Mapping the Territorial Contours of an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Settlement

Rice Univeristy Baker Institute Wrote:The Baker Institute today published a report that offers concrete recommendations to U.S. negotiators on the territorial component of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. The report, "Getting to the Territorial Endgame of an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Settlement," draws on nearly two years of discussions between a working group of Israelis and Palestinians convened under the aegis of the institute's Conflict Resolution Forum and chaired by Baker Institute Founding Director Edward P. Djerejian.

FYI, you can follow the Baker Institute on Facebook.

Without an agreement on Jerusalem, you got sh!t.

With a significant faction proudly declaring their side has the advantage because they love death while their adversaries love life, you're not going to get much of anything resembling peace (did anyone see Hamas's latest claim that they had no intention of trying to hit Israeli civilians ... ... in the past, they have justified targeting young Israeli women as military targets because they would be the ones to give birth to future soldiers).

Nevertheless, the link is 107 pages and should be pretty interesting and substantial. The Baker Institute is named for James Baker, former Reagan and Bush cabinet member, and the Institute has some pretty influential people involved with it.

(02-02-2010 03:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Without an agreement on Jerusalem, you got sh!t.

"Jerusalem, as a final status issue, was not directly addressed in the report, but the most contentious settlements in the vicinity of the city were deliberated upon, with major obstacles to an agreement acknowledged and identified."

BINGO

"We have a winner........"

Right of return is a close #2

(02-02-2010 05:00 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 03:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Without an agreement on Jerusalem, you got sh!t.

"Jerusalem, as a final status issue, was not directly addressed in the report, but the most contentious settlements in the vicinity of the city were deliberated upon, with major obstacles to an agreement acknowledged and identified."

BINGO

"We have a winner........"

Right of return is a close #2

Granting that Jerusalem is very important, at least a solution is possible. Not so with right of return or the whole "push the state of Israel into the sea" approach that certain factions still adhere to. Right of return means one side will have to simply back down, which ain't likely to happen for either side (not as long as Hamas continues to exist). I'd still put it out front as the biggest insurmountable problem.

The biggest insurmountable problem is that there isn't enough of Israel to divide between Jews and Palestinians and leave either one with a realistic chance of survival. Somebody is going to have to come up with more territory for their to be a solution. And given how much Arabs hate Palestinians, that is not going to be easy.

Give one side double their land in Canada. They have plenty of land and free health care too.

(02-03-2010 07:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Give one side double their land in Canada. They have plenty of land and free health care too.

Yes, and if they get really sick, the US is close.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/

I usually find those debates pretty informative, even if they gloss over many of the intricacies of the topics at hand.

Quote:Israel believes America’s special relationship is vital. It is, certainly, to Israel. But what about for the US? Israel has no oil, enemies in many places, and a tendency to defy Washington when it perceives its own interests to be threatened, which is not infrequently.

In a zero sum Middle East, does America’s coziness with Israel cost us in good will with Muslim world, including those oil-rich Arab states whose dollar holdings come back to the US in the form of investments and loans, which the US economy needs – especially now?

But there’s an important connection between the US and Israel – that goes deeper than finance or energy convenience. It’s a foundation of mutual loyalty and shared values – democracy being only the most obvious. There has also been a history of shared intelligence, military cooperation, and significant cross-fertilization of scientific knowledge. To sacrifice these connections to improve relations with the Arab world would be an act of betrayal — of an ally — and of what we say we stand for.

Should the US consider putting some distance between itself and Israel? Would such a change in policy serve American interests, or is it a move we would come to regret?

MODERATOR
John Donvan is a correspondent for ABC News Nightline. He has served over a career of more than two decades in the following capacities for ABC News: chief White House correspondent, chief Moscow correspondent, Amman bureau chief, Jerusalem correspondent and correspondent for the ABC News magazine Turning Point. Donvan’s most recent major assignment was covering the war in Iraq as a unilateral reporter, for which the Chicago Sun Times named him one of the ten war stars.

FOR THE MOTION*
Roger Cohen joined the New York Times in 1990. He was a foreign correspondent for more than a decade before becoming acting foreign editor on September 11, 2001, and foreign editor six months later. Since 2004 he has written a column for the Times-owned International Herald Tribune, first for the news pages and then, since 2007, for the Op-Ed page. In 2009 he was named a columnist of the New York Times.
Rashid Khalidi is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University. He was president of the Middle East Studies Association, and was an advisor to the Palestinian delegation to the 1991-1993 Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. Khalidi is the author of six books, including Sowing Crisis: American Dominance and the Cold War in the Middle East, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, and Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness.

AGAINST THE MOTION*
Stuart Eizenstat has held a number of key senior positions in three US administrations, including chief White House domestic policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981); U.S. ambassador to the European Union, under secretary of commerce for International Trade, under secretary of state for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, and deputy secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration (1993-2001). Ambassador Eizenstat is currently a partner at the law firm Covington & Burling LLP.
Itamar Rabinovich is Israel’s former ambassador to the United States and former chief negotiator with Syria in the mid 1990s. He is the incumbent of the Ettinger Chair of Contemporary Middle Eastern History of Tel Aviv University and recently completed an eight-year term as the president of the University, where he has been a member of faculty since 1971. He is currently a Distinguished Global Professor at New York University and visiting professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

These two will always find something to fight about. Leave em alone and let them handle their own deal.

(02-06-2010 10:59 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  These two will always find something to fight about. Leave em alone and let them handle their own deal.

That is kinda like the prediction set forth in the Bible.

(02-02-2010 03:36 PM)I45owl Wrote:  With a significant faction proudly declaring their side has the advantage because they love death while their adversaries love life, you're not going to get much of anything resembling peace (did anyone see Hamas's latest claim that they had no intention of trying to hit Israeli civilians ... ... in the past, they have justified targeting young Israeli women as military targets because they would be the ones to give birth to future soldiers).

Nevertheless, the link is 107 pages and should be pretty interesting and substantial. The Baker Institute is named for James Baker, former Reagan and Bush cabinet member, and the Institute has some pretty influential people involved with it.

Let me get this straight. A group of warmongers are proposing a "peace plan"? Priceless.

As for the first part, sorry to say but BOTH sides like war and killing.

(02-03-2010 10:00 AM)I45owl Wrote:  http://intelligencesquaredus.org/

Here is the transcript:

THE US SHOULD STEP BACK FROM ITS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL

The premise is progressive biased and flawed. Where does the US NOT have conflicting priorities? I do not see how a special relationship with Israel will allow us to keep control out of the hands of Jihadists or has anything to do with recycling of petro dollars. Where does most of our oil come from? Not the Middle East. So how does throwing Israel under the bus strengthening ties with moderate Arab regimes.

Why don't we just accept shria law and be done with it.

Quote:The U.S. is committed to Israeli security, but it has many conflicting priorities, keeping control of
Middle East oil out of the hands of Jihadi extremists for one, encouraging the recycling of petro
dollars into our vulnerable economy, strengthening ties with moderate Arab regimes, avoiding
nuclear proliferation in the region. U.S. objectives might well be advanced by Israeli-Palestinian
or Israeli-Syrian accords on terms Israel doesn't like very much at all.