Quote:
Originally Posted by goober
Why does going back to the borders set by the UN, and giving up the fighting not qualify as a valid solution?
The UN resolutions describe the border, what is a better place to put the border than where it's already been placed by the UN?
If the Palestinians give up the struggle and accept a two state solution, isn't that the compromise.
Why should Israel get more?
|
To take a time machine back to 1948 ignores the fact that there have been 2 major wars and many incidents of violence since then.....
Political borders often change in War and the losers usually don't get their land back because they have little, if any, leverage afterward.
To hand the entirety of the land over to the losing party 50 years after the fact amounts to complete reparations and completely ignores the leverage component of a possible deal. Absent any Palestinian leverage, they would have had to at least maintained a moral high ground... and that too is now absent.
It's an unrealistic demand, and it's not a legitimate starting point for negotiation. That's why persistence in such a static polar stance is the recipe for stalemate and why there is no roadmap to peace... only a map of a circular road that leads to where they already are. The Israeli government is also guilty of making unrealistic demands which solidifies the status quo. The United States is fruitlessly trying to arbitrate between two stubborn fools.