Friday, October 5, 2007
This isn't my usual thing. Generally speaking, I avoid prescribing policy and spend my time poking, prodding and digging for honest and useful analysis in an effort to make the ground as fertile as possible for the people who do make policy to have the information they need and a receptive audience to support it.
Nevertheless, I received this from an Israeli source who'd appreciate getting it out there. Here it is. Have at it as you wish:
- Israel will withdraw to the lines based the border as of June 4, 1967
- The Palestinians will establish a state on 100 percent of the territory that Israel conquered in the 1967 Six-Day War. To reduce the number of settlers and Palestinians who will have to leave their homes, “border modifications” may be introduced, “based on an equitable and agreed-upon territorial exchange” at a ratio of 1:1.
- The Palestinians will forgo their demand to realize the right of return, with the refugees making do with financial compensation and the opportunity to reside in the state of Palestine.
- The Palestinian state will be demilitarized.
- As for Jerusalem, it will be “an open city, the capital of two states,” with the Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty and the Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty. “Neither side will exercise sovereignty over the holy places.” The arrangement will be that Palestine “will be designated Guardian of Haram al-Sharif [the Temple Mount] for the benefit of Muslims. Israel will be the Guardian of the Western Wall for the benefit of the Jewish people.”
- Both sides will agree that “the full implementation of these principles” will mark the end of the conflict.
- Both sides will agree that Israel is the representative of the Jewish people and Palestine is the representative of the Palestinian people.
- Both sides agree that Palestine (or Palestine+ a mandate from all Muslim/Arab countries) is the representative and guardian of all Muslim claims to any area covered by the two states.
- Israel, on behalf of the Jewish people for ever withdraw any claim to any area in Palestine – this without erasing years of Jewish history in the area. Palestinians recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. Forever to remain a land not ruled by Muslims or anyone other than the Jewish people.
- Palestine, on behalf of Palestinian people and the Arab Ummah, withdraw any claim to any area in Israel – this without erasing years of Palestinian/Arab/Muslim or others history in this area.
- • A limited and equal number of Israelis/Jews who would want that will be allowed to remain In Palestine and accept Palestinian citizenship.
• An equal number of Palestinians/Arabs will be allowed to remain in Israel and receive Israeli citizenship. - All others, including those called “Israeli Arabs” and “Settlers” will have to migrate to their respective countries (Jews to Israel - Palestinans to Palestine) so that any future friction of a demographic threat will be minimize for the future. Anyone who has to move will receive full financial compensation for property left behind. (This is not bad since the value of land in Israel is higher so Palestinians who now reside in Israel could get much more in Palestine for the land they leave behind in Israel.)
Naive. Four words why this can NEVER happen: Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
BHG
So -- this is a plan for elimination of pretty much the entire Arab/Druze/Bedouin population of Israel, either through border swaps or population transfer?
This is whose proposal? (Although I think I have a good guess...)
> Palestinians recognize Israel as
> the homeland of the Jewish people.
> Forever to remain a land not ruled by
> Muslims or anyone other than the Jewish
> people.
Palestinians don't have the authority to make such a recognition on behalf of all Arabs or all Muslims. Neither of those larger communities will consider themselves bound by the statement, while Israel will surely be bound to its side. The deal should be free such superfluous statements of principle, which are meaningless at best and possibly dangerous.
> the Jewish people for ever
> withdraw any claim ...
Similarly, grand statements about eternity serve no purpose other than to make the author feel important.
Demilitarization is also a pipe dream. It should not be used to stand in for borders that are genuinely secure.
JSinger, it's no one you've heard of. Just a guy.
Interesting idea, but I haven't any faith in the Arabs accepting such a plan.
Nice idea based entirely on false or incorrect or naive assumptions of Arab goals and dreams.
Any negotiations with the PLO or whatever group represents the "palestinians" that aren't Israeli, are futile until the Arab/Muslim world accepts Israel's existence and normalizes diplomatic and trade relations. Minus that recognition, any and all dialog is simply pissing into the wind.
Recognition must come first from the Arabs, and the Arabs must empower Israel's negotiating partner... Israel, nor America nor Europe nor anyone but the Arab world can decide who will speak for the palestinians... Jordan? didn't want Judea and Samaria back... Egypt? didn't want Gaza back... Declaring Abbas as a partner for peace may be a nice gesture but, like all attempts before, it will be meaningless.
Why would Israel want the Druze, Bedouin or Arab Israelis to move? Similarly no future Palestinian state should be based on the idea of forcing Jews to leave Judea and Samaria. Both states must be built on tolerance and mutual acceptance or they won't work at all.
And neither will a Jerusalem split along ethnic neighborhoods. Good heavens, we have been trying to overcome that disease here in the US! We have effective class warfare in many of our inner cities, it damns generations; and it mars the very face of America.
Honestly I think this is a bad idea. Any plan that doesn't have tolerance - nay - acceptance of diversity as its very basis is bound to fail, even assuming good will on both sides, which is a huge stretch in the first place.
The only guarantee of peace and security in the Middle East and beyond, depends upon the fact that people are ultimately just people. Looking at Lebanon we see a failure of this idea, looking at Iraq we see a failure. In Iran, tribes, religious and ethnic groups are oppressed. Women as a group are oppressed in much of the world. Gay people are often brutally tortured and murdered.
In Africa, one tribe in Rwanda tried to exterminate another only a few years ago. Yugoslavia tore itself asunder, on the basis of religious and ethnographic distinctions. Of course we are all, all too familiar with the Shoah.
Israel should stand up for the ideas so eloquently stated in the Israeli Declaration of Independence. As Jews we are justifiably afraid of being dominated and even exterminated. But that doesn't mean we should take seriously "peace proposals" that involve paranoia and which are based on "population transfers" - from either direction.
Rather, we should insist on tolerance: within Israel and within a proposed Palestinian state. I definitely believe the Palestinian people should have self-determination and a state (if that is truly what they want) but have a problem endorsing the idea of a judenfrei state (there are already more than 20 in the Arab League, aren't there?) Similarly we shouldn't entertain seriously any idea of an Arab-frei Jewish state and should speak out loudly against such ideas, which I find offensive.
>>>this is a plan for elimination of pretty much the entire Arab/Druze/Bedouin population of Israel, either through border swaps or population transfer?
No. Only those who see themselves as Palestinians/Arab.
I.e. all Druze (very loyal to Israel) will stay and most Bedouins as well.
It would be totally unacceptable to deprive Israeli Arabs of their citizenship, and force their immigration. The Israeli Arabs are on the whole, loyal to Israel. Almost all of them prefer citizenship in Israel to citizenship in a Palestinian state. For the Druze especially, who have demonstrated thew highest level of loyalty to Israel, this would amount to an unbelievable betrayal. I simply do not believe that Israel would commit itself to such an arrangement. I can believe that Israel would offer voluntary immigration to Israeli Arabs who chose to do so. There would not be many takers.
Palestinians don't have the authority to make such a recognition on behalf of all Arabs or all Muslims.
As far as the Arabs are concerned, the PLO does have that authority, via the Arab League. Muslims are another matter, although the Arab League controls institutions that set policy for most of the Sunni world.
No. Only those who see themselves as Palestinians/Arab.
My proposal would be that anyone remaining in post-settlement Israel has to accept the nature of the state, perform military service and the like. (The haredi complicate this, of course.) Maybe what you mean is something like that? I see no reason why "Arabs" should be outlawed but "Druze" is a permissible minority identity. And Bedouin are Arabs.
There is a Hugh difference between the Druze (Who are loyal to Israel in every aspect) and Muslims (most see themselves as Palestinians who hold Israeli ID - mostly for economic reasons)
The Solution is simple:
Two national countries for Two national identities to minimize future friction.
Both citizenships and border will have to be redrawn and redistributed. People who loose land, home will get compensated for their economic loss.
If the idea of "changing citizenship" is bothering to someone all I can suggest is look at this differently:
A new country will be formed be Israeli Jews+Druze seceding from Israel. This will leave Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship with a worthless Israeli identity – after all other than the economic value they have no value for that citizenship anyhow.
I'd have serious problems with this proposal, even if it came from a prominent Arab policy-maker... and I strongly suspect that it did not.
(Jews and Israelis have floated a great many peace plans over the years, ranging from ridiculously narrow to ridiculously broad, starting in the mid-thirties. None were ever accepted by the Arabs, which was a large part of the problem.)
Even focusing just on the proposal itself, though, something jumps out at me immediately:
A large part of it describes the situation in early June 1967 -- which was so bad at the time that Egypt, Syria, Jordan, AND THE PALESTINIANS declared loudly that Israel was about to be destroyed. What has changed, to indicate that they would happily accept now what they violently rejected then?
Other parts of the plan are reminiscent of the UN Partition Plan of 1947 (e.g. Jerusalem as an "open international city"). The same objection applies: why do we think people will happily accept now what they violently rejected then?
Let me add, also, that many parts of this proposal sound very nice indeed on paper... but are utterly unenforceable, particularly when it comes to military force. (Example: "both sides agree that this spells the end of the conflict". Who will enforce that? Arafat declared an end to terrorism in 1988, as I recall... and then went right on murdering people. If the Palestinians choose to continue the conflict, after having said that they wouldn't, and Israel defends herself, could she depend on other countries to stand by her? Let's just say that it hasn't worked that way yet, although Israelis keep hoping.)
As Charles de Gaulle said: "Treaties are like flowers and young girls. They last while they last." In the Middle East, in particular, letting your life depend on a treaty will NOT make your life-insurance premiums go down.
I hate to say it, but the rules that have applied to wars since time immemorial will apply here too. The fighting will continue until one side says "Enough -- stop hurting me. I'll do anything you say, if only you'll stop." (That's what "unconditional surrender" means. Israel's neighbors have never been required to face that.)
Historically, that's how wars end. Trying to make it 'nicer' or 'gentler' doesn't make it better; it makes it worse, and prolongs the suffering for everyone.
I want peace in the Middle East as much as anyone can. But when peace comes, the treaty will confirm what is already on the ground. A treaty cannot invent a new reality that never existed before.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
>>>Who will enforce that?
Good question.
At the end no one can prevent a unilateral declaration of war.
What we can do is de-legitimize the reason and justification to go to war
There will be no moral justification for Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims to make any more calls against Israel. Indeed ending incitement (in Palestinian schools as well as Arab media) is something neglected from this proposal and it should be added.
We must keep in mind that in the modern world the war is also fought in the media and public opinion. For peace to prevail the history books must show that this conflict is OVER: No more demands will be accepted from either side.
It may not be enough but it is sure better than any other proposal tried so far.
> At the end no one can prevent
> a unilateral declaration of war.
that's not the point. Between honoring such an agreement and going to war there are a million ways to undermine and delegitimize the agreement.
But even that is just a tiny glimpse at the problem. Palestine as an entity is a mere front. Once such a state exists, its reason for existence will cease to exist. get the conundrum?
A Palestinian state would, within months I would think, be subject to Hezb or direct Syrian invasion, or perhaps a subtler sort of infiltration. Eventually there will be a movement to unite it with [take your pick or hostile entities]. and so on.
I happen to think an agreement must be reached and a complete separation effected, but that it should be done strictly as a security move without the various political fig leafs that can only make Israels job harder in the future.
The Arab Triangle s/b swapped with the 2 major settlements. The residents of the Triangle will not have to move and will become PA citizens.
Druze should remain in Israel. They serve in the IDF and fought with Israelis side by side in 1948.
Great plan.
Except that it overlooks the Palestinian (and its "allies") goal of Israel's disappearance.
But other than this small quibble....