Solutions to Israel/Palestine

[Saigon]

My thoughts on how to end this conflict is heavily influenced by the end of the Nicaraguan civil war in 1991, and the end of the Ireland 'troubles' during the 1990s.

In both cases, wars ended because middle class familes who had once backed violence turned away from it, isolating the extremists, and shifting the focus of society towards the financial benefits of peace.

Thus - this is my proposal:

Prelude: The US advises Israel privately that funding will dry up in one year if no solution is found. The US publically commits to defending Israel militarily.

1) Israel anounces that it will recognise a Palestinian state, and invites Palestinian leaders to a major conference. Hamas are specifically invited, but are reminded that a condition of their participation in any peace plan is recognition of Israel.

2) The conference begins, with or without Hamas. Israel anounces a plan to withdraw from 90% of the West Bank, leaving a state with contigious borders. Israel anounces that it will accept 10,000 Palestinians per year for 10 years with Right of Return. Those from Akko and Jaffa are given priority. Returnees may apply for Israeli passports, but must swear to peaceful co-existance under threat of deportation.

3) All Palestinian groups recgonise Israel and commit to peaceful co-existance. Israel releases a large section of land south of the West Bank and in the lower Golan Heights to the Palestinian state in exchange for the 10% of the West Bank Israel keeps (e.g. Gilo). Sections of the Wall outside of these areas are dismantled. The Wall remains where it follows the now legal border. A road/rail link connects the West Bank with Gaza.

4) Western Jerusalem is in Israel, Eastern Jersualem is Palestinian, and the Old City is under permanant UN control, with access limited and controled.

5) The Palestinian state agrees for UN troops to monitor ports and airports to control the import of weapons. All militia are to disarm, and hand over weapons to legal authorities. The new Palestinian constitution outlaws any political group which does not recognise Israel.

6) Palestinian police are given training by the UN, to assist in finding arms caches, tunnels and rocket launching equipment.

7) The international community provide a massive amount of capital to provide education and healthcare for Palestinians, plus capital assistance for businesses. Palestine joins the UN as a full member.

 

[Artevelde]

My thoughts on how to end this conflict is heavily influenced by the end of the Nicaraguan civil war in 1991, and the end of the Ireland 'troubles' during the 1990s.

In both cases, wars ended because middle class familes who had once backed violence turned away from it, isolating the extremists, and shifting the focus of society towards the financial benefits of peace.

Thus - this is my proposal:

Prelude: The US advises Israel privately that funding will dry up in one year if no solution is found. The US publically commits to defending Israel militarily.

1) Israel anounces that it will recognise a Palestinian state, and invites Palestinian leaders to a major conference. Hamas are specifically invited, but are reminded that a condition of their participation in any peace plan is recognition of Israel.

2) The conference begins, with or without Hamas. Israel anounces a plan to withdraw from 90% of the West Bank, leaving a state with contigious borders. Israel anounces that it will accept 10,000 Palestinians per year for 10 years with Right of Return. Those from Akko and Jaffa are given priority. Returnees may apply for Israeli passports, but must swear to peaceful co-existance under threat of deportation.

3) All Palestinian groups recgonise Israel and commit to peaceful co-existance. Israel releases a large section of land south of the West Bank and in the lower Golan Heights to the Palestinian state in exchange for the 10% of the West Bank Israel keeps (e.g. Gilo). Sections of the Wall outside of these areas are dismantled. The Wall remains where it follows the now legal border. A road/rail link connects the West Bank with Gaza.

4) Western Jerusalem is in Israel, Eastern Jersualem is Palestinian, and the Old City is under permanant UN control, with access limited and controled.

5) The Palestinian state agrees for UN troops to monitor ports and airports to control the import of weapons. All militia are to disarm, and hand over weapons to legal authorities. The new Palestinian constitution outlaws any political group which does not recognise Israel.

6) Palestinian police are given training by the UN, to assist in finding arms caches, tunnels and rocket launching equipment.

7) The international community provide a massive amount of capital to provide education and healthcare for Palestinians, plus capital assistance for businesses. Palestine joins the UN as a full member.

I have problems with only a few of your proposals, but overal I believe it's not realistic. I will outline why in a seperate posting.

Point 2, where Israel unilateraly gives up a certain percentage flies in the face of any reasonable approach to a negotiation. How much, and which parts, of the west Bank go to a Palestinian state should be the subkect of the negotiations. If you're logical with your own proposal the Palestinians are presented with a fait accompli and the conference ends the moment they don't accept the 90%. This is not a realistic approach.

Also in point 2: the right of return is not realistic. At the very most, as part of a final compromise, Israel could perhaps accept the return of Palestinians who were themselves expelled in 1948 (no descendants, only people who were alive and documented then) and who are prepaed to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel and renounce Palestinian citizenship.

Point 4 is also not realistic and even dangerous. The idea of a UN-controlled area is a dangerous pipe-dream. The UN has zero credibility here. This is a complete non-starter. Israel is also not going to giove up all of East Jerusalem, although a certain territorial compromise should be possible.

Also, any provision for UN troops is completely unrealistic.

 

[P F Tinmore]

My thoughts on how to end this conflict is heavily influenced by the end of the Nicaraguan civil war in 1991, and the end of the Ireland 'troubles' during the 1990s.

In both cases, wars ended because middle class familes who had once backed violence turned away from it, isolating the extremists, and shifting the focus of society towards the financial benefits of peace.

Thus - this is my proposal:

Prelude: The US advises Israel privately that funding will dry up in one year if no solution is found. The US publically commits to defending Israel militarily.

Fat chance.

1) Israel anounces that it will recognise a Palestinian state, and invites Palestinian leaders to a major conference. Hamas are specifically invited, but are reminded that a condition of their participation in any peace plan is recognition of Israel.

Fat chance.

2) The conference begins, with or without Hamas. Israel anounces a plan to withdraw from 90% of the West Bank, leaving a state with contigious borders. Israel anounces that it will accept 10,000 Palestinians per year for 10 years with Right of Return. Those from Akko and Jaffa are given priority. Returnees may apply for Israeli passports, but must swear to peaceful co-existance under threat of deportation.

Will those people get their houses, orchards, farms, factories, commercial real estate, and shops back?

3) All Palestinian groups recgonise Israel and commit to peaceful co-existance. Israel releases a large section of land south of the West Bank and in the lower Golan Heights to the Palestinian state in exchange for the 10% of the West Bank Israel keeps (e.g. Gilo). Sections of the Wall outside of these areas are dismantled. The Wall remains where it follows the now legal border. A road/rail link connects the West Bank with Gaza.

4) Western Jerusalem is in Israel, Eastern Jersualem is Palestinian, and the Old City is under permanant UN control, with access limited and controled.

OK???

5) The Palestinian state agrees for UN troops to monitor ports and airports to control the import of weapons. All militia are to disarm, and hand over weapons to legal authorities. The new Palestinian constitution outlaws any political group which does not recognise Israel.

Why is this one sided?

6) Palestinian police are given training by the UN, to assist in finding arms caches, tunnels and rocket launching equipment.

7) The international community provide a massive amount of capital to provide education and healthcare for Palestinians, plus capital assistance for businesses. Palestine joins the UN as a full member.

I don't see this happening, so...

I have a better solution.

Everything inside Israel's borders goes to Israel.

Everything inside Palestine's borders goes to Palestine. Everything Israel has destroyed gets replaced by Israel.

 

[jack113]

My thoughts on how to end this conflict is heavily influenced by the end of the Nicaraguan civil war in 1991, and the end of the Ireland 'troubles' during the 1990s.

In both cases, wars ended because middle class familes who had once backed violence turned away from it, isolating the extremists, and shifting the focus of society towards the financial benefits of peace.

Thus - this is my proposal:

Prelude: The US advises Israel privately that funding will dry up in one year if no solution is found. The US publically commits to defending Israel militarily.

1) Israel anounces that it will recognise a Palestinian state, and invites Palestinian leaders to a major conference. Hamas are specifically invited, but are reminded that a condition of their participation in any peace plan is recognition of Israel.

2) The conference begins, with or without Hamas. Israel anounces a plan to withdraw from 90% of the West Bank, leaving a state with contigious borders. Israel anounces that it will accept 10,000 Palestinians per year for 10 years with Right of Return. Those from Akko and Jaffa are given priority. Returnees may apply for Israeli passports, but must swear to peaceful co-existance under threat of deportation.

3) All Palestinian groups recgonise Israel and commit to peaceful co-existance. Israel releases a large section of land south of the West Bank and in the lower Golan Heights to the Palestinian state in exchange for the 10% of the West Bank Israel keeps (e.g. Gilo). Sections of the Wall outside of these areas are dismantled. The Wall remains where it follows the now legal border. A road/rail link connects the West Bank with Gaza.

4) Western Jerusalem is in Israel, Eastern Jersualem is Palestinian, and the Old City is under permanant UN control, with access limited and controled.

5) The Palestinian state agrees for UN troops to monitor ports and airports to control the import of weapons. All militia are to disarm, and hand over weapons to legal authorities. The new Palestinian constitution outlaws any political group which does not recognise Israel.

6) Palestinian police are given training by the UN, to assist in finding arms caches, tunnels and rocket launching equipment.

7) The international community provide a massive amount of capital to provide education and healthcare for Palestinians, plus capital assistance for businesses. Palestine joins the UN as a full member.

I have problems with only a few of your proposals, but overal I believe it's not realistic. I will outline why in a seperate posting.

Point 2, where Israel unilateraly gives up a certain percentage flies in the face of any reasonable approach to a negotiation. How much, and which parts, of the west Bank go to a Palestinian state should be the subkect of the negotiations. If you're logical with your own proposal the Palestinians are presented with a fait accompli and the conference ends the moment they don't accept the 90%. This is not a realistic approach.

Also in point 2: the right of return is not realistic. At the very most, as part of a final compromise, Israel could perhaps accept the return of Palestinians who were themselves expelled in 1948 (no descendants, only people who were alive and documented then) and who are prepaed to swear an oath of loyalty to Israel and renounce Palestinian citizenship.

Point 4 is also not realistic and even dangerous. The idea of a UN-controlled area is a dangerous pipe-dream. The UN has zero credibility here. This is a complete non-starter. Israel is also not going to giove up all of East Jerusalem, although a certain territorial compromise should be possible.

Also, any provision for UN troops is completely unrealistic.

Not a bad proposal except Israel has to give up the land they have been stealing and move back over it's borders something it will not do unless it is forced to.

The two sates solution is out as long as America controls the UN and only does lip service to the two state solution.

Stop funding Israeli terrorism but at the same time stop funding Saudi terrorism as well as all other rogue states in the Middle East.

The UN started this whole mess by handing the Jews land it did not own and had no right to give away and the UN should be made to fix the mess it created.

America has to stop being a Middle East dictator and allow the Middle East countries to work out their differences.

 

[Artevelde]

The most obvious solution is that of a Palestinian state created on parts of the West Bank and in Gaza. The borders around Gaza are well-defined. As for the West Bank, a territorial compromise would be necessary, bringing certain of the largest Israeli settlements that are close to the 1967 line into Israel; dismantling the other Israeli settlements; and possibly providing some territorial compensation to the Palestians along other sections of the 1967 line. The Palestinian territory on the West Bank must be contiguous. Jerusalem remains within Israel, but certain outer parts that are heavily Palestinian populated can be added to the Palestinian territory. An international convention guarantees access for all major faiths to their holy sites and the protection of those sites.
The new Palestinian state has a domestic security force and is committed to destroying Hamas and all terrorist groups. For the rest the Palestinian territories are demilitarised and Palestine maintains no regular Army with heavy weapons and no Air Force.
All Arab countries recognize both Israel and Palestine. Palestine explicitely renounces all and any claims to Israeli territory and also the right of return (except perhaps for people whowere actually themselves expelled in 1948 - no descendants - and who swear loyalty to Israel and renounce Palestinian citizenship).

The problem with this obvious solution is that the new Palestinian state is unlikely to be a viable entity, economically or politically. It will quickly descend into chaos resulting in a renewed Israeli occupation.

The optimum solution therefore would be for the Palestinian state, as outlined above, not to be a fully independent state but to form a confederation with Jordan, with a large measure of autonomy. This would provide stability, both economically and politically and security for the Palestinian state. Unfortunately, the Jordanians are unlikely to go along with this for fear of destabilizing Jordan.

A Third way out is simply for Israel to declare a unilateral settlement, withdraw behind the wall, and leave Palestine to its fate. But this would quickly result in renewed war I'm afraid.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Let them fight it out. Literally. Let Israel defend itself against their hostile neighbors. When the dust settles, whoever has what they were fighting over, "wins".

 

[Saigon]

Point 2, where Israel unilateraly gives up a certain percentage flies in the face of any reasonable approach to a negotiation. How much, and which parts, of the west Bank go to a Palestinian state should be the subkect of the negotiations. If you're logical with your own proposal the Palestinians are presented with a fait accompli and the conference ends the moment they don't accept the 90%. This is not a realistic approach.

Also in point 2: the right of return is not realistic.

I don't know how much time you've spent in Israel, but the fate of most parts of the West Bank are done deals, well understood by both sides. Nablus, Jericho and Ramallah will be Palestinian in any partition plan- Gilo will be in Israel.

Of course negotiation would take place, but if both sides drew their maps from a reaonable perspective (unlikely, I know!) they would agree about 90% of the lines.

Some right of return is simply essential.

I also believe the status of Jersualem that I present is the only viable option. Rather than just say it is dangerous - present an alternative.

 

[Artevelde]

Point 2, where Israel unilateraly gives up a certain percentage flies in the face of any reasonable approach to a negotiation. How much, and which parts, of the west Bank go to a Palestinian state should be the subkect of the negotiations. If you're logical with your own proposal the Palestinians are presented with a fait accompli and the conference ends the moment they don't accept the 90%. This is not a realistic approach.

Also in point 2: the right of return is not realistic.

I don't know how much time you've spent in Israel, but the fate of most parts of the West Bank are done deals, well understood by both sides. Nablus, Jericho and Ramallah will be Palestinian in any partition plan- Gilo will be in Israel.

Of course negotiation would take place, but if both sides drew their maps from a reaonable perspective (unlikely, I know!) they would agree about 90% of the lines.

Some right of return is simply essential.

I also believe the status of Jersualem that I present is the only viable option. Rather than just say it is dangerous - present an alternative.

The UN is not capable of running part of Jerusalem. That's just an invitation to mass slaughter. Completely unrealistic.

 

[Saigon]

Not a bad proposal except Israel has to give up the land they have been stealing and move back over it's borders something it will not do unless it is forced to.

Not entirely.

There is no way on earth Israel will give up many settlements, and they are that 10%. They would like 12% - 15%, but large parts of the West Bank do not have settlements on them or near them.

The figure of 88% was on the table at Camp David, and although settlements have expanded since then, I think that is still a decent figure.

 

[Artevelde]

Let them fight it out. Literally. Let Israel defend itself against their hostile neighbors. When the dust settles, whoever has what they were fighting over, "wins".

That is the current situation. And for lack of a workable alternative that is the default solution. The Palestinians will continue to be the big losers in such a scenario.

 

[Saigon]

Will those people get their houses, orchards, farms, factories, commercial real estate, and shops back?


Why is this one sided?

No, I doubt they would get anything back. We know many Palestinians fled their homes in 1948, and that was ultimately the wrong move to make.

But they will get to live again in Akko, and that is a big compromise on Israel's part.

I don't think this plan is one sided. Israel requires armed forces to protect itself from Lebanon and Syria - Palestine should not require a large arsenal of (privately held) weapons to protect itself from Egypt.

 

[Saigon]

Let them fight it out. Literally. Let Israel defend itself against their hostile neighbors. When the dust settles, whoever has what they were fighting over, "wins".

That is the current situation. And for lack of a workable alternative that is the default solution. The Palestinians will continue to be the big losers in such a scenario.

I agree.

The Palestinans need a peaceful solution desperately - probably more than the Israelis do.

 

[Artevelde]

Let them fight it out. Literally. Let Israel defend itself against their hostile neighbors. When the dust settles, whoever has what they were fighting over, "wins".

That is the current situation. And for lack of a workable alternative that is the default solution. The Palestinians will continue to be the big losers in such a scenario.

I agree.

The Palestinans need a peaceful solution desperately - probably more than the Israelis do.

I agree. That's why I propsed the alternatives I put in my own post. But even they are not really workable at this time i'm afraid.

 

[High_Gravity]

Let them fight it out. Literally. Let Israel defend itself against their hostile neighbors. When the dust settles, whoever has what they were fighting over, "wins".

That would be the worst scenario for the Palestinians because Israel would wipe the floor with them and any other country in the area that tried to get involved, solving this diplomatically would be the best thing for the Palestinians.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If Israel was really put in charge of their own nation, they would have more than just the Palestinians to deal with. So that isn't what is happening now. Israel is protected by US military might and diplomatic backing. Cut them loose, let the middle east have their big fight and when the dust settles, well, the dust will settle.

 

[Saigon]

The UN is not capable of running part of Jerusalem. That's just an invitation to mass slaughter. Completely unrealistic.

I disagree - the geography of Jerusalem is actually an advantage here.

Again, I'm not sure how well you know the city, but East Jerusalem faces Temple Mount, allowing control of access through Lion's Gate and Herod's Gate.

Israelis could enter the Old City via King Davids Gate and Dung Gate, and tourists via Damascus Gate.

All it would need is a wall between Herod's Gate and Damascus Gate, extending around the old Arab bus station to divide Palestinian Jerusalem from the UN Zone.

Israelis would lose access to the Mount of Olives, but that's about it.

Again: it is very easy to rubbish ideas - not so easy to suggest more viable plans.

 

[High_Gravity]

The UN is not capable of running part of Jerusalem. That's just an invitation to mass slaughter. Completely unrealistic.

I disagree - the geography of Jerusalem is actually an advantage here.

Again, I'm not sure how well you know the city, but East Jerusalem faces Temple Mount, allowing control of access through Lion's Gate and Herod's Gate.

Israelis could enter the Old City via King Davids Gate and Dung Gate, and tourists via Damascus Gate.

All it would need is a wall between Herod's Gate and Damascus Gate, extending around the old Arab bus station to divide Palestinian Jerusalem from the UN Zone.

Israelis would lose access to the Mount of Olives, but that's about it.

Again: it is very easy to rubbish ideas - not so easy to suggest more viable plans.

I don't trust the UN or respect their authority to be honest, look at how they get shoved around and bullied in the African countries they go to, hell Assads forces are massacring people right in front of the UN.

 

[Artevelde]

The UN is not capable of running part of Jerusalem. That's just an invitation to mass slaughter. Completely unrealistic.

I disagree - the geography of Jerusalem is actually an advantage here.

Again, I'm not sure how well you know the city, but East Jerusalem faces Temple Mount, allowing control of access through Lion's Gate and Herod's Gate.

Israelis could enter the Old City via King Davids Gate and Dung Gate, and tourists via Damascus Gate.

All it would need is a wall between Herod's Gate and Damascus Gate, extending around the old Arab bus station to divide Palestinian Jerusalem from the UN Zone.

Israelis would lose access to the Mount of Olives, but that's about it.

Again: it is very easy to rubbish ideas - not so easy to suggest more viable plans.

Again, I presented my alternative.

And who would be the UN military dictator in Old Jerusalem? How many thousands of troops would you station there? How many terrorist would he be allowed to execute? This is completely unrealistic.

 

[High_Gravity]

If Israel was really put in charge of their own nation, they would have more than just the Palestinians to deal with. So that isn't what is happening now. Israel is protected by US military might and diplomatic backing. Cut them loose, let the middle east have their big fight and when the dust settles, well, the dust will settle.

Most Middle Eastern Militaries are a joke, if I were a betting man I would put my money on Israel, they have the best equipment, better training, better over all Military than Syria, Egypt, Lebanon or anyone there.

 

[Artevelde]

The UN is not capable of running part of Jerusalem. That's just an invitation to mass slaughter. Completely unrealistic.

I disagree - the geography of Jerusalem is actually an advantage here.

Again, I'm not sure how well you know the city, but East Jerusalem faces Temple Mount, allowing control of access through Lion's Gate and Herod's Gate.

Israelis could enter the Old City via King Davids Gate and Dung Gate, and tourists via Damascus Gate.

All it would need is a wall between Herod's Gate and Damascus Gate, extending around the old Arab bus station to divide Palestinian Jerusalem from the UN Zone.

Israelis would lose access to the Mount of Olives, but that's about it.

Again: it is very easy to rubbish ideas - not so easy to suggest more viable plans.

I don't trust the UN or respect their authority to be honest, look at how they get shoved around and bullied in the African countries they go to, hell Assads forces are massacring people right in front of the UN.

Yes, the UN was wonderfully effective in Rwanda, Somalia, etc.