen is theirs by Divine contract, that it was promised to them by their God, and that their obligation to possess and keep it is a religious obligation (heard that phrase before somewhere?). To them giving up either political control and/or the land they have stolen would be political treachery and religious blasphemy. Neither persuasion nor bribery is going to entice them to surrender a single square millimetre , or to cede political control to a Palestinian Govt. One should also note that these fanatics are well armed and trained, and for them "there's no problem in killing Palestinians" as one of their leaders put it. The colonists' propensity for political violence has been demonstrated repeatedly - ranging from assassinating an Israeli PM to their brutal cowardly attacks on Palestinian peasants and landholders.

It's tempting to say that Israel caused the problem so Israel can solve it - except it is in Israel's interests (as the Israeli Govt sees things) to keep as much land as it can. This is precisely why the 'settler'/colonist movement is officially encouraged in Israel. And when push comes to shove, who is actually going to evict these fanatics? The IDF? Almost all of the colonists are already members of the IDF. Palestinian security forces? I doubt the Israeli Govt would tolerate that. A internal Israeli civil war fought over this issue is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

So it seems that there is a problem here, or more accurately, c100,000 big problems. And I'm unable to see any peaceful resolution within the confines of a Two State Solution.