Meteor Blades has requested of several I-P regulars, including myself, that we put forward what we think a reasonable peace might look like. His purpose is, I think, to demonstrate that most pro-Palestinian advocates have considerably more in common with most pro-Israel advocates on Daily Kos than one might think given the never-ending vitriol. I was foolish enough to agree to this request and below are a few of my thoughts on the matter. Pretty standard stuff, really. The two-state solution.
The West Bank:
Israel will remove itself from most of the West Bank in a one-to-one land-swap deal in which Jewish settlements near the Green Line will become incorporated into Israel. The so-called "security fence" shall be adjusted so that it is entirely on Israeli land. If, after a period of two to five years, Israel endures no terrorist activity out of that region, it will remove the fence entirely.
Jewish settlements within the newly created state of Palestine will remain intact, subject to Palestinian review and adjustments, and Palestine will consider its Jewish residents full citizens, with equal of rights under the law and full freedom of worship. Likewise, Israel shall remove any obstacles in law that prevents Arab-Israelis from enjoying full equality of citizenship, with the lone exception of "right of return." All Jewish-Palestinians will be afforded access to Israel, and all Palestinian-Israelis will be afforded access to Palestine, without undue restrictions, in perpetuity. Any Jewish-Palestinians who wish to migrate into Israel will be allowed to do so without restriction. Israel will provide initial housing for any such migrants from Palestine. The remaining Jewish settlements in Palestine will be opened to Arab residency without restriction.
A rail-line shall be constructed by the Palestinian and Israeli governments connecting Gaza to the West Bank. Israel will maintain the right to guard both sides of this line as a security measure.
The Golan Heights:
As a gesture of good-will, Israel shall return the Golan to Syria. Given Israel’s military superiority, it no longer needs the Golan to protect itself from potential hostilities.
East Jerusalem:
The state of Israel and the state of Palestine shall maintain joint sovereignty over East Jerusalem. This will allow Palestine to set up its capital in that city, if it chooses, while hindering neither Jewish, nor Muslim, religious practitioners from access to various "holy sites," such as the Western Wall for the Jews, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque for the Muslims. If such an arrangement proves unworkable, or if either side opposes such an arrangement, than the Arab majority sections of East Jerusalem shall be Palestinian while the Jewish majority sections shall remain Israeli. In that case, the UN will control the "holy sites" to ensure equal access to anyone who wishes to visit for any reason.
The Right of Return:
Israel shall grant limited "right of return" to any Palestinians who can demonstrate reasonable proof of residency on Israeli land prior to 1948. "Limited" shall be construed to mean that the Israeli government will reserve the right to decide just how many Palestinians will be afforded this privilege.
Security Measures:
United Nations forces will occupy a security zone bordering the two countries for a period of no less than ten years. After that period the UN, in consultation with the Israeli and Palestinian governments, will assess the necessity of maintaining its presence in order to preserve the peace.
Both governments will agree to prosecute and punish any individuals who plan, or commit, acts of violence against the citizenry of the other state, according to prosecutorial guidelines established by the UN in consultation with Israeli and Palestinian leadership.
For the first ten years of its existence Palestinian security will be provided by UN forces, both in the security zone, as well as within Palestine, proper. After that period, if Palestine has not shown itself aggressive toward the Jewish state, UN forces will commence a process of withdrawal and Palestine will be free to commence a UN guided process of militarization. After twenty years, if Palestine has still not shown aggression toward the Jewish state, it will be free to create its military free of restrictions and UN forces will completely depart.
Israel will agree to respect Palestinian sovereignty over its air-space.
The Blockade of Gaza:
Israel shall maintain the blockade of Gaza only so long as rocket fire continues into Israel from that region. As such rocket fire has significantly decreased, however, Israel’s blockade must also ease. Israel will commit itself to ending the blockade entirely contingent upon the cessation of attacks upon it. Israel shall, however, immediately begin the process of easing the blockade by allowing into Gaza any, and all, food and medical supplies, as well as the building materials needed for Gazan reconstruction.
Economic Development:
The United Nations shall, upon Palestinian approval, sponsor an economic development plan for Palestine in the spirit of the post-World War II "Marshall Plan." In order to successfully achieve an ongoing peace there must also be economic development in the state of Palestine. The United Nations will therefore spear-head a program in which any governments or corporations throughout the world may participate.
The purpose will be to create the material and economic infrastructure necessary for the emergence of a strong Palestinian middle-class.
Note: This diary is, obviously, not dKos I-P meta, but I would still be curious to know what you guys think. I am, of course, flexible on my suggestions.
Posted by Karmafish
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent ideas, Karma.
ReplyDeleteOn the Golan, I still don't think Syria's leadership has proven itself sane enough. Al-Assad is just as bad as his father, seeing as he harbors both Hamas, Hezbollah, and is a friend the Ahmadinejad. Plus, there are no Palestinians there. We could leave Golan to another day, if ever. Given that the peace making should be done without Hamas and Hezbollah, it wouldn't be a bad idea to treat them as they should be until they want to enter a real peace process, which they don't. They want Kalifah.
On "right of return," given that someone could always argue "oh we want more 'refugees' into Israel," I think the best solution is a financial compensation only to original DPs, not their kids etc. Problem is if we given any "right" of return, their narrative will have false legitimacy and it will also validate a false premise in situations like these, as the Indian/Pakistan, German/Eastern Europe, Greece/Turkey etc. refugees won't have such. Tho I do think if there is anything about refugees, the Jewish ones should be included as well.
On Jerusalem, in terms of compromise, if its gonna be, your idea isn't bad. Tho if both parties want a single sovereignty over E Jerusalem, I think what would be a good idea is the move the Arab families into the vicinity of Arab/Muslim holy parts, and move the Jewish families into the Jewish holy parts, doing it so sovereignty can be contiguous.
Good plan, tho otherwise.
You saw my responses in the diary itself.
ReplyDeleteIn I/P news, Bret Baier from Fox News (yeah, I know, that's why I didn't even bother bringing it up on dKos) is live in Jerusalem all this week.
Thanks, Krissy.
ReplyDeleteOf course, all of this would be contingent on getting the Palestinians to the negotiating table so that any such agreement could be hammered out.
This is why I find the demand for settlement freeze to be counterproductive. It gives Abbas an excuse to avoid the negotiating table.
Personally, I think Obama screwed up.
"Abbas: No peace talks without full settlement freeze "
ReplyDeleteIn today's Ha'Aretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1111369.html
Way to call it man.
Exactly, doodad.
ReplyDeleteAnd now we have all these people in the political tubes screaming up and down, "They won't stop the settlements! They keep building settlements! Israel doesn't want peace!"
Yet, it was Netanyahu who called for negotiations and Abbas who rejected it.
Karma....you just can't expect any rational discussion of settlements with the people of the narrative....and I don't mean the Palestinian narrative.
ReplyDeleteTheir simplistic "it's theft; they are the biggest obstacle to peace in the whole wide world ever since the dawn of time," is so obviously a backward looking petrified ideology which serves no purpose in the move towards peace. It's good theatre but poor strategy.
And don't let me get started about theatre and I/P.
Hmmm...
ReplyDelete"Theater," ay?
Interesting.
You should consider writing something up and posting it as a diary.
Maybe.
Let's flesh this out a little.
How would you describe I-P as theater?
I disagree with your plan and believe it unfeasible at best and extremely dangerous at worst.
ReplyDeleteBefore we continue, I would like to first note that it was the supposed 'right winger' of Benjamin Netanyahu who claims to believe in 'two states.' And so the Israeli political system is not 'preventing' two states, as some try to imply.
As it so happens, 'two states' is an utter impossibility. Right now, the 'Palestinians' are completely radicalized and attending Hamas summer camps. We know about the Bethlehem conference of the 'moderate' Fatah, wherein it was declared that they have the 'right to resist.' It should also be noted that the 'moderate' Fatah wants to render Judea/Samaria Judenrein, while flooding the 1967 borders of Israel with 'Palestinian' refugees. (and this is the 'moderate' camp) So 'two states' is an impossibility and would essentially give a 'state' to a terrorist group, which will better enable them to render war upon Israel with. Israel has offered up everything it could, and gotten jihad and war in response. In fact, in a move of what I call lack of historical memory, as well as political cowardice and craven disgustingness, Ehud Olmert offered up 97% of the 'West Bank' in the Annapolis talks of 2008, as well as most of Arab 'East Jerusalem,' including 'internationalizing' the Kotel (i.e., taking it from the sovereignty of Jews), which is considered the holiest spot for Jews outside of the Temple Mount.
As we speak, the Arabs (via the 'Waqf Authority') are engaging in the archeological destruction of the Temple Mount. (lest we forget, they have a 'Dome of the Rock' atop this Temple Mount, which was built on the very spot where the Arun Kodesh of the Holy Temple was - purposefully) We should give up our priceless archeological sites and historical memory in order to get pieces of paper and more war? Doing so, I believe, renders Israel a less legitimate state, as Israel surely rests its legitimacy in part upon historical memory and the historical record. Destroying our heritage destroys the legitimacy of the state.
It is all well and good that Salam Fayyad wants to 'start a Palestinian state in two years.' Never mind that he was simply engaging in useless verbiage and verbal diarrhea. What have the Palestinians been doing for the last 15 years, after the Oslo 'peace' process, wherein they were supposed to be engaged in 'nation building'? Suddenly, because Fayyad waves his magic wand, a 'state' will become viable? He is wishing upon a cloud.
[more]
[continued]
ReplyDeleteAnd so, a 'two state solution,' and the Oslo "Peace" Process (which should be renamed the War Process) are infeasible and will further legitimize terrorists and hate mongers. What should be done?
We first have to admit that it is physically infeasible to divide Jerusalem in the ways being outlined. Dividing Jerusalem not only cuts in half the heart of the country, it also is a security nightmare, as it would lead to a terrorist group having sovereignty over land across the street from where Israel resides. (there is no Palestinian 'peace partner,' lest we forget)
There are not many feasible options. The only 'semi' feasible option is the long-term strategy of cooperation and development between the Arabs and Jews, teaching pride in country and pride in the creation of the state of Israel, rather than a 'Naqba education,' as per Yuli Tamir (which thankfully has started), and frankly waiting at least a generation until there may - if we work hard and start today - be a 'peace partner.'
In the meantime, Israel needs to stand proud, tall, and strong. There was no 'Naqba' and in fact the creation of the State of Israel was the absolute best thing ever to happen to the Arab people. The creation of the State of Israel means that Arab Israelis get to live in democracy and freedom, and were spared the indignity of having to be subjects of the Nazi, Haj Amin al Husseini. And now, should Palestinians and the Arab people decide to go for it, they have a chance at democratization and a life for themselves. They never would have been given that chance under the mass murdering auspices of the PLO/Hamas/what have you.
Let's be proud of who we are, and recognize the wonderful good Israel has bestowed upon the world through its creation and continued existence.
To wrap this up, let me link to Moshe Yaalon's article in Azure. In it, he lays out what is the only feasible possibly for a 'two state' peace - and it first and foremost involves dropping the Oslo failed paradigm once and for all.
One more thing:
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Golan Heights goes, I am also 100% against returning even a single millemeter of this land to that terrorist enabler, Bashar Assad.
This was explained well right here - via Michael Totten.
'Good will'? Why does Israel hve to get involved in all the 'good will' gestures? Why not have Syria exercise some 'good will' towards Israel, and stop funding/arming/maintaining Hizballah and Hamas? Why is this always a one-way 'good will'?
And not only is having the military highland an absolute must (if we learned nothing from the 2006 Hizballah war), in addition, the Golan Heights is home to a very large percentage of Israeli water. Israel should simply 'give up' land vital to its security for 'good will'?
Why, exactly?
Why shouldn't Syria 'give up' sponsoring a terrorist entity for 'good will'?
Sorry, one last thing for real.
ReplyDeleteKarmafish, you are living in an alternate reality if you believe the corrupt, antisemitic kleptocrats of the UN would provide any form of dependable security force for the Palestinians or Israel.
The experience of UNIFIL shows that dream is nothing but a dream, and has no basis in reality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Florence,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm willing to revise my thinking on the UN role.
One of the main criticisms that I received of this diary was precisely around that idea.
Of course,
ReplyDeleteyour criticisms go well beyond just the UN and even oppose the two-state solution entirely.
On this, of course, I cannot agree, but I am more than happy to agree to disagree.
Cheers!
Karmafish:
ReplyDeletePlease read the article by Moshe Yaalon.
Two states, as a matter of simple fact, is literally, figuratively, and actually impossible to implement within the next 10 years at least, and likely the next 30 years.
We have to work within that framework if we want a lasting peace.
I am not against 'two states' if it really had the potential to lead to peace, but it simply does not, at least at this juncture. [I cannot speak to 10-30 years down the line]
I'll give the article a read.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Florence.