A Modest Proposal In Outline For a Peaceable Resolution....

[The Magistrate]

Israeli settlements in the Jordan valley, over-run in 1967, are illegal; their expansion must stop, and existing settlements, with perhaps a few exceptions in the vicinity of Jerusalem, must be dismantled, and their inhabitants return to Israel.

The militant bodies in Arab Palestine who refuse to accept the existence of Israel must be regarded as outlaw, and removed from the scene as criminal provocateurs.

A state of Arab Palestine must be declared, and it must fix its boundaries at approximately the Armistice Green Line of 1949/1950, and both this state of Arab Palestine and the state of Israel must undertake to foreswear any territorial aggrandizement beyond this line at the expense of the other, and agree that no transfer of population will take place between the two states.

Compensation for lands and livelihoods lost by Arab Palestinian and Jewish refugees in the period commencing in 1948 must be paid, at current market rates, in liquid bonds, in most cases to the heirs and assigns of those who fled at the time.

A co-dominion in the Old City of Jerusalem must be established under U.N. supervision, and religious sites specifically be placed under the control of the state which is appropriate to their religious affiliation.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Link?

[StudsT]

84. Define: Ethnic Cleansing

blockquote]the mass expulsion and killing of one ethnic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area

source...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


thats the first example from google...
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=define:+ethnic+cleansing&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Now would I be considered a crazy person if I said that what I have witnessed in Palestine the past 60 some odd years resembled...

Ethnic Cleansing

How can we stop it?

and so it goes...

StudsT

(Can I only post this here?)

[Duckhunter935]

2. Sir, I wish they would but sadly I think not

[Lithos]

3. This post is allowed to stand as an exception

This is an old topic here in the I/P forum. Given the events, I think it is worthwhile to give people a chance to hash this out once again. Everyone seems to have an opinion, let's cut to the chase and let people have an opportunity to discuss the real end game to a respectable peace.

Please keep responses civil and otherwise in accordance with DU rules and the I/P guidelines.

Lithos
DU Moderator

[The Magistrate]

5. Your Indulgence Is Appreciated, Sir

[EFerrari]

14. Thanks, Lithos. n/t

[Duckhunter935]

22. Thank you, sir

[mmonk]

70. A respectable peace may be desired, but until it is in the hearts

of leaders, the people of Israel and Palestine can only wait.

[The Magistrate]

77. Unfortunately True, Sir

In my view, anyway, the people are much in advance of their leadership here, on both sides. One pines for the old cry: "Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!"

[JuniperLea]

98. I have family in Israel...

And they would agree whole-heartedly with your "people are much in advance of their leadership" thoughts. They have said similar things. They have lived there 10 years, and have friends of every denomination, faith, and ethnicity. Boat rides, dinner gatherings, and baby showers, all are welcome and all are great friends. This is clearly between so-called "leaders" who would do better by getting out of the way and letting the people lead.

[The Magistrate]

100. Hear Hear, Ma'am....

[chimpymustgo]

4. ALL settlements in Palestine must be dismantled. The WALL in Palestine must be torn down.

And Israel must pay reparations.

[question everything]

16. The wall is the one that prevents would be suicide bombers from crossing

into Israeli cities.

The events in Gaza after Israel withdrew in 2005 do not instill any confidence in the desire and ability of Palestinians to co-exist in peace.

And.. reparation should be paid by both sides. A similar number of Jewish refugees fled Arab Countries as there were Arab refugees. Just because Israel resettled them to be equal citizens does not mean that only one side caused a refugee problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Then build it in Israel on Israeli land. nt.

[chimpymustgo]

52. If Israel wants a fucking wall, it needs to build it on its OWN land.

I'm really sick of these mother fuckers.

[sabbat hunter]

21. Must the arab countries

that threw out jews pay reparations too? Is Israel allowed to keep a wall along the approximate green line?

[Recursion]

85. Their compensation was Eretz Yisrael

They had a place to go. That's a big difference.

[sabbat hunter]

94. give me a break

Most of the Jews in those Arab countries were quite content with where they were living and lost untold billions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

Why are the Palestinian people the only ones in which refugee status is inherited?

[Recursion]

97. Because most of them are still in refugee camps?

Call me crazy.

[Madam Mossfern]

102. Most of them being in refugee camps is not necessarily

Israel's blame. They are in refugee camps in Jordan as well. Why haven't the other Arab nations welcomed them? Unfortunately the Palestinians have become political pawns.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Great post

And many people would support it - but how to get the opposing parties around the negotiating table, and out of this endless spiral of violence?

[Lithos]

8. The issue is one of fear

And how to break the cycle of fear which is serving as a tool to the provocateurs (borrowing a phrase) and opportunists on both sides to inflame both hatred and violence.

This cycle of fear has been around since the 19th Century and has been perfected by people on both sides and has permeated the politics for decades.

[The Magistrate]

9. It is My Firm Belief, Sir, That a Majority Of Persons Among Both Peoples

Would be satisfied by something along these lines, and grow content with it in the absence of further violence, though of course it hardly satisfies the full aspiration of either side.

[Lithos]

10. I agree with you on the end results that would be fairest

Just thinking of the barriers which have to be removed to achieve it.

As for full aspiration of either side, I think that is a bit broad. I think that at this point, it would easily meet the aspirations of the majority. Truthfully, I think for the majority, their aspirations are more along the sentiments expressed by Norman Rockwell than pure ideology. The only issue is that the minority who it does not are the very same groups who have been stirring the pot for sometime.

L-

[The Magistrate]

12. Very True, Sir

How to get there baffles me as well. Force majeur from the outside is not available, and it is hard to think of anything else that could achieve it. It is hard to imagine both sides suddenly and simultaneously sprouting sensible political leadership.

[independentpiney]

7. I can't see anything wrong with that proposal

Land and livelihood compensation might be contentious, but other than that it seems like it could be a very workable resolution if only cooler heads would prevail on both sides.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Are militant groups in Israel who refuse to accept the existence

of Palestine also to be considered outlaw and removed from the scene as criminal provocateurs? If not, why not?

[question everything]

17. They already are and have been (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Likud continues to reject Palestinian statehood.

Under an equitable agreement Likud would have to be outlawed along with Hamas. Obviously that is not going to happen, so neither should Hamas be outlawed. There are of course Israeli parties further to the right and more hardline than Likud.

[cali]

36. could you provide some links for that?

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Sure

"Most current Likud members support the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and oppose Arab statehood and the disengagement from Gaza."

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

[Mudoria]

13. A very reasonable proposal..

although I'd like to see Jerusalem declared an open city with the UN administering the city and all religious sites itself.

[EFerrari]

18. That is an attractive idea. n/t

[sabbat hunter]

62. They tried that

and the UN abrogated its duty and let Jordan take over Jerusalem and forbid any jews from entering until Israel took it over in 67. Once Israel took it over it pretty much became an open city, with Israel ruling it politically, but all the religious sites ruled by the various religions. What is wrong with that status quo?

[question everything]

15. The sad reality is that Israelis pretty much accepted these guidelines

along the Oslo peace process.

Indeed, many expat Palestinians moved back to start businesses, hotels, restaurants, getting ready for the peace that would bring tourists and prosperity.

But there were some elements that would not accept such a "boring" plan. Some claim that the arrival of Arafat and his entourage from Tunisia made things worse, since the people there who actually fought the intifidah rightly expected to be in the front building the new country.

(And I am not going to elaborate on the infamous corruption of Arafat and his close friends, much of it became public after his death when his widow was "compensated" with several million dollars).

When Israelis see what happened to Gaza after Israel withdrew in 2005 one can understand their reluctance to withdraw from more territories.

What is amazing to me is that no one is asking why the Hamas leaders who want to be martyrs also drag their wives and children along. The story about that leader who was warned that his building would be bombed declared that he was going to stay and be killed... along with his four wives and children. In any other country, this would be considered child and spouse abuses.

But if this is done by a Palestinian then this is acceptable? On DU? Around the world?

[Vegasaurus]

19. SOmething similar was already proposed and rejected over a decade ago

Pity.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

82. Indeed

I find it extremely depressing that the nearest thing that the *least* anti-peace mainstream political party Israel has is lead by Ehud Barak, the man who threw away what was probably the last chance for peace in the Middle East we will see for decades.

[Taitertots]

23. The only reasonable proposal

1. Palestinian government works to stop terrorism instead of foster it. Ending the terrorist aggression against Israel.
2. They live in peace, Palestine moving toward statehood, working with Israel as they grow together forgetting the fights of old.
3. Israel stops its necessary safety programs as terrorists stand down. A free Palestine comes into existence.

Wow, a peace plan that isn't just an unwarranted concession from Israel. All that has to happen for peace is the end of terrorist aggression.

[The Magistrate]

24. What is Your View Of Israeli Settlements In The Jordan Valley, Sir?

[Warren Stupidity]

25. A rather one sided view of the conflict.

As such it offers no chance of success. Do you really think that the Palestinians have no just grievances?

[Taitertots]

34. I could say the same thing

It offers little chance of success because it relies on Palestinians to stop terrorism within Palestine. Something their government seems interested in doing the exact opposite of. There can never be peace with Palestine as long as large segments preach hatred and violence against Israel.

The only road to peace rests on the Palestinians forcing their countrymen to lay down their arms. Only then can Palestine and Israel go down the long road to peace. A path that may take years, as old wounds heal and progress is made ending in peace.

[THUNDER HANDS]

27. does the newly formed arab state of Palestine have a standing army?

if not, they're not a real state.

[The Magistrate]

28. A State Like Any Other, Sir, With Every Element Of The Normal Panoply Of Sovereignity

[THUNDER HANDS]

29. and Israel would allow the Palestinians a standing army?

with access to better weapons than what they have now?

[The Magistrate]

30. No State Has Any Control Over Another State's Armed Forces, Sir

[azurnoir]

31. Fair enough Sir

Acouple of questions however

Compensation for lands and livelihoods lost by Arab Palestinian and Jewish refugees in the period commencing in 1948 must be paid, at current market rates, in liquid bonds, in most cases to the heirs and assigns of those who fled at the time.

Does this include Jewish refugees from countries such as Morocco, Yemen, ect? If so this clause could truly gum up the works these countries have very little reason to consider such a thing.

What country you would deem appropriate to have dominion over Christan sites?

[Vegasaurus]

33. If right of return is removed as a demand

I think that compensation to Arab refugees would be considered, and that Jews who have made similar claims would drop them.

Although ideally there would be parity in this situation (and the Jews would be compensated too), most Israelis would just give this up in order for there to be peace.

[The Magistrate]

35. Compensation, Ma'am, Need Not Come From the Offender

That is why 'reparations' was not the term chosen. The purpose is not to punish but to make whole, and particularly to put a good deal of capital into Arab Palestine, to help make it viable and, to put it ice-cold, give its people something to lose. People who have an apple-cart will not want it overturned, and will disapprove of people who want to overturn it. The sums involved are not so large that they could not be got up by the World Bank as an investment in peace.

Given that most of the regular Christian worshipers in Jerusalem are Arab Palestinians, that state would seem the appropriate one for those sites to me.

[azurnoir]

37. Thank you and may I add

that I was pleasantly surprised by your response as to whether a new Palestinian State should or could have a military, IMO I believe that a newly fledged state would be in danger from forces outside and inside that will have lost their "pet" cause.

[The Magistrate]

38. Without Descending Too Far Into 'Psycho-Babble', Ma'am

Part of what needs to be done here is to give the people of Arab Palestine, who have experienced so much defeat and disappointment down the decades, real things to be rightly proud of. This whole business of transmuting futile struggle and defeat into moral victory smacks of the 'street corner values' described in the sociological work "Talley's Corner', in which men who feel they have failed to measure up to the role expected of men in their society invent a number of reasons for their perceived failure which boil down to saying they were 'just too manly' to be good husbands and fathers and providers. The old doctrine of 'nationalism' in the nineteenth century held that a people deprived of full national statehood was so injured in its corporate whole that every individual among that people was damaged. It was from this idea that the original impetus of the Zionist enterprise flowed, that the stateless condition of the Jewish people harmed it in important ways, and there is something to the view. The same prescription seems indicated for the people of Arab Palestine, and a state that is not in every way a state could not possibly have the desired effect.

[azurnoir]

56. Short hand

So they can feel good about being manly men doing manly things?

we have a bit too much of that already going around it seems.

[The Magistrate]

66. Life Is Contingent, Ma'am: One Must Work with the Material Available

What you can carve from a block of wood is determined by its grain.

[Duckhunter935]

32. It is so nice to see a civil debate, again thank you

[ellisonz]

39. Laughable.

[Fozzledick]

40. Regarding one sticking point

While I agree with your outline in general, I fear that the Solomonic division of the historic Jewish capital of Jerusalem would be a deal-breaker, both as an affront to Israeli sovereignty, and as a "camel's nose in the tent" leading to further agitation for surrender of the rest of the city.

If Jerusalem is to be put on the table, might I modestly counter-propose that half of Mecca be offered up as well, or would merely suggesting the division and forfeit of such a singular cultural icon be pointlessly provocative?

[The Magistrate]

42. The Original Partition Of 1947, Sir

Beside calling for somewhat different borders between the peoples and their projected states, stipulated Jerusalem in its entirety be an 'international city', belonging to neither people or state. Had the Arab Nationalist leadership had the sense to accept that U.N. directive, that would have been the state of play for the last sixty years....

[Fozzledick]

43. Indeed, at that time the Israelis would have happily accepted such a compromise

but after enduring the constant onslaught of the last sixty years, and especially the response to every concession as an act of weakness inviting further attack, I think that is no longer the case.

[Adsos Letter]

41. Interesting thread.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. this is reasonably close to what was almost agreed at Taba in January 2001

Contrary to popular mythology in some circles, Arafat did NOT walk out of Taba..The Israeli negotiating team under instruction from the Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally ended the talks in January 2001 because of the election which Ariel Sharon was predicted to win by a landslide with an absolute promise to reject any agreement with the Palestinians reached at Taba. These facts are not in dispute among sane and rational people.

Here is the link to the European Union notes - known as the Morantinos documents which all sides have confirmed to be a reliable record of what occurred at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip:"Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

snip:"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

--------------

Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT) - link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."
_________________

Here is a neutral and dispassionate examination of what led to the break down at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in January 2001:

sion of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/visions_in_collision.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F355%2Fjeremy_pressman

.

[chimpymustgo]

54. THANK you for posting this. Another BIG LIE has grown out of Taba. "Arafat was offered 99% of what

he was asking for and walked away."

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

-snip-

Reasons for impasse

The reasons for impasse are highly disputed.
The breakdown is often attributed to the political circumstances posed by Israeli elections and changeover in leadership in the United States:<9> They had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."
Evidence to support this view is provided by David Matz in the Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture<10> concerning a joint statement.<7> He notes that, "The Taba negotiation began on Sunday evening, January 21, and ended on Saturday afternoon, January 27 <2001>. At the closing press conference, the parties issued this joint statement: 'The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election'."
Uri Avnery of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom attributed the failure to Barak, claiming that<11>: "It was not Arafat who broke off the talks at this critical moment, when the light at the end of the tunnel was clearly visible to the negotiators, but Barak. He ordered his men to break off and return home."

-snip-

[bridgit]

46. "with perhaps a few exceptions" my darling you you've sealed a portion of your own fate...

By substantiating the legal premise of no-less than Lot before the avenging angels come to lay-low a land defiled. While I understand what you are reaching for; surely you understand that "religious sites specifically be(ing) placed under the control of the state ("state"? Which/What state?) which is appropriate to their religious affiliation (would that include the worshipers however ancient of Moloch?)" would birth that tiny, already crowded, specific region into an noncontiguous, less than homogeneous glop.

Most agreed here, "Compensation for lands and livelihoods lost by Arab Palestinian and Jewish refugees in the period commencing in 1948 must be paid, at current market rates..."

Though make them not 2009, but 1948 market rates cause from then to now (the rest *may* be explained to Chief Seattle, or to the skull of Geronimo) the future is here today, and it would seem, as is the way of such things: nobody seen it coming...then let the chips fall where they may

As I would they would; these things may yet come to pass. But little till the despots of the region stop utilizing their citizenry as hands filled with tossed bloody poker chips that is the way I feel about this matter :cry:

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

47. Palestinians are fighting a war of national liberation, just as the Algerians did against France

It is our duty to support them!

The time for Talmudic arguments and legalistic opinions is long past.

[The Magistrate]

48. That Is So Last Thursday, Ma'am....

[IndianaGreen]

50. America will sink into the Afghanistan quagmire, and tired and bankrupt

will see her oligarchs in the region finally being toppled by their enraged populations. This will end badly, when it would have been so easy to have just pack up your bags and return behind the Green Line, immediately and unconditionally.

Time is Israel's worse enemy, and ours!

[The Magistrate]

51. Time, Ma'am, is The Avenger....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFYH9GE6Emo

[aranthus]

79. If that were so,

then why does the Hamas Charter call for the end of Israel? Why did the PLO Charter before it do the same? Why did the Palestinians start this war in 1947 when they weren't occupied. The time for far Left and extremist sloganeering and the disasters they have wrought for the Palestinians has long, long past.

[StudsT]

53. Give voice to the folks working for peace i.e. dilute the power of the M$M to perpetuate the lies

if only the propagandist have control of the messaging the status quo will remain... the internet gives great hope to achieving that goal.

check out this thread for groups working for peace...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4762654

StudsT

[ProgressiveMuslim]

55. Sounds like Hamas' position

Aggression Under False Pretenses

By Ismail Haniyeh
Tuesday, July 11, 2006; Page A17

(snip)

But there is a remedy, and while it is not easy it is consistent with our long-held beliefs. Palestinian priorities include recognition of the core dispute over the land of historical Palestine and the rights of all its people; resolution of the refugee issue from 1948; reclaiming all lands occupied in 1967; and stopping Israeli attacks, assassinations and military expansion. Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media, the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank; it is a wider national conflict that can be resolved only by addressing the full dimensions of Palestinian national rights in an integrated manner. This means statehood for the West Bank and Gaza, a capital in Arab East Jerusalem, and resolving the 1948 Palestinian refugee issue fairly, on the basis of international legitimacy and established law. Meaningful negotiations with a non-expansionist, law-abiding Israel can proceed only after this tremendous labor has begun.

Surely the American people grow weary of this folly, after 50 years and $160 billion in taxpayer support for Israel's war-making capacity -- its "defense." Some Americans, I believe, must be asking themselves if all this blood and treasure could not have bought more tangible results for Palestine if only U.S. policies had been predicated from the start on historical truth, equity and justice.

However, we do not want to live on international welfare and American handouts. We want what Americans enjoy -- democratic rights, economic sovereignty and justice. We thought our pride in conducting the fairest elections in the Arab world might resonate with the United States and its citizens. Instead, our new government was met from the very beginning by acts of explicit, declared sabotage by the White House. Now this aggression continues against 3.9 million civilians living in the world's largest prison camps. America's complacency in the face of these war crimes is, as usual, embedded in the coded rhetorical green light: "Israel has a right to defend itself." Was Israel defending itself when it killed eight family members on a Gaza beach last month or three members of the Hajjaj family on Saturday, among them 6-year-old Rawan? I refuse to believe that such inhumanity sits well with the American public.

We present this clear message: If Israel will not allow Palestinians to live in peace, dignity and national integrity, Israelis themselves will not be able to enjoy those same rights. Meanwhile, our right to defend ourselves from occupying soldiers and aggression is a matter of law, as settled in the Fourth Geneva Convention. If Israel is prepared to negotiate seriously and fairly, and resolve the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967, a fair and permanent peace is possible. Based on a hudna (comprehensive cessation of hostilities for an agreed time), the Holy Land still has an opportunity to be a peaceful and stable economic powerhouse for all the Semitic people of the region. If Americans only knew the truth, possibility might become reality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/10/AR2006071001108.html

[The Magistrate]

58. Unfortunately, Ma'am, That Is Not Really The Case

Resolving 'core 1948 issues' is a call for territory now within the boundaries of Israel as it was seated at the United Nations, and simply continues the earlier usage of 'occupied Palestine' as employed prior to 1967, albeit in a form that will pass un-noticed by most persons reading the Washington Post. It is precisely the sort of territorial ambition my proposal would require both parties to forswear.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

61. Fact is, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You can claim anything you like; doesn't make it true, nor does stating it in capital letters.

[The Magistrate]

65. My Ignorance, Ma'am, Is Legend....

And this exchange is at an end; this is not a fighting thread, and will not become one.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

67. Is there a code so I can figure out on which threads you'll be harrassing me

and on which you won't?

[Vegasaurus]

64. Not much of a chance for that

since the militants and Gazan government believe that ALL land within Israel is stolen Palestinian land.

There will never be a state as long as so many Palestinians continue to state that all of Israel is "occupied".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

81. I don't think that's quite true, thankfully.

For peace, it wouldn't be necessary for the Palestinians to give up their (entirely correct, in my view) claim that all Israeli land is stolen Palestinian land; they would merely have to agree to let Israel *keep* some or all of the land it has stolen (that land within the Green Line, for example).

I think that's likely to lead to peace, frankly (Israel won't settle for keeping less than much more than the least the Palestinians will settle for it keeping), but it's much less unlikely than the Palestinians denying that the land now and in the future designated Israeli was originally stolen from them unustly.

[sabbat hunter]

63. Does

Arab East jerusalem include the old city?

[WeDidIt]

57. Your proposal has precisely zero chance of being implemented

I see no resolution.

The Israelis and Palestinians seem doomed to an eternity of war.

[The Magistrate]

59. My Intention, Sir, Was Simply To Present An Outline Proposal Of A genuine And Reasonable Compromise

It is my belief, certainly, that a majority among both peoples would find it acceptable, in preference to continued violence. It is probably true no element among the political leadership of either side exists that would be prepared to move to implement a plan like this. But if there is ever a peace of compromise, rather than one of victory, it would necessarily resemble this.

[WeDidIt]

60. I must state emphatically, your proposal was extremely reasonable

which is precisely why it has no chance whatsoever of being implemented.

Both sides have been unreasonable in this conflict for decades. Quite simply put, I don't see that changing any time soon.

[subsuelo]

68. Essentially the Saudi plan, no?

[The Magistrate]

69. That Proposal, Sir, Seemed A Promising Step

There will always be questions of sincerity and genuineness of intent when dealing with actual moves in this longstanding conflict, with its deeply engrained enmities and distrusts. However, the diplomatic actions of the Saudi government subsequent to that proposal, and its recent actions, particularly in the present situation, do give grounds for thinking the thing is an honest demarche.

[iconicgnom]

71. If a Palestinian state were formed bounded by approx. the green line of 1949/50

I would like to see that state recognize the equal rights of *all* citizens of *all* races and creeds. And oh yah, democratic, one person = one vote.

I don't see how anything much short of that green line would be sustainable.

I realize the improbability/difficulty of that kind of dream. But IMO those states which advance the rights of one race and/or creed above others have a built-in oppressive and dehumanizing weight, or force. A distinct and vibrant culture doesn't require force to sustain it.

Oh well...

[Malikshah]

75. Well, the minority vote of UNSCOP was for a federal system

alas the vote was 8-3

[The Magistrate]

99. True, Sir

[Malikshah]

72. All settlements regardless of locale must be removed. All. Creeping annexation is not a path to a

viable solution.

All of Jerusalem must be as it was planned-- under international control.

[The Magistrate]

73. A Pleasure To See You Here, Sir

[Malikshah]

74. If Obama is serious, he needs to get tough with Israel

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177716?from=rss


interesting argument that holds the Israelis and Arabs to the test

[The Magistrate]

76. A Good Article, Sir: Thank You For Calling Attention To It

[aranthus]

78. Food for thought. Some comments.

You raise interesting points. In fact, I think that you would admit that this basic framework has been around for years. It's essentially the two state solution. The problem is how do the parties move from where they are to where they need to be? The devil is in the details, and in timing.

For example, should Israel withdraw the settlements after an agreement is reached, during negotiations, or before negotiations start? Same for the declaration of Arab Palestine. Should the Palestinians declare a state now or at some later date? Responsible people have argued that until the Palestinians believe that they see concrete improvement from negotiations (such as increased freedom from Israel), that negotiations won't get very far because the Palestinians will fear being taken advantage of, and that they won't have much to lose by continuing to fight. That supports an Israeli pullout now. Equally responsible voices argue that an Israeli withdrawal without an agreement would only hand extremists a victory which they would use to support further attacks on Israel.

The situation is complicated by Hamas. What I hope to see come from Israel's incursion into Gaza is the weakening of Hamas to the point where FATAH retakes control of the Strip. Then perhaps the Israelis can be persuaded that withdrawal sooner rather than later will have more positive than negative effects.

Having Israel compensate the Palestinians for land might be a way of bridging the mutually exclusive narratives of each side (which is the ultimate stumbling block), since it could be said that the Arabs are entitled to compensation no matter who's fault it was that they lost their land. Will the Palestinians accept that? I don't know. Also, it should be noted that compensation for Arab and Jewish refugees are each independent moral obligations due from different entities. I don't think that you meant to suggest that the Palestinians pay Jewish refugees compensation (that would be insulting), as the Jews were refugees from Arab countries. To the extent that the Palestinians are entitled to compensation from Israel, that should be paid whether or not Jewish refugees ever receive a dime from Iraq, Syria, or other countries, and vice versa.

I am not sure what you mean by co-dominion over East Jerusalem. I don't think that there can be more than one sovereign over a territory. However, if Israel were to remain sovereign over all of Jerusalem, there is no reason that Arabs or Muslims could not have a high degree of local control. ON the other hand you have meant that the Arab parts of East Jerusalem should be under Palestinian sovereignty. I'm not crazy about having a divided city, and I'm not certain that Israel may have to accept that.

A last point. You refer to the Israeli settlements as "illegal" (presumably pursuant to "international law"). I do not believe that this is true. More importantly, I don't think that it is helpful to use the language of law to describe what is absolutely a political issue. It adds an element of unreality to people's thinking (there really is no such thing as an international legal system that would support "law" as it is understood by most people). Also, people who have legal disputes are free to adhere to their most extreme positions and refuse to compromise because they can always "see you in court." In the international system that means fighting a war because there is no meaningful international court. Using the parlance of legality to describe the situation promotes sloppy thinking and extremism.

[The Magistrate]

88. Two Points Seem Worth Engaging, Sir, Though It Is Not My Purpose In This Thread To Debate

First, the illegality of the Israeli settlements under international is bright line stuff now. The World Court recently issued an advisory opinion, on the question of the security barrier, which in the course of concluding jurisdiction existed, affirmed that the Geneva Accords apply to the areas over-run in '67. Regardless of one's views of their conclusions concerning how these applied to the case of the security barrier, the conclusion the Geneva rules apply to the territory in the first place is unassailable, and constitutes controlling legal precent in the matter. No future tribunal can be expected to rule otherwise on this question. The Geneva Accords apply. They explicitly bar the settlement of a portion of an occupying power's population on land it holds under military occupation. It really is that flat, and no amount of ink, however ingeniously spilled, can change it.

Jerusalem is a difficult nut: it has symbolic value, and when symbol takes over from actuality, sense and reason decamp for more congenial climes. The Armistice Line left most of the city in Israeli hands, and its Old Quarter in the hands of Trans-Jordan; events of '67 put this into Israeli hands. Jews, and by extension the Jewish state of Israel, view Jerusalem as their spiritual capital; the Arab of Palestine view Jerusalem as their crown jewel, since it has sacred status within the Moslem faith predominant among them, and of course great sacred to Christians as well. Events during the Mandatory period, and during the period when the Old Quarter was ruled by Jordan, demonstrate adequate reason for Jewish and Israeli fears that their most sacred site cannot be trusted to administration by thier Moslem neighbors. Sovereignty over this will not be relenquished by Israel, under any circumstance, or any pressure short of destruction in absolute military defeat. Moslem feelings over the al' Aqsa mosque are of similar strength. Any solution to Jerusalem must satisfy both feelings. It is worth recalling the original United Nations proposal was for an international administration of Jerusalem, awarding to neither the Arabs or the Jews.

By 'co-dominion' is meant a joint authority ruling the Old Quarter, a small board composed of representatives of both governments, in equal numbers, so that they would have to choose between getting along or letting a thing both value highly go to ruin. The arrangement would allow both sides to claim sovereignty in the Old Quarter, and even allow either or both to employ it as their capital if they chose. Sovereignty over the principal 'holy sites' would be single, held by the respective country, and easements from the chief territory of each to same be specified and irrevocable. Shoud either side wish to establish its capital in the area, the same arrangements would apply for those governmental structures.

[aranthus]

89. Fair enough.

It was not my point, either, to start a debate about whether the settlements were illegal (especially since we both agree that they have to be removed). Rather I was attempting to raise the larger issue of the limits of relying on international law as a means for resolving political and national disputes. In this context, is it helpful to continually raise the assertion that the settlements are illegal? Does it move us to a place where Israel feels safe in conducting the withdrawal? Will it help the Palestinians feel safe in knowing that they won't be taken advantage of if they give up violence against Israel? I don't think that it does.

Thank you for starting this thread. It's good to see some serious discussion of these issues.

[The Magistrate]

90. Thank You, Sir

To be blunt, part of the value of that formulation is as a concession to the feelings of the weaker side. The people of Arab Palestine, viewed objectively, have known little but defeat and disappointment for decades, and feel, with some justice, that their opponent has behaved badly with little consequence. To flatly tag the settlement project with the onus of illegality, which is certainly accurate, could provide some salve.

[aranthus]

91. Yet more food for thought. n/t

[The Magistrate]

92. My Thanks Again, Sir

[Blue Meany]

80. Simple Solution: One Side Divides the Land; the Other Side

chooses which half they want. No one can honestly say that what the Palestinians have been offered is fair. If it were, Israeli's would no doubt be willing to trade places with them and I don't think that many Israelis would event pretend that they would agree to this.

Since the inception of Israel, there has been a cadre of leaders who have had no intention of allowing a viable Palestinian state because they wanted the whole of the "historic" country for Jews. They have not necessarily been the majority, but they have been sufficiently influential to shape policies that have provoked and encouraged ongoing conflict, which has served an expansionist agenda. At this point, Palestian territories have been so diminished and divided that there is no viable Palestinian state possible. It's like suggesting that Delaware and couple of counties in Western Pennsylvania could combine into a country. This is why Carter has likened it to apartheid and has advocated a solution of a single secular state.

Israeli hardliners simply want to drive the Palestians out the territories completely; terrorism and rocket attacks play right into their hands by providing a pretext for greater violence and oppresion, while garnering support from Israelis who would not directly support expansionist policies. My view is that the Palestinians would be wise to adobt Gandhian tactics to demand full citizenship rights in Israel and compensation for or return of siezed lands. This would undercut justification for Israeli policies, perhaps especially within Israel itself; it would probably result in much less loss of life; and would make a poignant appeal to the rest of the world, much as happened in South Africa. Palestinians ought to realize the strategies of violence have been a catastrophic failure for the pursuit of their interests and I hope that their leaders will try a new approach.

[sabbat hunter]

83. Should the jews

that were thrown out of Arab countries also get full citizenship rights in those countries and compensation for seized lands and other property?

[Blue Meany]

86. Sure. I don't believe in one-sided rules. But I think you will find

that the numbers who were actually expelled from the homelands are are pretty small. Most left in the wake of the 1948 war, but, again, I think few were forceably expelled so that their land could be siezed. As I recall, the largest numbers were in Baghdad and North Africa, and, as I posted earlier, most of the Jews in Arab countries were urban-dwellers and did not have significant land holdings.

[sabbat hunter]

87. actually

the numbers of jews thrown out of Arab countries and Arabs thrown out of what would be israel in 48 are about equal.

[sabbat hunter]

93. Link

to show how much jews thrown out of Arab countries lost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

[Vegasaurus]

95. No one cares about the Jews that were forcibly thrown out of Arab lands

who lost their homes, possessions and livelihoods.

No one ever talks about making things right for the Jews, only the Arabs.

Wonder why that is?

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. Imagine if soon-to-be President Obama were to publicly advance a plan

based on the same exact principles put forward above. This would create so much good will and promote an optimism that the Middle East has not seen since the early 90's.

The credibility of America in the Middle East and around the world would sky rocket.

And most importantly, even many of the most cynical critics and skeptics would start believing that peace in the near future is possible. And peace might even just come about.

I would add as an after thought that to really transform the politics of the region and to really stabilize the Israel/Palestine two-state settlement - a deal with Syria which included the Golan Heights would completely rewrite the politics of the region and would go a long way toward stabilizing both Lebanon and the two state solution in Israel/Palestine and greatly neutralizing the Iranian threat.

Bill Clinton: Israel-Syria peace deal could be reached within 35 minutes

A peace agreement between Israel and Syria could be reached within 35 minutes, former U.S. president Bill Clinton told the Lebanon-based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper in an interview published Sunday.

Clinton said Israel and Syria were very close to reaching an agreement in 1998, adding that an accord could be reached assuming Iran does not play a role in the issue.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848517.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

103. Who could possibly be opposed to such a plan?

Too bad he lacks the courage.

[The Magistrate]

105. However Indirectly Offered, Ma'am

Your endorsement of the above outline is appreciated.

[AnOhioan]

101. I cannot find anything to argue with in your post

[StudsT]

104. The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[Mike 03]

106. What Boggles My Mind.

I've been trying to watch coverage of this war from both sides, and the images from both sides are beyond painful to watch.

I've seen Israeli children bleeding and in a hospital. I've watched parents grieve.

I've seen Palestinian agony, families in terror, and children dead and dying.

Both sides are suffering, and both sides obviously live in uncertainty, terror, fear, and experience indescribably painful emotions.

When they look at the pain and suffering of each other, do they feel something too?

When Palestinian parents look at images of the suffering of Israeli parents when their daughters or sons have been killed, maimed, or injured, do they understand that pain?

And when Israeli parents look at images of the suffering of Palestinian parents when their daughters and sons are killed, maimed and injured or dead, do they feel a pang of horror and death too?

Attack my naivete (I probably deserve it), but why doesn't this evaporate hatred on the spot? Who can suffer through this? These beautiful people are dying. Anw why?

There simply HAS to be some other way.

The emotion that might bring these two sides together is grief. When you lose someone you love, so many defenses drop. Where is the empathy and surrender that leads to empathy???

Do any of you think that there is a way out of this? All day long I hear people say these two peoples will destroy each other. But I am praying there is a better way.

On Edit:

I must apologize. Rarely do I ever post here, but it's impossible not to follow these events, and I love DU and DO care what people here think about this.

This situation just makes me so very sad.

[mmonk]

107. I think there is an awareness among the people of both Israel

and the Palestinian territories of each other's suffering. I'm just not sure the leaders of each side do.

[subsuelo]

108. The U.S. can put a stop to it at a moment's notice

Want to understand Israel/Palestine? Start finding out why the U.S. allows it to continue...

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

111. Then how do you explain the existence of Israeli peace groups?

I disagree that: 'Even if every single Palestinian became a pacifist right now, Zionism would still have no room for them: Israel would still be colonizing the West Bank, and still depopulating East Jerusalem of residents who happen to have the wrong ethnic-religious background'. That's just as simplistic and blinkered as the idea that Palestinians are ONLY hostile to Israel because they like to kill Jews for the sake of it.

Peace can happen if and when enough people of both sides choose it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

112. There seems to be a drive to colonize the land that exists over and above the will of individual

Israelis... I'm not clear who is calling the shots. It does not seem to be the electorate. Reason and common sense are hardly driving this situation.

As for Israeli peace groups, I'd say they are in the toilet right now, wouldn't you?

[Vegasaurus]

116. I also think that (although it is an unpopular opinion)

there is general Palestinian lack of concern for Israeli suffering from terrorism.

I have watched dozens of Palestinian commentators on CNN, and not a one will speak of Hamas's role with nonstop rockets and terrorism.

They can be asked questions directly, and they will ignore them.

I think Israeli (not all, but most) are very upset by loss of life of Palestinians.

I don't think that most Palestinians care about Israelis at all, see the rockets as "firecrackers" or "nuisances".

No matter that the rockets cause real physical and psychological damage.

This conflict will never end as long as each side does not try to understand the other.

[StudsT]

115. i think only the extremist believe in that, truly

on both sides.

there needs to be an honest arbiter now and progress can and will be made when that happens and i still have hope that Obama will show that kinda leadership and compassion.

StudsT

[ProgressiveMuslim]

118. The land gobble has not ceased in a century.

Seriously, after 7 years of "peace process," Israeli settlements were DOUBLED.

Zionism is a colonial movement that is predicated on displacing people. It would be one thing if it renounced land confiscation, but it clearly has not done so.

Perhaps that should be a condition for talks, along with the ubiquitous demand to accept Israel's "right to exist." (borders to be determined later, after more land is gobbled.)

[StudsT]

120. it will definitely require an independent and honest arbiter to settle this

or at least make progress in that direction.

once we have that, real progress can be made as has been demonstrated with other successful peace negotiations in the region with Israel's neighbors.

it is really up to Obama right now... :fingers-crossed:

:hi: ProgressiveMuslim

StudsT

[shira]

124. absurd

There would be no extra "colonization", settlements or occupation had Palestinian leadership accepted Camp David/Taba of 2000 or, just recently, Olmert's offer at Annapolis - which was very similar to that.

Face it, Palestinian leadership is not very interested in their own state and to an end to this conflict. They could have had it numerous times since 1948. They want something else instead. What is that, I wonder? :sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

125. Contrary to popular mythology in some circles, the Palestinians did NOT walk out of Taba

These basic facts are not in dispute and are a matter of public record.

There was certainly nothing remotely similar to Taba discussions that occured at Annapolis. No one even alledges that.

The Israeli negotiating team under instruction from the Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally ended the talks in January 2001 because of the election which Ariel Sharon was predicted to win by a landslide with an absolute promise to reject any agreement with the Palestinians reached at Taba. These facts are not in dispute among sane and rational people.

Here is the link to the European Union notes - known as the Morantinos documents which all sides have confirmed to be a reliable record of what occurred at Taba, Egypt in January 2001.

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip:"Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election."

snip:"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to European Union notes:

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

------------------------------------

Israelis, Palestinians make final push before Israeli election
January 27, 2001
Web posted at: 11:38 a.m. EST (1638 GMT) - link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

"Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians. "

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes."
_________________

Here is a neutral and dispassionate examination of what led to the break down at Camp David in 2000 and Taba in January 2001:

Vision of Collision: What Happened at Camp David and Taba" by Professor Jeremy Pressman:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/322/visions_in_collision.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F355%2Fjeremy_pressman

.

[azurnoir]

129. Thank you sir

the facts you have just posted have been pointed out to the poster before as usual there will be a period of days or weeks were nothing is said and then the same stuff will be trotted out again as if no one knows and so the cycle repeats

[LeftishBrit]

110. Sadly wars tend to drive out empathy between groups..

but you may be interested from this perspective in the following organization

www.theparentscircle.com

[ProgressiveMuslim]

114. Where does this group exist? Why no Arab-based opinions on the Opinion section?

I don't believe that this conflict is driven by misunderstanding between individuals.

[Lithos]

130. It is a major component

That was the original source of division well before Mandate and what keeps the fear and hatred alive on both sides. It is reinforced by separation by wall, wire and culture. You can also see it wherever two cultures meet with no mechanism for the cultures to interact. You see it in Iraq where the Shia and the Sunni do not interact, or the mutual attitudes in Europe where ethnic groups become self-isolated in their own enclaves.

Why do you think one of the most successful bridge to peace involves bringing children of all groups together?

L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

131. What are you talking about?

I asked LB where the group she pointed me to is located.
The website has a few arab stories, but hardly looks like a genuine joint-project.

Bottom line, I made a post quoting someone who makes what I believe is a terrific point about the core conflict:

Zionism's problem with the Palestinians is not that they are terrorists. Zionism's problem with the Palestinians is that they exist. The Palestinians have to be forcibly displaced, dispossessed and disenfranchised not because of anything they do, but because that is the only way to create a Jewish state in a land where there is a pre-existing indigenous majority population that happens to be overwhelmingly non-Jewish. Even if every single Palestinian became a pacifist right now, Zionism would still have no room for them: Israel would still be colonizing the West Bank, and still depopulating East Jerusalem of residents who happen to have the wrong ethnic-religious background.

(Why this was deleted, I will never know. People make statements about palestinians' problems with Israel's very existence here on a daily basis. What rule did this possibly break? I didn't post this in the info site -- it was MOVED here!)

I believe the above is pretty true. LB responds by asking about peace groups and pointing me to a joint dialogue group. Peace Now and dialogue are great, but I dno't believe they are going to fundamentally change this conflict.

[Lithos]

133. Your comment

I don't believe that this conflict is driven by misunderstanding between individuals.

[LeftishBrit]

132. I mentioned this particular organization in response to Mike's post about people who are bereaved or

living in fear of bereavement not having empathy.

The group is said to be composed of about equal numbers of Jews and Arabs (I am not a member, so do not have detailed knowledge).


But there are many other groups for Israeli/Arab coexistence, of which perhaps the most interesting is:

www.nswas.org

But that wasn't really my main point in response to your post. My main point is that assuming that all Israelis/Zionists want Palestinians not to exist is just as self-defeating as assuming that all Palestinians/Arabs want to 'drive the Jews into the sea'.

[The Magistrate]

134. It Sounds Like a Decent Bunch, Ma'am

[ProgressiveMuslim]

135. LB, this conflict is not driven by what average Israeli citizens want.

That much is clear. That's the point I'm trying to make again and again.

But I can't fathom how so many Zionists can't see that the the "charter" of Zionism so to speak, required displacing people from their homes and land. That happened in 47/48 and again in 67. It's the core conflict that must be addressed. It's not about how Israelis "feel" about it.

The core conflict must be addressed politically. Not with missiles, not with tanks.

Israel can't bomb the Palestinians into submitting. It will have to kill them all first. Are Zionists actually willing to do that?

[StudsT]

113. of course it is the leaders that call all the shots and who are usually well protected & well to do

i think if the new admin shows REAL leadership and acts outside of the status-quo that there is promise for a solution (and at minimum a great reduction in violence)

The Outline for Peace - Bernard Weiner

It's been clear for decades what the outlines of a just peace might look like and what each side would have to do to get there:

1. Both sides would have to abandon the "I'm the true victim" and "you started it" loops. Each side has some history on its side, each side has behaved abominably, each side has some justice in its arguments. Both sides would have to stipulate, so to speak, to these recognitions and vow not to get bogged down in whose claim is the more righteous but stick to how to make living together in the same region workable and mutually beneficial.
   
   
2. Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 borders, fully end its occupation and control of the West Bank and Gaza, abandon its settlements on Palestinian land and make sure no new ones are allowed to intrude into the new viable Palestine state, which Israel would officially recognize. (In terms of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would cease its ruthless policy of "a hundred eyes for an eye" overkill, and constant humiliation of the Palestinians by engaging in way-over-the-top violence that constantly reminds them of their utter powerlessness.
   
   
3. The Palestinians (both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority or, better yet, Hamas inside the Palestinian Authority) would have to officially recognize the de facto State of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. No more rockets, no more suicide bombers inside Israel, no more calling for Israel's destruction, etc.
   
   
4. Realizing that there are crazy fanatics on each side, acting out of religious zealotry or ultranationalist urgings, both sides would have to agree to crack down on those extremists and not let occasional militant violence interfere with the peace process as it unfolds and in living together after the peace treaty has been signed.
   
   
5. Jerusalem, prized for historical and religious reasons by both sides (and by Christians as well), would become an international city, administered by the U.N. and/or a tri-religious civic council agreed to by all.
   
   
6. If Israel will not permit the "right of return" of Palestinians forced off their lands by the original establishment of the Jewish state or by the Separation Wall, they will pay fair compensation for the land. Perhaps Arab nations separately and the Arab League collectively can aid in this regard as well.
   
   
7. Treaties would be worked out regarding the travel rights of Palestinian workers inside Israel, the fair allocation of precious water resources, sharing technological developments, etc.
   

much more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x414139

pretty good idea for progress there, imho.

:hi:

StudsT

[Mike 03]

117. Sorry, this post was another stupid wishful post on my part.

I know there are no easy answers.

It is only my dignity that prevents me from expressing my great pain that I cannot think of or hope for some solution.

There has to be some way out of this. These are two beautiful, intelligent peoples. There has to be some way they can co-exist.

It has to be.

Excuse me and my naivete while I sob in a corner. lol, sorry.

[StudsT]

119. i think it is good to have a cathartic post and i do appreciate reading them

thanks for sharing Mike 03 :toast:

StudsT

[Mike 03]

121. Thanks, I noticed some atrocious typos I should have fixed, but it was too late to edit the post.

Sorry. Emotional exhaustion sets in at some point.

[StudsT]

122. eh, that only makes it more human/appealing =)

though, i am so glad that apple has spellcheck built into the OS now ;)

StudsT

[The Magistrate]

127. I Appreciate Your Comment Above, Sir: It Is An Excellent One

Human feeling is what is needed to solve this. Unforyunately, as one fellow member observed above, war shuts down empathy outside one's own group, and this war has been going on a long time.

[ShadesOfGrey]

123. Very thoughtful post.

This situation is so very sad. Perpetual war is not the answer. I agree, there HAS to be a better way. And SOON. :cry:

[TheKentuckian]

126. I can relate to the OP but I've never understood

why land gained in 67 should be on the table. You start a war and get your ass whipped then there are consequences.

What is being given up by the Arabs in trade? They'll stop their attacks? Sorry, that's weak. If they wanted that land and control of parts of Jerusalem then they should have held off on attacking Israel with the intent of destroying the nation.

Nobody likes war but they do have consequences and the Arabs really should have thought about them in 67.

[The Magistrate]

128. A Couple Of Points, Sir

Fiat annexation by Israel of the lands over-run in '67 would be illegal under international law.

"The Arabs" is a pretty loose usage: it is not a cohesive bloc that is being dealt with here.

My suggestion is that you seek out some more information on the matter.

[Marrah_G]

136. If only they would listen to you