Israel-Palestine: The Solution

[zenith-nadir]

DanishDynamite:

1)How to remove arafat?...other than a well placed laser guided paveway I do not know. I am always amazed at the ability of the palestinian people to remain optimistic after 30 years of Arafat's failures.

2)If the terrorism stops Israel would have no reason to be in the West Bank and Gaza, hence they would have to pull back to the green line as specified in the Roadmap.


Grammatron & DanishDynamite:

3)The problem with sharing guardianship of Jerusalem is that the Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem. It was never their capital, nor part of a palestinian country. Additionally the only Arabs in the Middle East with any semblance of civil rights are those who live under Israeli rule. Jerusalem should remain under Israeli control.


Hutch:

Still, there will be problems--if the jewish people could dream of a homeland after leaving it 1900 years before, would the Palestinians forget their homes after only 50 years? (Oh boy, am I going to catch it!!)

The problem is most of the Arab-palestinians who left in 1948 do not want to live in a jewish country. And after being away for 50 years the culture shock of living in 21st century Israel would be great.



The "right of return" is a huge white elephant....think about it folks. Where are these 4 million palestinian descendants going to live? Who's going to employ 4 million unskilled workers? Who's going to teach them hebrew?

The West Bank and Gaza areas are militant wastelands with no economy, Israel's economy is in the toilet due to the intifada.

You just can't promise 4 million descendants the "right of return" without working out what the hell they are going to return to.

Another Arafat promise that cannot be kept, and another crushing dissapointment for the refugees who have been promised this "right of return" endlessly.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Nyarlathotep:This is not a solution. Let alone a realitic solution.

My point being that there is no solution, unless you count staying out of it and letting them fight it out until one of them comes out on top as a solution. It's harsh but it's the only solution I see either side accepting.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Hutch:

Danish Dyno, I can concur with you, Grammatron, and zenith-nadir (and even more than a few Arabs) that it would be much easier if big-nose Yasser would go gently (or even go kicking and screaming) into that good night. Problem is three-fold. One, he was elected, if I recall right.

Time to hold a new election.

Two, despite everything, he is still seen by the majority of Palestinians as their legitimate spokesman (or at least the one they can all mostly agree upon--like any politician, Arafat shows whatever face he needs to keep the majority on his side).

After an enforced election campaign where every concievable candidate gets equal time, the Palestinians might feel otherwise.

Three, if he is eliminated by any other than the Palestinians themselves, then his successor will have no public support at all. So like the skunk at the tea party, I must needs fear that we will have to hold our nose and deal with him.

He won't be eliminated by a non-Palestinian in the scenario I gave.

A note on the right to return. The Geneva Agreement goes along with much of zenith-nadir's wishes, limiting the number of returnees and offering compensation. Still, there will be problems--if the jewish people could dream of a homeland after leaving it 1900 years before, would the Palestinians forget their homes after only 50 years? (Oh boy, am I going to catch it!!)

Luckily, I'm don't recall the historical background for the right-to-return. I'm a pragmatist.

 

[DanishDynamite]

zenith-nadir:

1)How to remove arafat?...other than a well placed laser guided paveway I do not know. I am always amazed at the ability of the palestinian people to remain optimistic after 30 years of Arafat's failures.

Sorry to be rude, but I was asking for realistic proposals. I don't think using a guided missile to take out Arafat is all that realistic.

2)If the terrorism stops Israel would have no reason to be in the West Bank and Gaza, hence they would have to pull back to the green line as specified in the Roadmap.

Once again, this claim that terrorism should first stop before negotians can take place is not realistic.

Do both sides want a peace or don't they? If so, what is a realistic way to get there?

Grammatron & DanishDynamite:

3)The problem with sharing guardianship of Jerusalem is that the Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem. It was never their capital, nor part of a palestinian country. Additionally the only Arabs in the Middle East with any semblance of civil rights are those who live under Israeli rule. Jerusalem should remain under Israeli control.

Forget the history of who did what to whom. Assume you have been placed in the position as Overseer-of-Achieving-a-Peace within 2 years. You have the world community behind you, and they don't give a rat's ass about who did what to whom. They simply demand a negotiated peace in 2 years. What is your plan?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nyarlathotep:

My point being that there is no solution, unless you count staying out of it and letting them fight it out until one of them comes out on top as a solution. It's harsh but it's the only solution I see either side accepting.

As I said to the zenith-nadir, suppose you are in charge of reaching a negotiated peace. You have the undivided world community's backing. You have two years. What is your plan?

 

[DanishDynamite]

BTW, I find it interesting that "the usual suspects" in regard to Israel-Palestine discussions haven't made a peep. Says a lot, I think.

 

[Solitaire]

So, which realistic scenarios have you come up with?

Only one based upon past history, that the area
of the occupied teritories continues to shrink as
it value on the open market makes it more valuable.

Some reading material on the subject: Tom's Journal & Peace Plan

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Nyarlathotep:As I said to the zenith-nadir, suppose you are in charge of reaching a negotiated peace. You have the undivided world community's backing. You have two years. What is your plan?

I wouldn't take the job. I don't think an outside force can ever bring peace to them unless and until they are willing to compromise on certain issues and until they themselves want peace. I don't think either side fulfills either of those criteria. thus nothing an outsider can do is going to have any effect.

If I HAD to give it a try, my response would be to try to 'stealth" peace onto both of them. Though the leadership of both sides seems to be uninterested in peace (except on their own terms) I am relatively sure that there are groups within both camps that are dedicated to bringing an end to the fighting. I would work with and support those groups, do what I can to get members of those groups into power on both sides. Making the atmosphere of the area more amenable to peace is the only thing I can see having a hope of suceeding. There are generations of ingrained hatred involved so I am pretty sure that I couldn't do it in two years, so I'd have to leave the rest up to my sucessor.

 

[Cleon]

BTW, I find it interesting that "the usual suspects" in regard to Israel-Palestine discussions haven't made a peep. Says a lot, I think.

Not really. I'm reading it. I'm just contemplating an "ignore all Israel thread" policy.

There's just not much point. Certain people are dead-set on assuming that Palestinians are genocidal monsters, and those of us who know better will forever be taken as stupid/ignorant/naive/anti-semitic.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Nyarlathotep:As I said to the zenith-nadir, suppose you are in charge of reaching a negotiated peace. You have the undivided world community's backing. You have two years. What is your plan?

My plan would be this.

A) Send a U.N. force into the West Bank and Gaza to take control.

Not a U.N. force to separate palestinians and Israelis, a force to take control of the palestinian areas to stabilize them.

Here is why;

Heavily armed criminal gangs are turning West Bank and Gaza Strip into lawless shooting galleries


Palestinian terrorism is the number one issue keeping peace from becoming a reality. The terrorists control the West Bank and Gaza, if you oppose them you are killed. Anyone who talks peace with the "zionist entity" is an "enemy" of the terror organizations and they are summarily killed.

Israel cannot make peace with people who control the streets, are unable to listen to reason and yearn from a young age to "martyr" themselves.


B) Once the U.N. has control of the West Bank and Gaza, free and open elections should take place to choose legitimate representatives of the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith with the Israelis.

C) Once legitimate and honest representatives are chosen a Palestinian constitution can be written.

D) Once legitimate and honest representatives are chosen negotiations with the Israelis can begin.

E) Once negotiations with the Israelis begin and both parties act in good faith, then peace will become a reality.

 

[zenith-nadir]

There's just not much point. Certain people are dead-set on assuming that Palestinians are genocidal monsters, and those of us who know better will forever be taken as stupid/ignorant/naive/anti-semitic.

Prove them wrong Cleon.

Provide examples of Palestinian peace movements, peace marches, palestinian public opinion polls and or outspoken Palestinian peace advocates.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry Nikk, I overlooked your post.

Nikk:

OK a few not too closely linked observations and proposals:-

1.) Medium to Long Term Objective.............If europe could move from the massive destruction of WWII to the creation of the European Community in just 12 years (45 to 57) then there should be the potential for jews and arabs to set aside internecine warfare. Israel and its neighbours should see their long term future as part of a near/middle eastern community with free movement of people, capital, land purchase etc, etc. This means in the long term for Israel giving up the idea of a jewish state. All members of such a community would of course retain a substantial measure of independence as in the current EU.

Excellent goal. But how in the world would this be achieved?

2.) Short Term Objective ..........Some form of cantonal structure for Israel/Palestine. Palestine will be economically dependent on Israel so statehood is a diversion from the greater objective of a union of states.

Not sure I understand. Would Palestine be an independent country or a protectorate of Israel?

a)Give every damn jew and palestinian a get out of jail free card. That is a multi purpose laisser passer to the civilised world, i.e. Europe, North America and Australasia. That way no one feels the desperation that comes from being locked in what is currently a human zoo. The Palestinians should in addition get the option of citizenship in the arab world. Needless to say anyone taking up the offer can come and go as they please.

Uh...is this realistic?

b)Israel's borders to be set at 1967 boundaries, 10 year moratorium on removal of settlers in hope they will provide employment for Palestinians and it ceases to matter.

OK

c) Limited right of return to Israel proper say 50,000 to 100,000 people max.

OK

d) No special citizenship rights in Israel for jews outside the country unless matched by equal rights for refugees.

Why would this be neccessary?

e) Jerusalem an international city under UN control ( or religious theme park run by Disney )

UN control? Why would this be a wish for either part. In the short term, perhaps, but in the long term, no.

f) A UN force in the currently occupied territories to prevent settler/palestinian conflict for as long as necesary. It would probably have to come from elite US/European units.

For how long?

g) Get young palestinians males into excellent secondary and tertiary education, ideally outside the region.

OK. But why only males?

If some such proposal could be made by the EU and the US it might just jump start the process. Oh and to show even handedness lets send in the SAS and the US equivalent to assassinate Sharon and Arafat.

I will now resume my normal ill tempered bickering.

"Resume?". When did you stop?

 

[RCNelson]

DanishDynamite:
Of course their can be a solution. If enough pressure is brought to bare, it is of course possible. The question is what is a possible?

Well OK, if there is to be a solution at all, it would have to include both sides giving up belief in a God that favors their own side over the other side.

The Jews/Israelis believe that God gave the land to the Jews thousands of years ago. Likewise, the Muslims/Palestinians believe that Allah gave the land to the Muslims.

These are religious beliefs for which there is no political solution. Nobody is bringing pressure to bare against the religious roots of the problem. Flaws in religious world views are too sensitive to bring pressure to bare against them. It would be too politically incorrect to tell them they must reform their religious world view.

Meanwhile, all political attempts at solving the problem are futile since the problem is religious rather than political. It's a matter of incompatible religious world views.

If Europe and America are to really push things towards a solution, we must push for reform at the religious level. We must directly challenge certain backwards religious views held by the jews and Muslims.

 

[Hutch]

Sorry on the link--got a C- in typing in 7th grade.

it's www.fmep.org/documents/Geneva_Accord.html

You can also find it at:

www.mideastinfo.com/documents/Geneva_eng.html

My bad

 

[Hutch]

My point being that there is no solution, unless you count staying out of it and letting them fight it out until one of them comes out on top as a solution. It's harsh but it's the only solution I see either side accepting.

That is IF staying out was an option, Nyarlathotep. No US Government (Demican or Republicat) could afford to and survive.

If we let the radicals on each side dictate policy, then that is the only way. But if there are sane folks left (and the ones who worked in Geneva include Israeli Generals and Palestinian opposition leaders strike me as pretty sane) I don't feel we can abandon them to the insane ones.

 

[Hutch]

My plan would be this.

A) Send a U.N. force into the West Bank and Gaza to take control.

Not a U.N. force to separate palestinians and Israelis, a force to take control of the palestinian areas to stabilize them.

B) Once the U.N. has control of the West Bank and Gaza, free and open elections should take place to choose legitimate representatives of the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith with the Israelis.

C) Once legitimate and honest representatives are chosen a Palestinian constitution can be written.

D) Once legitimate and honest representatives are chosen negotiations with the Israelis can begin.

E) Once negotiations with the Israelis begin and both parties act in good faith, then peace will become a reality. [/QUOTE

You see, my Danish friend, this is what we face. Zenith-nadir (or Top-Bottom for short) cannot conceive of any type of peace without something first being done about the terrorists. Those on the Palestinian side can't conceive of any sort of peace talks without first removing the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. For those hardened to those opinions, it is impossible to find any argument that will convince them to compromise.

As one other poster (Nikk) mentioned, people can become friendly even after the most terrible of wars (see France-Germany, USA-Japan) but when the religious factor enters into it, it becomes that much harder (see N. Ireland and Bosnia for European examples). When God has promised you something, it makes it hard to compromise.

Still, there are some who will think out of the box..there is relative peace (albeit extremely fragile) in Belfast and Skopje and it is not an impossibility.

But Nyarlathotep is right in this--imposing it from outside will not work-the two sides must finally reach the decision themselves that this conflict must end. We can but be ready to be the "honest broker" when the time comes (I think that your country may be better able to play the role than mine)


]

 

[zenith-nadir]

You see, my Danish friend, this is what we face. Zenith-nadir (or Top-Bottom for short) cannot conceive of any type of peace without something first being done about the terrorists.

Hutch, was the Nahariya/Avivim School Bus Attack, 1970, about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Lod Airport Massacre of 1972 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Munich Olympic Massacre of 1972 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Kiryat Shmona Massacre of 1974 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Maalot High School Massacre of 1974 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Tel Aviv Savoy Hotel attack of 1975 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Tel Aviv - Haifa highway attack of 1978 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking of 1985 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Leonardo Da Vinci International Airport massacre of 1985 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?





...and on and on and on....


It "is" about terrorism Hutch, to deny that is impossible.

 

[Nikk]

Sorry Nikk, I overlooked your post.




Nikk:Excellent goal. But how in the world would this be achieved?

My point here is that most proposals centre on new ways of dividing the slices of a very small cake, i.e. the current territory. In essence this is a zero sum game with an embittered loser for every winner. I am suggesting trying to get everyone to focus on a new objective, a new political structure with lots more opportunities i.e. more slices of the cake and thus bypass the zero sum problem. Note that most arabs currently are fed up with their governing elites and the proposal is designed to encourage the idea of arab unity which has great visceral appeal.

Not sure I understand. Would Palestine be an independent country or a protectorate of Israel?

By a cantonal structure I mean a loose federation. I see no point in full statehood if you are moving towards a larger EU type structure.


Uh...is this realistic?

We can fix part of it between ourselves. The idea is not ethnic cleansing but merely to encourage people to realise that they are not isolated. On reflection we would have to concentrate on the refugees of course as there is simply no room for more than a fraction to return.

OK


OK

Why would this be neccessary?

The idea is to move away from the outdated 19thC idea of Israel as a "Jewish" state with special immigration rights for jews who have no link to the country at the expense of palestinian refugees.


UN control? Why would this be a wish for either part. In the short term, perhaps, but in the long term, no.

Agreed; in the long term some special status analogous to the Vatican City might work. In the short term neither side would trust the other.


For how long?

Until some trust is built up. Note we are working here towards a situation in which Palestinians feel happy to move into jewish settlements and vice versa not necessarily to evacuate the settlements.


OK. But why only males?


Because they are better shots. There's the cultural side too.


"Resume?". When did you stop?

I realise the whole thing sounds utopian but sometimes a problem is insoluable without a paradigm shift. For all save the largest political units - the US, China, errm......nationalism has had its day and new structures must replace the nation state. Israel as I said above is a 19thC concept and so is Palestine together with the rest of the neighbours. Time for them to be encouraged to move on.

Bear in mind that in the home of Islamic fundamentalism, Iran, the theocrats have had to disqualify 3000 or so candidates in the next election because they are not Islamic enough and the younger section of the population is increasingly fed up with theocracy. So this particular philosophy is already showing signs of failure. Radical thinking of the type I suggest might help to put the boot in throughout the arab and indeed muslim world.

 

[Nikk]

As one other poster (Nikk) mentioned, people can become friendly even after the most terrible of wars (see France-Germany, USA-Japan) but when the religious factor enters into it, it becomes that much harder (see N. Ireland and Bosnia for European examples). When God has promised you something, it makes it hard to compromise.



]

Yes religion is a big problem of course. But on the muslim side Palestine was never a promised land, it was just where they lived. Jerusalem has great significance but that can have a special status.

On the Israeli side their proportional representational system overstates the importance of fundamentalists, there seem to be plenty of secular jews and non fundamentalist believers who would settle for a compromise solution.

I am sure jews are only too well aware that zealotry has led to the complete destruction of Israel once before.

 

[Nikk]

It "is" about terrorism Hutch, to deny that is impossible.

Terrorism is a symptom of a more fundamental problem but it is true that the symptom makes the underlying problem worse. Much like a fever weakens the organism. But one must focus on the underlying problem not the symptom.

Every Palestinian could match your list with his or her own list. There is no neutral arbitrator to allocate blame to everyones's satisfaction.