I voted yes, would like to see how the Israeli side try to wriggle out it then..
a peace agreement would serve as an ideal "sword of Damocles".
that would force the Israeli's to act in accordance with international law lest they actually have to abide by a peace agreement, it's not the Palestinian side that's against peace, it's the powerful money and business interests that serve the 'settlers', and tourists converging on stolen Palestinian land in East Jerusalem where most of the religious sites are, and let's not forget the Israeli army, just imagine the budget cuts it'll endure once peace reigns..
That's right, believe it or not it's got a lot to do about the money, religious sentiment is an exploitable asset at best, and more likely a sham, except for a few Zionist zealots.
see
http://original.antiwar.com/cook/2010/09/28/israels-reasoning-against-peace/
another major obstacle to peace is of course the U.S. policy of irrationally supporting every single act of the Zionists, but while browsing the net today in liu of Rahm Emanuel's resignation and appointemtn of Peter Rouse as chief of staff, I found this:"n a letter dated December 2006, Abourezk wrote:
"I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear—fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that
very few members of Congress—at least when I served there—
have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I’ve heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they’re pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise.
In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby’s animosity by making their feelings public...
I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule is the feelings of Jewish members, who, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel.
I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel’s giving up the West Bank and leaving the Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Abourezk
especially after the flotilla incident, the Israeli's have been under increasing scrutiny, they've never been weaker and as many have already said there's a great many reasons to expect this round of negotiations to be the last, come what will afterward.
A single state will most likely emerge in the end, with a few accommodations from neighboring countries on land etc, we
can and
should have peace as the ultimate goal, the debate about the means is secondary as history grinds on and cannot be stopped, the middle eastern nations are rising in power relative to the U.S. and this is happening
now, Turkey, Iran and potentially Egypt-the three major powers in the region for centuries I might add-are becoming more aware of this new reality, so I'm really optimistic about the prospects for a final resolution to the conflict. accommodating the Jews who want to stay in Palestine won't be easy after over 6 decades of bloodshed, but it's not impossible, and it wasn't the Arabs who holocaust'ed anyone, rather the nations of the middle east have been able to live in peace before, and there's no need to transport all the Jwes back to Poland etc.
