A Modest Proposal for Mideast Peace for Land

[dre]

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.

Problem is Israel wouldnt be willing to accept it either.

[JB Globe]

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.

While I appreciate the attempt, I think your planned is a little flawed.

I won't repeat what's already been said, however I have two points . . .

1 - I think that leaving Jewish settlers in the West Bank to become citizens of a new Palestine is a huge mistake. Most settlers range from conservatively religious to outright irrational zealots, and I can see them zealously refusing to leave the West Bank, cursing their fellow Jews who turned their back on "what Torah tells us to do" and going it alone against their sworn enemies, the Palestinians, committing terrorist attacks against them. This of course, would give whatever Palestinians who were looking for vengeance the pretext they need to go after settlers paramilitary-style, and before you know it you have a civil war.

2 - The neo-con/fundamentalist block in Israel is adamantly, and eternally opposed to establishing a Palestinian state. That reality would signal that they lost the fight, they'd never go for it. So you would have to force this on Israel through international law, this isn't something you could let Israelis come to on their own.

[JB Globe]

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!

Check out the Saudi peace plan - it offered full peace with Israel upon the establishment of a Palestinian state and a removal of settlements.

[jbg]

While I appreciate the attempt, I think your planned is a little flawed.

I won't repeat what's already been said, however I have two points . . .

1 - I think that leaving Jewish settlers in the West Bank to become citizens of a new Palestine is a huge mistake. Most settlers range from conservatively religious to outright irrational zealots, and I can see them zealously refusing to leave the West Bank, cursing their fellow Jews who turned their back on "what Torah tells us to do" and going it alone against their sworn enemies, the Palestinians, committing terrorist attacks against them. This of course, would give whatever Palestinians who were looking for vengeance the pretext they need to go after settlers paramilitary-style, and before you know it you have a civil war.

2 - The neo-con/fundamentalist block in Israel is adamantly, and eternally opposed to establishing a Palestinian state. That reality would signal that they lost the fight, they'd never go for it. So you would have to force this on Israel through international law, this isn't something you could let Israelis come to on their own.

I don't disagree wtih any of this. Clearly "settlers" who are left behind are taking their changes. I happen to have little truck with the people who are too pious to pay taxes or serve in the Israeli army and yet have the temerity to make impossible demands. We have a Yiddish term for this; "Chutzpah".

[jbg]

Check out the Saudi peace plan - it offered full peace with Israel upon the establishment of a Palestinian state and a removal of settlements.

The trouble with that was the "right of return" and the status of Jerusalem.

[naomiglover]

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

Every country, including Canada do not recognize the annexation because they recognize international law.

Yes, even the Harper government does not recognize the annexation.

These are the facts. You need to deal with it.

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....

You've fallen into another one of your babbling fits. Resolution 242 is the law. If you don't want to recognize international law, then that's your decision. But don't come in here trying to win points by trying to pass yourself as a man of reason, logic and facts. Just admit that you don't care for international law and that you're an unconditional supporter of a state who breaks international law.

[M.Dancer]

You've fallen into another one of your babbling fits. Resolution 242 is the law. If you don't want to recognize international law, then that's your decision. But don't come in here trying to win points by trying to pass yourself as a man of reason, logic and facts. Just admit that you don't care for international law and that you're an unconditional supporter of a state who breaks international law.

Maybe you should read the res. before you attempy another brain fart...

[naomiglover]

Maybe you should read the res. before you attempy another brain fart...

You just said that East Jerusalem is no longer occupied and part of Israel.

Not one country (except for Israel) accepts your comment. Not even Israel's staunchest ally, U.S.A.

Why must you always try to battle against facts?

[JB Globe]

I happen to have little truck with the people who are too pious to pay taxes or serve in the Israeli army and yet have the temerity to make impossible demands. We have a Yiddish term for this; "Chutzpah".

You could add Meshugeneh to that as well.

[M.Dancer]

You just said that East Jerusalem is no longer occupied and part of Israel.

Not one country (except for Israel) accepts your comment. Not even Israel's staunchest ally, U.S.A.

Why must you always try to battle against facts?

Did you read the resolution yet?

Tell me about quid pro quo....then lets talk about the etnic cleaning that went on in east jerusalem beyween 48-67...

barring Jerusalem being handed over to a neutral 3rd party, Israel isn't giving it back to the ethnic cleansers...

[jbg]

You've fallen into another one of your babbling fits. Resolution 242 is the law. If you don't want to recognize international law, then that's your decision. But don't come in here trying to win points by trying to pass yourself as a man of reason, logic and facts. Just admit that you don't care for international law and that you're an unconditional supporter of a state who breaks international law.

No. You're babbling.

I posted UNSC 242. It does not say what you say it says. Read it. It makes good reading.

[jbg]

You could add Meshugeneh to that as well.

Not really. They're sane enough not to want to pay for or sacrifice for their country.

That's disloyal and galling. Not crazy.

Edited June 2, 2010 by jbg

[Bonam]

[*]Israel gives back all land except for Jerusalem and environs;

[*]Existing Israeli settlers be provided guarantees of safety, while their land would operate under local West Bank government;

[*]Elected local governments in Gaza and West Bank rule those areas, with a highway corridor connecting them;

[*]All Arab governments accord Israel full diplomatic recognition;

[*]All Arab boycotts of Israel immediately cease;

[*]Realistic economic development projects should be promulgated for land returend to Arab control so there would be an agenda other than continuing warfare;

[*]All Arab governmentsal entities and other stakeholders abandon any claim to a "right of return" of Arab refugees or their descendants;

[*]Arabs and Jews who are now living in pre-1967 Israel and Jerusalem and lawful immigrants have full civil rights in Israel as Israelis;

[*]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;

[*]All people could travel freely through the region, subject to normal, neutral rules of border control and internal security; and

[*]All Arab governmentsal entities and other stakeholders abandon any claim to any part of pre-1967 Israel or Jerusalem;

[*]The Golan Heights would remain under Israeli military control, but prior residents and their descendants would have a right of return; and

[*]Israel would have the right to control and interdict all flow of armaments to West Bank and/or Gaza

I mostly agree. However, I think that #13 is unreasonable. If the newly formed Palestine is to exist as a sovereign and independent state, it must have the capability to create a functional police and military force. These require armaments, and they should be able to purchase them from other nations and import them without being interdicted by Israel. Importing arms to these territories right now is bad because they are essentially lawless and are used for terrorist purposes, but an end goal solution should establish Palestine as a viable state with the capability of having its own conventional military force.

Also, I think that #5 is unnecessary and unrelated. Some Arab governments may choose to preserve their boycotts of Israel. The fact that some Arab nation decides not to lift its boycott should not preclude Israel coming to this kind of peace deal with the Palestinians if all the other factors are agreed upon by both sides.

Additionally, the right of Israeli settlers to remain in the area that is to become part of the Palestinian state is not necessary (#2 and #9). Let's face it, whatever such a treaty would say, the lives of those settlers would be hell from the point that they became part of an Arab state, and most of them would probably end up having to move to Israel proper, just like Jews migrated from all other Arab countries to Israel.

Lastly, #12 is not necessary. The Golan heights is an issue between Israel and Syria, and has nothing to do with Palestine and making a peace deal with them. There is no massive displaced population from the Golan that needs a state; there is no reason to allow a right of return to Syrian militants who would use the area purely for its strategic value against Israel.

However, one clause needs to be added. Any violation of the treaty by groups within the newly formed Arab state (i.e. launching rockets into Israel after the treaty is signed and the Arab state is formed) would immediately abrogate the treaty. Under such circumstances, the sovereign state of Palestine will be considered to have committed an act of war against Israel, which will then have the right to retaliate in whatever way is appropriate to put an end to the war swiftly and victoriously.

[jbg]

I mostly agree. However, I think that #13 is unreasonable. If the newly formed Palestine is to exist as a sovereign and independent state, it must have the capability to create a functional police and military force. These require armaments, and they should be able to purchase them from other nations and import them without being interdicted by Israel. Importing arms to these territories right now is bad because they are essentially lawless and are used for terrorist purposes, but an end goal solution should establish Palestine as a viable state with the capability of having its own conventional military force.

But the armaments would have to be restricted to that necessary for police purposes rather than offensive warfare.

Also, I think that #5 is unnecessary and unrelated. Some Arab governments may choose to preserve their boycotts of Israel. The fact that some Arab nation decides not to lift its boycott should not preclude Israel coming to this kind of peace deal with the Palestinians if all the other factors are agreed upon by both sides.

The reason why I consider the "boycott clause" to be central is that "peace is peace" and "war is war". The nascent "Palestine" or whatever you want to call it should not have to choose between loyalty to their fellow Arabs and peace with Israel. Since the Islamic States purport (other than Iran) to act largely as a unit loyal to each other, all boycotts must end for the purposes of genuine peace.

Additionally, the right of Israeli settlers to remain in the area that is to become part of the Palestinian state is not necessary (#2 and #9). Let's face it, whatever such a treaty would say, the lives of those settlers would be hell from the point that they became part of an Arab state, and most of them would probably end up having to move to Israel proper, just like Jews migrated from all other Arab countries to Israel.

Mostly agreed. But rather than having Israel being forced to go through the spectacle of forcing settlers out, let them make their own obvious choice.

Lastly, #12 is not necessary. The Golan heights is an issue between Israel and Syria, and has nothing to do with Palestine and making a peace deal with them. There is no massive displaced population from the Golan that needs a state; there is no reason to allow a right of return to Syrian militants who would use the area purely for its strategic value against Israel.

Agreed. It's a collateral issue. But Syria does have the capacity to make mischief even if they are of little value in commercial terms.

However, one clause needs to be added. Any violation of the treaty by groups within the newly formed Arab state (i.e. launching rockets into Israel after the treaty is signed and the Arab state is formed) would immediately abrogate the treaty. Under such circumstances, the sovereign state of Palestine will be considered to have committed an act of war against Israel, which will then have the right to retaliate in whatever way is appropriate to put an end to the war swiftly and victoriously.

Totally agree. Edited June 2, 2010 by jbg

[Bonam]

But the armaments would have to be restricted to that necessary for police purposes rather than offensive warfare.

Perhaps at first, but I think if peace is maintained in good faith for a few years restrictions should be eased and Palestine should be allowed to have a conventional (non-nuclear) military force just like any other middle-eastern nation, to whatever extent they decide to invest in such a force. A sovereign state needs to be able to defend itself which means having both offensive and defensive military equipment (potentially including aircraft, ships, submarines, tanks, missiles, missile defense systems, air defense systems, etc), not just small arms for their police.

If the Palestinians ever do really make the smart choice and in good faith try to build a state of their own beside Israel, they should have the same rights as any other nation.

Edited June 2, 2010 by Bonam

[jbg]

If the Palestinians ever do really make the smart choice and in good faith try to build a state of their own beside Israel, they should have the same rights as any other nation.

The Philistines, Midianites, Almalkites and Jebusites (pre-Muslim so no religious bigotry here, Rue take note) did not make rational choices. Why should the "Palestinians" be any different?

[Bonam]

The Philistines, Midianites, Almalkites and Jebusites (pre-Muslim so no religious bigotry here, Rue take note) did not make rational choices. Why should the "Palestinians" be any different?

I'm not saying that they will make the rational choice. As the saying goes, they've never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But if they do, and if they earnestly try to make their state work, they should have the same rights as any other nation. If Palestine were a sovereign state and had existed in peace for several years, on what basis could you deny them the right to have the same kinds of armaments as some of their neighbors like Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc, have?

[jbg]

As the saying goes, they've never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

I think Abba Eban said that back in 1976 or 1977.

But if they do, and if they earnestly try to make their state work, they should have the same rights as any other nation. If Palestine were a sovereign state and had existed in peace for several years, on what basis could you deny them the right to have the same kinds of armaments as some of their neighbors like Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc, have?

On the basis that much of their "income" is likely to be foreign aid. I think allowing the newly independent African nations to squander what little wealth they had, and foreign aid, on arms for bruising battles was a mistake.

More than that, I think if a nation (or for that matter a child) asks for money, the donor has a right to condition the use of that money. One of the reasons I don't like the U.N. is that it takes the donor out of the equation, and the aid is, for all intents and purposes, unconditional.

[Bonam]

I think Abba Eban said that back in 1976 or 1977.

On the basis that much of their "income" is likely to be foreign aid. I think allowing the newly independent African nations to squander what little wealth they had, and foreign aid, on arms for bruising battles was a mistake.

More than that, I think if a nation (or for that matter a child) asks for money, the donor has a right to condition the use of that money. One of the reasons I don't like the U.N. is that it takes the donor out of the equation, and the aid is, for all intents and purposes, unconditional.

I agree, donor nations should have a say in what the money they donate is used for. However, assuming that the Palestinian state can eventually get a decent economy up and running, they should be able to make their own decisions on how to spend their revenues, including spending some portion thereof on building a military force.

[dre]

I mostly agree. However, I think that #13 is unreasonable. If the newly formed Palestine is to exist as a sovereign and independent state, it must have the capability to create a functional police and military force. These require armaments, and they should be able to purchase them from other nations and import them without being interdicted by Israel. Importing arms to these territories right now is bad because they are essentially lawless and are used for terrorist purposes, but an end goal solution should establish Palestine as a viable state with the capability of having its own conventional military force.

Also, I think that #5 is unnecessary and unrelated. Some Arab governments may choose to preserve their boycotts of Israel. The fact that some Arab nation decides not to lift its boycott should not preclude Israel coming to this kind of peace deal with the Palestinians if all the other factors are agreed upon by both sides.

Additionally, the right of Israeli settlers to remain in the area that is to become part of the Palestinian state is not necessary (#2 and #9). Let's face it, whatever such a treaty would say, the lives of those settlers would be hell from the point that they became part of an Arab state, and most of them would probably end up having to move to Israel proper, just like Jews migrated from all other Arab countries to Israel.

Lastly, #12 is not necessary. The Golan heights is an issue between Israel and Syria, and has nothing to do with Palestine and making a peace deal with them. There is no massive displaced population from the Golan that needs a state; there is no reason to allow a right of return to Syrian militants who would use the area purely for its strategic value against Israel.

However, one clause needs to be added. Any violation of the treaty by groups within the newly formed Arab state (i.e. launching rockets into Israel after the treaty is signed and the Arab state is formed) would immediately abrogate the treaty. Under such circumstances, the sovereign state of Palestine will be considered to have committed an act of war against Israel, which will then have the right to retaliate in whatever way is appropriate to put an end to the war swiftly and victoriously.

The last clause is ridiculous. You would undo everything you have worked for because of one altercation? Surely you must realize that it would be virtually impossible for the new Palestinian state to guarantee that every single militant behaves. Youre setting the bar so high that youre doomed to fail.

In any case... this is all fantasy. Isreal absolutely will not pull out of the west bank no matter what the palestinians do. There would be a famine in Israel if they did that and a lot of people would die.

[jbg]

The last clause is ridiculous. You would undo everything you have worked for because of one altercation? Surely you must realize that it would be virtually impossible for the new Palestinian state to guarantee that every single militant behaves. Youre setting the bar so high that youre doomed to fail.

Maybe the proviso should have some sort fo "good faith" provision. But if the "militants" are allowed to set up shop on the theory that no governmetn could survivie suppression of the militants Israel should at least be able to do the job for them.

In any case... this is all fantasy. Isreal absolutely will not pull out of the west bank no matter what the palestinians do. There would be a famine in Israel if they did that and a lot of people would die.

I don't think Israel's survival is dependent on the West Bank's agricultural productivty. This is mostly a security issue. The Israelis, though, would need guarantees Jordan River water though.

[dre]

Maybe the proviso should have some sort fo "good faith" provision. But if the "militants" are allowed to set up shop on the theory that no governmetn could survivie suppression of the militants Israel should at least be able to do the job for them.

I don't think Israel's survival is dependent on the West Bank's agricultural productivty. This is mostly a security issue. The Israelis, though, would need guarantees Jordan River water though.

Not west bank agricultural productivity per say but the 1/3 of their fresh water that comes from the mountain aquifier. Chances of Israel giving up no matter what the palestinians do = ZERO.

[DogOnPorch]

Not west bank agricultural productivity per say but the 1/3 of their fresh water that comes from the mountain aquifier. Chances of Israel giving up no matter what the palestinians do = ZERO.

Syria, Jordan and your dear Palestinian Arabs also over-use the Jordan River.

[dre]

Syria, Jordan and your dear Palestinian Arabs also over-use the Jordan River.

Not sure what that has to do with anything... try to pay attention.

[DogOnPorch]

Not sure what that has to do with anything...

Then learn...