Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,516 posts)
20. Except that Peter's personal proposal is outdated.
Sat May 11, 2013, 08:52 PM
May 2013

It leaves the Palestinians out in the cold, and pretends that Sunni Syria and Jordan are homogenously Sunni.

They're not. There'd obviously be a bit of a division between urban moderates and rural/village Salafis. It's likely that Anbar in Iraq would feel more affinity with eastern Syrians than with many in Damascus. There'd be population dislocations, but nothing that we haven't seen lead to peace before--if we let them happen.

That particular split wasn't that obvious in Syria before. Now it is. The question is, Will the splitting happen before it's impossible to implement that division or later. My guess is later, which using Peters' methodology would lead to a more or less combined Shuro-Iraq state.

Peters' methodology isn't all bad. We complain about how horrible imperialist/colonialist-drawn borders are and how borders should reflect national or ethnic boundaries. Then we insist on the sanctity of imperialist/colonialist drawn borders, especially when they're drawn by non-Western imperialists/colonialists like the Persians or the Turks--both expansion empires that cling to conquered peoples and territories and have active relocation/forced-assimiliation campaigns. With "progressive" blessing.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Car bombs kill 20 in Turk...»Reply #20