A Modest Proposal for Mideast Peace for Land

[jbg]

The quoted posts are on a thread that has veered to discussion of the recent Israeli interdiction of a "Turkish aid vessel" headed to the Gaza strip.

Nothing is good enough. This has become obvious.

The Israeli government will continue to delay any progress so that they could take as much land as possible while you and the rest of the apologists will continue to apologize for these war criminals. It's an all too familiar cycle.

This post and others like it posts got me to thinking about how to bring Mideast peace, if indeed it can be obtained.

My tentative proposal (and I'm not sure I have worked out all the details) would be as follows:

1. Israel gives back all land except for Jerusalem and environs;
   
2. Existing Israeli settlers be provided guarantees of safety, while their land would operate under local West Bank government;
   
3. Elected local governments in Gaza and West Bank rule those areas, with a highway corridor connecting them;
   
4. All Arab governments accord Israel full diplomatic recognition;
   
5. All Arab boycotts of Israel immediately cease;
   
6. Realistic economic development projects should be promulgated for land returend to Arab control so there would be an agenda other than continuing warfare;
   
7. All Arab governmentsal entities and other stakeholders abandon any claim to a "right of return" of Arab refugees or their descendants;
   
8. Arabs and Jews who are now living in pre-1967 Israel and Jerusalem and lawful immigrants have full civil rights in Israel as Israelis;
   
9. Arabs and Jews who are now living in pre-1967 West Bank and/or Gaza, except Jerusalem and lawful immigrants have full civil rights in their respective areas;
   
10. All people could travel freely through the region, subject to normal, neutral rules of border control and internal security; and
    
11. All Arab governmentsal entities and other stakeholders abandon any claim to any part of pre-1967 Israel or Jerusalem;
    
12. The Golan Heights would remain under Israeli military control, but prior residents and their descendants would have a right of return; and
    
13. Israel would have the right to control and interdict all flow of armaments to West Bank and/or Gaza
    

The Arab stakeholders should be given a short but reasonable time to accept or reject such a proposal. If rejected, the Israelis would have the full right to continue, full force, the state of war that's been declared since 1948 and never ended. This would involve the likely expulsion of the local Arab population from Gaza and the West Bank.

There is nothing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab in this post. It is too much to expect any country to exist, forever, in a state of warfare where only one side can fight without restraint. The Arabs cannot continue to play a game of "heads I win tails you lose" where they attack Israel, either directly or through asymetrical warfare, and then the world forces Israel to respond with both hands tied behind their backs.

[dre]

Thats a pretty one sided solution, and the Palestinians would be crazy to accept it. It essentially gives Israel a whole lot of land that nobody on earth believes they have legal right to.

No solution that enshrines the permanent transfer of even once acre of occupied land to Israel will ever be accepted, nor should it be. And your idea doesnt deal with the underlying reason for the occupation... the fact that Israel is dependant on control of the mountain aquifiers for their survival, and the history of Israels upstream neighbors trying to kill Israel by choking off their water supply.

Neither side would ever agree to your plan.

[jbg]

No solution that enshrines the permanent transfer of even once acre of occupied land to Israel will ever be accepted, nor should it be. And your idea doesnt deal with the underlying reason for the occupation... the fact that Israel is dependant on control of the mountain aquifiers for their survival, and the history of Israels upstream neighbors trying to kill Israel by choking off their water supply.

Neither side would ever agree to your plan.

A whole lot of land? Try Jerusalem.

[DogOnPorch]

Thats a pretty one sided solution, and the Palestinians would be crazy to accept it. It essentially gives Israel a whole lot of land that nobody on earth believes they have legal right to.

No solution that enshrines the permanent transfer of even once acre of occupied land to Israel will ever be accepted, nor should it be. And your idea doesnt deal with the underlying reason for the occupation... the fact that Israel is dependant on control of the mountain aquifiers for their survival, and the history of Israels upstream neighbors trying to kill Israel by choking off their water supply.

Neither side would ever agree to your plan.

Says the person who couldn't explain the events of and leading-up to the 6 Day War.

Edited June 1, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

Says the person who couldn't explain the events of and leading-up to the 6 Day War.

Not couldnt... WOULDNT. Why would a waste time giving history lessons to a sychophantic fanboy?

[DogOnPorch]

Not couldnt... WOULDNT. Why would a waste time giving history lessons to a sychophantic fanboy?

----

dre: Nasser? Is that an import car??

[dre]

----

Brilliant... youve gone from stawmen to faking quotes

[DogOnPorch]

Brilliant... youve gone from stawmen to faking quotes

------

dre: The Middle East is quite close to Kansas.

[dre]

------

Poor poor little DOP

[bloodyminded]

Poor poor little DOP

It gets worse. Every time he gets smacked down. That's a lot.

[jbg]

Not couldnt... WOULDNT. Why would a waste time giving history lessons to a sychophantic fanboy?

First learn to spell.

Next, let's get back to the topic of the thread. I started this thread basically to avoid further thread drift on another thread.

[naomiglover]

The quoted posts are on a thread that has veered to discussion of the recent Israeli interdiction of a "Turkish aid vessel" headed to the Gaza strip.

This post and others like it posts got me to thinking about how to bring Mideast peace, if indeed it can be obtained.

My tentative proposal (and I'm not sure I have worked out all the details) would be as follows:

1. Israel gives back all land except for Jerusalem and environs;
   
2. Existing Israeli settlers be provided guarantees of safety, while their land would operate under local West Bank government;
   
3. Elected local governments in Gaza and West Bank rule those areas, with a highway corridor connecting them;
   
4. All Arab governments accord Israel full diplomatic recognition;
   
5. All Arab boycotts of Israel immediately cease;
   
6. Realistic economic development projects should be promulgated for land returend to Arab control so there would be an agenda other than continuing warfare;
   
7. All Arab governmentsal entities and other stakeholders abandon any claim to a "right of return" of Arab refugees or their descendants;
   
8. Arabs and Jews who are now living in pre-1967 Israel and Jerusalem and lawful immigrants have full civil rights in Israel as Israelis;
   
9. Arabs and Jews who are now living in pre-1967 West Bank and/or Gaza, except Jerusalem and lawful immigrants have full civil rights in their respective areas;
   
10. All people could travel freely through the region, subject to normal, neutral rules of border control and internal security; and
    
11. All Arab governmentsal entities and other stakeholders abandon any claim to any part of pre-1967 Israel or Jerusalem;
    
12. The Golan Heights would remain under Israeli military control, but prior residents and their descendants would have a right of return; and
    
13. Israel would have the right to control and interdict all flow of armaments to West Bank and/or Gaza
    

The Arab stakeholders should be given a short but reasonable time to accept or reject such a proposal. If rejected, the Israelis would have the full right to continue, full force, the state of war that's been declared since 1948 and never ended. This would involve the likely expulsion of the local Arab population from Gaza and the West Bank.

There is nothing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab in this post. It is too much to expect any country to exist, forever, in a state of warfare where only one side can fight without restraint. The Arabs cannot continue to play a game of "heads I win tails you lose" where they attack Israel, either directly or through asymetrical warfare, and then the world forces Israel to respond with both hands tied behind their backs.

My proposal would be to follow international law. I mean, forget the original partition plan when Israel was created. Lets go with the 1967 border.

The settlers, since most were brought in by the Israeli government, are considered illegal under international law. East Jerusalem is also considered to be a part of the Palestinian territory. Not sure why you want to propose something that goes against international law.

[GostHacked]

First learn to spell.

Next, let's get back to the topic of the thread. I started this thread basically to avoid further thread drift on another thread.

Unfortunately it seems that some take it as their duty to purposefully derail threads. It's getting old fast. I've yet to see those who derail threads apologize for it or to try and get it back on track. It does go against forum rules , not that these members give a flying fuck about it. Sorry for the language but I am fucking tired of this shit.

[dre]

My proposal would be to follow international law. I mean, forget the original partition plan when Israel was created. Lets go with the 1967 border.

The settlers, since most were brought in by the Israeli government, are considered illegal under international law. East Jerusalem is also considered to be a part of the Palestinian territory. Not sure why you want to propose something that goes against international law.

His motives are fairly clear...

Did you catch this part?

The Arab stakeholders should be given a short but reasonable time to accept or reject such a proposal. If rejected, the Israelis would have the full right to continue, full force, the state of war that's been declared since 1948 and never ended. This would involve the likely expulsion of the local Arab population from Gaza and the West Bank.

The plan seems to be...

1. Give the palestinians an offer that everyone knows they will never accept.

2. Use their refusal to accept as a pretense for the ethnic cleansing mentioned above.

[M.Dancer]

My proposal would be to follow international law. I mean, forget the original partition plan when Israel was created. Lets go with the 1967 border.

The settlers, since most were brought in by the Israeli government, are considered illegal under international law. East Jerusalem is also considered to be a part of the Palestinian territory. Not sure why you want to propose something that goes against international law.

Why not? By choosing international law #2 you are intent on ignoring international law #1. If you think it's okay to ignore the UN apporoved partition, then it is certainly okay to ignore demands to divide jerusalem...

[Jack Weber]

The quoted posts are on a thread that has veered to discussion of the recent Israeli interdiction of a "Turkish aid vessel" headed to the Gaza strip.

This post and others like it posts got me to thinking about how to bring Mideast peace, if indeed it can be obtained.

My tentative proposal (and I'm not sure I have worked out all the details) would be as follows:

1. Israel gives back all land except for Jerusalem and environs;
   
2. Existing Israeli settlers be provided guarantees of safety, while their land would operate under local West Bank government;
   
3. Elected local governments in Gaza and West Bank rule those areas, with a highway corridor connecting them;
   
4. All Arab governments accord Israel full diplomatic recognition;
   
5. All Arab boycotts of Israel immediately cease;
   
6. Realistic economic development projects should be promulgated for land returend to Arab control so there would be an agenda other than continuing warfare;
   
7. All Arab governmentsal entities and other stakeholders abandon any claim to a "right of return" of Arab refugees or their descendants;
   
8. Arabs and Jews who are now living in pre-1967 Israel and Jerusalem and lawful immigrants have full civil rights in Israel as Israelis;
   
9. Arabs and Jews who are now living in pre-1967 West Bank and/or Gaza, except Jerusalem and lawful immigrants have full civil rights in their respective areas;
   
10. All people could travel freely through the region, subject to normal, neutral rules of border control and internal security; and
    
11. All Arab governmentsal entities and other stakeholders abandon any claim to any part of pre-1967 Israel or Jerusalem;
    
12. The Golan Heights would remain under Israeli military control, but prior residents and their descendants would have a right of return; and
    
13. Israel would have the right to control and interdict all flow of armaments to West Bank and/or Gaza
    

The Arab stakeholders should be given a short but reasonable time to accept or reject such a proposal. If rejected, the Israelis would have the full right to continue, full force, the state of war that's been declared since 1948 and never ended. This would involve the likely expulsion of the local Arab population from Gaza and the West Bank.

There is nothing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab in this post. It is too much to expect any country to exist, forever, in a state of warfare where only one side can fight without restraint. The Arabs cannot continue to play a game of "heads I win tails you lose" where they attack Israel, either directly or through asymetrical warfare, and then the world forces Israel to respond with both hands tied behind their backs.

This all seems reasonable..

The problem I have with it it presupposes that the Muslim Arab countries surrounding Israel truly want peace with Israel.

I don't believe they do!

[naomiglover]

Why not? By choosing international law #2 you are intent on ignoring international law #1. If you think it's okay to ignore the UN apporoved partition, then it is certainly okay to ignore demands to divide jerusalem...

It's okay for who to ignore the demands for East Jerusalem to be freed from Israeli occupation?

[dre]

Why not? By choosing international law #2 you are intent on ignoring international law #1. If you think it's okay to ignore the UN apporoved partition, then it is certainly okay to ignore demands to divide jerusalem...

The partition plan isnt law... its a non-binding general assembly resolution.

The reality is theres really no such thing as international law. "Laws" only get enforced if theres a possee willing to ride and enforce them. That possee is the UNSC and its hands are pretty much tied because Israel has a veto through the US. Furthermore that possee will only ride if they can agree that theres a compelling interest in it for THEM, and the reality is that the region has little or no geo-political importance. Its basically just a worthless dump. If the conflict there was impeding the flow of oil or something like that then the possee would have ridden a long time ago and the "law" would have been enforced.

In any case the partition plan isnt law, but UNSC resolution 242 IS law.

And it states...

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The reality is that not one single acre of land sieze during any of the armed conflict is legal Israeli territory under international law.

Edited June 1, 2010 by dre

[M.Dancer]

It's okay for who to ignore the demands for East Jerusalem to be freed from Israeli occupation?

Get your facts straight. East Jerusalem is no longer occupied...it is now part of Israel...

But again, you say it is fine to ignore the UN mandated partition....but okay to accept the pre 1967 borders which contain territory won by war...I see your slippery slope and raise you....not only is it okay to accept the land won in the 1948 war, the 1967 is also groovy....

[dre]

This all seems reasonable..

The problem I have with it it presupposes that the Muslim Arab countries surrounding Israel truly want peace with Israel.

I don't believe they do!

Neither side has much interest in peace at all. Its Israel that would suffer the most if that plan was implemented and its Israel that would be the first to oppose it.

[dre]

Get your facts straight. East Jerusalem is no longer occupied...it is now part of Israel...

But again, you say it is fine to ignore the UN mandated partition....but okay to accept the pre 1967 borders which contain territory won by war...I see your slippery slope and raise you....not only is it okay to accept the land won in the 1948 war, the 1967 is also groovy....

Its you that needs to get your facts straight. The UNSC ruled on the matter in UNSC 242 and not one acre of land siezed in armed conflict is Israeli territory under international laws.

[M.Dancer]

The partition plan isnt law... its a non-binding general assembly resolution.

James Crawford, Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Quigley and others have described how the General Assembly acknowledged and legitimized the proclamation of the State of Palestine, unlike the cases of Rhodesia and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The General Assembly said Palestine's declaration was "in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people". Crawford noted that UN General Assembly Resolution 48/158D, 20 December 1993, called for the permanent status negotiations to guarantee 'arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries'.[106][107]

The General Assembly request for an advisory opinion, Resolution ES-10/14 (2004), specifically cited resolution 181(II) as a "relevant resolution", and asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) what are the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? Judge Koroma explained the majority opinion: "The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed."[108]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

[M.Dancer]

Its you that needs to get your facts straight. The UNSC ruled on the matter in UNSC 242 and not one acre of land siezed in armed conflict is Israeli territory under international laws.

That refers to land captured after the 1967 war (how did that start again?)....obviously land captured in the 1948 war is now seen a legitimate...in the near future land siezed after the 1967 war (jerusalem) will also be seen as legitimate.

[dre]

That refers to land captured after the 1967 war (how did that start again?)....obviously land captured in the 1948 war is now seen a legitimate...in the near future land siezed after the 1967 war (jerusalem) will also be seen as legitimate.

I think youre probably right and thats what Israel is banking on. The longer this drags out the less chance there is of Israel leaving any occupied territories that they have a compelling interest in keeping (the ones with riparian resources most importantly).

About the only ways a two state solution based on either the 48 or 67 borders will ever come to pass is if theres a fairly major shift in how the international community views the conflict or a shift in who the power players are, or a shift in the demographics in Israel itself (jews might be a minority in the future given present birth rates), or an internal legal decisions (their own courts ruling the occupation is illegal based on internation treaties Israel is a signatory to).

[jbg]

Its you that needs to get your facts straight. The UNSC ruled on the matter in UNSC 242 and not one acre of land siezed in armed conflict is Israeli territory under international laws.

UNSC 242 spoke of "secure and recognized boundaries". This is the text of UNSC 242:

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

It does call for "(w)ithdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". The word "all" was not included in the resolution. The part of UNSC 242 which opponents of Israel want to forget is the proviso requiring "(t)ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force". My proposal in the OP is for just such a state of affairs. If the Arabs are not willing to accept that, war is a fact of life, period.

Edited June 1, 2010 by jbg