Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (79931)	3/6/2003 2:54:09 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<'Vatican City' type solution for Jerusalem> Jerusalem is another non-Core issue which can be finessed easily. The Core problem, the deal-breaking issue at the Taba negotiations, was the Right Of Return. By refusing to yield on this issue, Arafat was saying that he has not yet given up on his longterm goal of "pushing the Jews into the sea." If the Palestinians get to Return, this sets up the demographic conditions for another final Intifada, this time inside Israel's 1967 frontiers. Once the Arabs give up on the Right of Return, once they accept the idea of a Jewish State permanently in the Middle East, then everything else will be easily negotiated. For Jerusalem, split it along the existing ethnic boundaries. The Palestinians get a North-South road connecting Bethlehem to Ramallah, the Israelis get a East-West road to their settlements West of Jericho. A UN gatekeeper where the two roads cross. The Holy Sites (not just in Jerusalem, but throughout the West Bank) could be put under international control, with iron-clad guarantees for access by everyone to their own sites. Jordan would be a lot happier as a US client state, than as a Syrian client state, and that's the real choice for them. Lebanon, too. <Israel has a sense of national identity that makes American Patriotism seem introverted> Texas, California, Alaska, Utah also have identities (yes, I know that's a stretch). And, the reality of their situation is, Israel is already just as dependant on the U.S., as if it was the 51st State. Perhaps we could create a new catagory of State, call it an Associated State, as opposed to the existing Federated States. An Associated State would be like a protectorate, running its internal affairs independantly, but with foreign affairs and defense done by Washington. As long as they abided by the U.S. Constitution, they could run Israel (internal only) any way they wanted to. Since the U.S. Congress wouldn't be making laws for them, they wouldn't elect Senators or Representatives. But they would get to vote for U.S. President. And the Israel lobby could continue unchanged. The main problem with Associated States, is that Alaska would want to be one too. There is a list of things that every Alaskan elected official wants, but Washington is blocking. There is a great deal of resentment at the colonial, patronizing attitude of the Lower 48, toward Alaska. This could snowball. Just thinking out loud. JS@theconfederacywillriseagain.com