127 Comments »

I’ll start the comments off by saying I think it is a really interesting proposal and I think, just from a first glance, that it has much to recommend it.

However, even at first glance I can see a glaring difficulty –the proposal talks about the West Bank, and indeed I can see that this proposal could really function there successfully –but there is no mention of Gaza in the proposal. No mention at all. What would happen with Gaza and those Palestinians living within Gaza?

Would those palestinians become, no longer palestinians, but Gazans and be considered an entirely separate and distinct nation? And if so, is there a proposal for them? It seems that would be necessary. Or, do they mean for all the Palestinians in Gaza to pick up and move lock stock and barrel into the West Bank? If the latter, what happens to the land in Gaza?

What about voting? For many this is likely old news, but one of the main reasons why Israel has not annexed the West Bank is that to do so would require Israel to either a) give voting rights to millions of Palestinians, thereby giving up the Jewish character of the state or b) deny them rights, and become something less than democratic. Am I correct to assume that the drafters of this plan are willing to accept one of these two possibilities (in all likelihood, the former)?

I have to say, this is (at least for me) a realy NEW idea. and new idea’s are good. they allow a way out of dead ends. a way to move forward.

Other then that, it seems impossible to belive that the idea has originated by anyone who is at least bit familiar or has some fundemental understanding of the situation. it seems so detached, that it might have well been suggested that the solution to all the problems was that everybody would stop wearing cloths and instead work a custom of a purpole cow.

regarding the actual plan, i can’t see what do Israeli’s have to gain from this? and if the only answer is peace and quite, there are much cheaper and safer ways for Israel to gain that.

Why would israel risk a one state solution? even temporarily?

it also seems like the whole idea is based on the PA being able to enforce its will over the clans. if the PA was willing and able to do so, we would not be in this mess in the first place.

one might think that the IDF can help the PA do it. but somehow, i don’t see the palestinians helping the IDF to arrest even one other palestinian.
so this won’t work either.

however, there is a solution!! a great soltuion!!!.

Everything stated about should be implemented, except where it says Israel, replace it with Jordan!!.
Jordan can enforce its will over the terrorist, can build and develop the palestinian state, can handle the palestinians return.

Yep, jordan is the perfect candidate for it.

if that doesn’t happen, i’d like to see if England is willing to have a nice new province. they have a good long history of having and managing provinces. they boycotting Israel for its treatment, no problem. they can solve the problem their own way.

Heh. It’s a good recipe for a whole lot of dead Jews and the destruction of the only democracy in the Middle East (crappy as it is).

Lemme tell you how this’d go in the real world…

PA leadership would speak one thing in Arabic and another in English (as usual). The plan would be accepted on one hand and regarded as an Evil Joooooz stealing Palestinian land on the other.

Israeli contractors trying to build the infrastructure in PA will be constantly killed/kidnapped/both. Soon they won’t work there, and the contracts would become Judenfrei. At this point the massive corruption would kick in – everything invested in the PA would, as always, vanish into the black hole of Swiss accounts and lavish villas in Ramallah.

In the meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians would settle in Israel proper. Suicide bombings would become a daily reality again. Israelis would be unsafe everywhere. The political system would collapse by the next elections, because the Palestinian and Israeli Arabs would form a single anti-Jewish block. Incitement would reach new and unprecedented levels in mosques and schools not only in PA but in Israeli Arab settlements.

A bloody civil war would begin, soon followed by a massive Arab invasion. Or if our government would be idiotic enough to accept such an interesting form of suicide, they might just be idiotic enough to walk like sheep to the slaughter again.

This is a mistake, seeing this war as being about land or statehood. This is a war of ideology, of irreconcilable world views:

On one hand, you have the newly-minted Palestinians who see this land as theirs and theirs only. In a such a world view, Jews are just random evil invaders from other lands… and must be genocided or driven into the sea (to swim, if they can).

On the other hand, you have the ancient Jews who see this is as their homeland. The Jews came home to find settlers from foreign lands living here. These settlers (who are now calling themselves the Palestinians) are not trusted not to bite off their own hand, much less the hand that feeds them.

Just mashing these people and world views together is a great way to ensure a lot of bloodshed. Is this Shalom-Salaam thing a Cthulhu cult?

Moshe, interesting reply I need to go back and read the original post before I respond at all. I don’t see a one state solution. There was some hope that Jordan would fill this role. I cannot see anyone wanting this particular solution (an Israeli/Palestinian state) at all, but I’d like to hear from Ramzi on this matter and get his (much valued by me) opinion. I have hope that Fayyad and Abbas will be able to help create a Palestinian state. I hope that they will be able to stabilize the situation and the region… Others who comment and post here will likely have a more sophisticated analysis of the post. BV? Tsedek? Zvi? Ibraheem,?Yasser? Shifaa? Raccoon?… and the rest of you all

Hmmm on voting, I would think that those in the province would only be able to vote as they do currently –on issues within their area and not within or pertaining to our country. The idea, it seems to me from reading it, is that clearly they would not be full Israeli citizens and they will have their very own country following this very temporary (space of a few years) interim –thus there would be no rationale for them to be voting on internal Israeli matters or in our elections. They would have their own elections for their own province. Lynn, can you clarify this point? Certainly I would not support such an initiative if it were to be the case that they would be voting on our national issues.

It is not stated in this proposal (clarification here would also be good) whether they could move to live inside Israeli borders, even temporarily. I’d assume not. Perhaps if they found employment here the government would issue permissions to move within Israel for the amount of time that they remain in their job (or up to the official formation of a Palestinian State, whichever came first). After that they would apply to come in on temporary visas like anyone from Europe or wherever.

Basically, it seems to me that what they would be getting from this deal is full health services, building of infrastructure and so forth, but absolutely would not be citizens. Am I reading this wrong?

[...] and over on Good Neighbours is a really novel proposal (really novel) for solving ze Israeli-Palestinian conflict –make a look-see and offer [...]

“it seems so detached, that it might have well been suggested that the solution to all the problems was that everybody would stop wearing cloths and instead work a custom of a purpole cow.”

That got me a laugh Moshe.

Thanks for the comments everyone. If you think there’s room for improvement (drastic improvement) please make your suggestions!

Hi Yaeli,
I’m not sure how the whole National/Provincial government goes. The idea came from a Canadian, so I’ll ask him to come in and clarify that for you.

Hi Raccoon,
Shalom-salaam is not a cult. (we don’t dance the Time Warp) It’s a forum for discussion on ME issues, anyone is welcome to check it out.
http://www.shalom-salaam.org
There’s actually a link to the forum on the gn blog. Elinor and Tzedek have joined our ranks, we’re always looking for more.
I’ll just say once again that this proposal has nothing to do with shalom-salaam, but with members who used to be a part of shalom-salaam.

Lynn, though many of us may not agree with the proposal, we do agree that it is a good idea to keep coming up with ideas, to keep lines of communication open, and well, to keep brainstorming ideas in case we come up with something viable. So thank you for your post!
I hope that Ramzi will have an opportunity to respond to these ideas.

I’d like to straighten out a few things before getting started, and that is the origin of this plan…it comes from a site called the olive branch which consists of some sha/sa expats.
I am the Canadian that Lynn was referring to and I would like to assure Moshe that I am very well aware of the situation on the ground and not just from a “distance”. My knowledge is both first and second hand,having spent much time in Israel and constantly returning, having much immediate and extended family living in Israel.

As a “proposal| it is rather general as you all have noticed and there are many humps in it that can be answered but it depends on how the over-all concept is taken.

For example there is the question of gaza and it is not addressed in this plan, and for very good reason. As you all must know the WB and Gaza are two very different areas lived in by very different people. The Tribal realities dictate who can and who cannot be dealt with and this proposal calls for huge risks to be taken by all the players involved. The Gazans have not shown that they are ready, able or willing to “deal” in any way shape or form.
This proposal deals only with the WB, it deals with realities and what can be a success story. Nothing breeds success like success and if and when the WB does succeed, one can look at a way to integrate Gaza into the over-all picture.

A key aspect of this plan is that it isn’t something that Israel would be imposing, it’s a proposal that Israel would be presenting to the Arab League for approval and given any type of approval would then be given to the PA.
The question of voting is valid and to be blunt, given the temporary aspect of the “province” I can see real voting for the Provincial Gov’t and the American equivalent of an electoral college vote in the National vote giving very few votes to this province.
One must understand that the goal of this proposal is to build a viable entity that can sustain itself, with the Provincial Gov’t being the more important one in day to day life.
Many more answers to come, but I do find it encouraging that there are legitimate questions coming. Thank you.

I like the proposal.

Voting sounds simple. This province would be created with the intention of succession. Therefore, it is logical that the people would get full voting rights for issues of the province. The province will need some representation in the Knesset that would be best based upon geography not by population.

Why should this be done.
1) the “Federal” government will root out corruption.
2) Education of Palestinians will change quickly in that the current
curriculum of the west bank will be tossed out and the curriculum used in Arabic speaking section of Israel will be used.
3) unemployment will change in that a large amount of people will be
getting indoctrinated by Israel directly as part of the service that all young people do. Currently, this indoctrination is done to Israelis to make sure that they work towards a better Israel. The version setup for the west bank will be a bit different. It will need to through a bit of Civics into place. Probably, this may take a year to get setup.

OK. Remove the voting thing from my reply… there’ll just be a block of 30% of the population living outside the law, preying on the weaknesses of the system and striving to destroy the state housing it.

This is the equivalent of just throwing the borders open. Nothing else will change (except for a whole lot of trees dying so that mountains of useless papers can be signed).

Now seriously – is whomever thought this up a Cthulhu cultist?

Hi everyone!
We speak a lot about PA, palestinians, neibouring arab countries,
but we forget to ask one not less important question
are we in Israel ready for peace? that means: are we
really understand what does it bring us? are we really
understand that it will couse some seriose changes of our borders?
are we really have leaders strong enough and clever enough,
who can lead us to this goal? i am deeply sorry to say that,
but i think that the answer for all this questions is no.
BUT… you all do a greate job, thank you.
P.S. and what about this forum Shalom-Salaam if everyone may be
a member? i will be glad to take part in your discussions.

Yeh… i miss Lynn’s commment with the link, so i have the answer for my last quiestion.

an interesting idea,Peter/Lyn,but I think the solution will come not from outside,but the solution for Peace will from from bright Israelis (living in Israel who vote,pay Israeli taxes and prehaps do milium service or Sherut Leumi ) and Arabs in WB/Gaza and neighbouring Arab countries. One can speculate about the solution of many problems like Kashmir/Chechnya/Iraq(should Kurdistan be independent)Iran /Western Sahara/Tibet/UAE [where over 70 percent of people(migrants) have no vote although many were born there] but its up to those people to solve them

If we are Israelis or Jews living outside Israel we should support Israel in whatever decisions they make and support the heroic IDF in defending Israel,in my opinion

The issue of voting is far less complicated than it is being made out to be in that there are many types of voting that exists in democratic countries and not just “one” way.
The voting in Israel, Unitd States and Canada is different in each case and there are what can be called abuses or weaknesses in the system in each case….I don’t think we are about to look for the panacea to voting.
Israel’s system, while democratic doesn’t work as we all know…..who remembers a majortiy gov’t?
Canada and The USA differ as well, but one thing they do have is multiple levels of gov’t with different powers to enable a “voice” to the people.
Canada offers municipal, Provincial, National Assembly that are voted in as well as a declared National Senate.
This proposal doesn’t keep people from the Province from having a vote, but it does recognize the temporary nature of the “Provincial” status…..remember folks, walking into this there is a fixed time period for seccession.
This is about establishing a new country not enlarging Israel.
This does not keep 30% of the population living outside the law, there is a Provincial Law to be upheld and a National Law to live by as well.
Anybody who has a basic understanding of democracy recognizes that a very large percentage of the population will have voted Against the existing Gov’t and a case can be made for saying they have “no say” in affairs as they aren’t “represented” by the gov’t.
The case would be foolish however and we are all aware of that.
Are we about to challenge the legitimacy of the US gov’t because it 48% voted Democrat? No.
Are we about to challenge the legitimacy of the Cuban gov’t because it got 97% of the vote? Yes.

In short the people of the Province will be voting in ways that affect their situation.

I’ll try to elaborate on why i feel peter although visits frequently and has family ties and all, just don’t get it.

1. There is an assumption that the palestinian (even just the one’s in the west bank) are ready for a state. now, this contredicts how most israeli’s think of palestinians. (whether this view is correct or not, that’s realy not the point here). For me to belive the palestinians can have a state, a goverment, something, i’d like to see them get a working sewage system. once there will not be sewage in the streets, i’ll start thinking of the palestinians as more, hmm, maybe humans is not the right word here, but lets say, ready.

2. There is an assumption that the palestinian (even just the one’s in the west bank) want to have a state more then they want the whole land. now, this contredicts how most israeli’s think of palestinians. (whether this view is correct or not, that’s realy not the point here).
It seems like the palestinians had many occasions in which they could have declared statehood. hell, they can do it right now.
but declaring statehood would mean they would have to accept the existance of israel. to accept the israeli’s right to live here under an israeli state. sadly, this is not the case at all.
you can just read some of the responses from Karim in the shalom-saalam forum to understand what i mean. you see this from almost every palestinian source.

3. There is an assumption that the palestinians deserve any kind of help. They don’t. The fact that i want them to have a state is fully related to me not wanting anything to do with them. So, i am willing to give up on land that i think is mine, and do a whole lot of stuff, just so i will once and for all be able to not disconnect any ties with them.
maybe not all of them are actively or passively trying to demolish Israel, but enough of them do. enough of them behave and act in levels which are not fit for humans. and that, at least in my view, put a stain on all of them.

in my view at least, this is not the case in Canada or England. the muslims that commited acts of terror against England do not represent or infect the whole muslim population. here, in the middle east, in palestine, they do.

That is why you don’t get it. you don’t see it.

Hi,

I’m one of the Sha-Sa/Olive Branch people. I think that the plan is impractical. But I question whether this plan
is being understood correctly and is being looked at from a long-term perspective.

As has been stated, the Palestinians can declare statehood today and if they declare a state only in the WB
and Gaza plus they drop the demand for a right of return. It is probable that nearly all of the world will honor
the Pals claim and will be extremely unhappy with Israelif it doesn’t accept reasonable terms.
Most of the world doesn’t consider the West Bank or Gaza to be Israeli territory. Not to mention that Israel has
shown that it’s willing to accept a state in reasonable boundaries.

The fact of the matter is that it’s more likely that if the Palestinians have a successful state that they will
be less interesting in harming Israel. I don’t mean that 100% of Palestinians will start loving Israel, but it is
hopeful that there will be less tension. However, if the Palestinians live in a state that is struggling and
doing poorly, then there will be a lot of discontent. And former quarrels will not put behind them. There will
likely be more tension. Perhaps they’ll decide in either case to try to attack Israel, but chances are better that
they won’t if they’re not starving.

Not to mention that its easier to trade with a successful state then a failed one. And do all those other things
that successful states do. Knowledge sharing and economic trade come to mind. If they truly do want a state
(which is out of Israel’s control),

Peter’s plan attempts to create an infrastructure and an economy because its easier to have peace with such a state
then with a failed state. Not because he feels the Palestinians deserve Israels help and charity.

Sure, Israel can just give the Palestinians land and tell them to go fly a kite. But does that help Israel in the
long run? Or does it just lead to a cold peace?

If you believe that the Palestinians can’t build infrastructure for themselves, then far better for Israel to build
it for them. Prosperous people are less likely to fight.

Personally, I think it will fail. I think that people working with Israel will be called collaborators and shot.
I foresee Israeli contractors being attacked, and buildings getting blown up. And let’s not even get into sabotage.

Moshe you aren’t seeing the forest for the trees as the Three reasons you give are exactly the reason to offer this type of proposal.

1. If the Arabs were ready to have a state, they would have one already.
2. If the Arabs were on to the level of societal maturity where they would be looking to raise themselves as opposed to pulling another down, they would have a state already.
3. If the Arabs didn’t need any help and they were able to do it on their own, they would have a state already.

This proposal is looking at the situation from a different perspective, it is recognizing that there are demands being made of land, return, nationhood, statehood….and all these demands are given without any framework or possibility of realization. These demands aren’t what is holding up things although they are being used as the centre-piece.
What is holding things up is that there isn’t an Arab Country to be reborn, there is no framework of an Arab Country to rebuild, and we can sit on our hands waiting for the process or we can add some agar to it.
This proposal recognizes that at the end of the day, there will be another Arab Country in the Middle East. We can continue to be at war until there is a level of maturity that is reached that will allow them to undergo the societal change that must happen for this country to be born…..or we can stop war and assist it in happening.
The Arab world is tired of supporting and financing this battle, or at least the Arab World that financed it in the past doesn’t want it to continue. An isolated Iran is the one country that still encourages the “war”, but that’s about it.
The Saudis, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan,Lybia etc have had enough and they would like some resolution, Israel has much to offer these countries and they well know it.

In other words, if we continue to look at the situation with yesterdays eyes, we’ll just continue to have yesterdays failures.
This proposal calls for looking forward to the end-game of living WITH our neighbours.

Most Palestinians have been deeply programmed to think that anything less than full national statehood is unacceptable, betrayal, occupation, “atrocity” and even [badly misused terminology] “genocide.” Many Palestinians (though not all) also believe that anything less than the destruction of Israel and the slaughter, of the Jews is an “unacceptable” “betrayal” of “principles” and “justice” (sad how beautiful words have been so warped into horror by ideologies of hatred like that of HAMAS).

Regardless of my personal preferences, Palestinians as a whole simply would not accept becoming a province of a “greater Israel,” and no country in the region would accept that result either. It would in fact inflame Palestinians and Arab opinion rather than creating any kind of peaceful resolution. On the Palestinian side, this would solve — precisely nothing.

If, on the other hand, there were any chance at all that Palestinians would end up in charge of the resulting state, Israelis would reject this solution outright. Any solution that puts Palestinians directly in charge of their sovereign government, which controls their security, is a recipe for disaster. Israelis have very real security concerns that come from knowing all too well what their enemies are publicly planning to do to them and from having LIVED under Arab and Islamic regimes in the past, and ignoring these concerns in any policy in the hope that they might prove unnecessary is a complete non-starter.

Realistically speaking, any one-state scenario would be a recipe for slowly/quickly escalating violence and eventual civil war a la Lebanon, but 1000s of times worse. It would be an incredible bloodbath on both sides. Israelis would be convinced that to falter would be to allow genocide (which is indeed what a sizable minority of Palestinians intend), and Palestinians would be driven on from the rear by madmen and evil ****tards, promising 72 virgins for the deaths of Jews or promising people the keys to a house that no longer exists, or the love of the Arab world, or $10000 US, if they will just put that bomb on the train. Regional powers would run in to grab what they could and the conflict would spiral out of control while the world watched ineffectually, or worse, while world powers stepped in with “humanitarian” demands and botched up their involvement (yet again), leaving an untenable situation that would explode into unimaginably savage violence again. And again. And again.

I love the Lebanese people and I long for a day when they will work out their differences and build a peaceful and stable democratic system without foreign interference, but please don’t tell me to replicate Lebanon in Israel.

I’m sorry. Israelis and Palestinians are not a science experiment. Israelis are people. Palestinians are people. I’m willing to take risks and even big risks, but I’m not willing to try something that sends everyone straight down the chute into the meat grinder.

Hey odp1,
The plan of give the Palestinians land and tell them to fly a kite sounds like a good idea. I supported the idea when Sharon tried that one out in Gaza.

Unfortunately, the kite flew like a lead balloon. So its back to the drawing boards my friend.

Question, if the Palestinians were able to get work back in Israel would they take it? Would those that take the work be considered to be collaborators?

Would the Israeli contractors be killed if they were mostly Palestinian? Probably what would be needed for this plan is for a border business district to be built that both Israelis and Palestinians could goto without much hassle. From that Palestinians would be hired trained and sent back to the west bank to work on infrastructure and the like.

Also, to what extent do you think that this could be changed by required national service? Wouldn’t that take many of those who would be doing the shooting off the street?

Is there a possibility of using/abusing the American position in Iraq to help out in the west bank? Either by offering palestinians Iraqi citizenship or having some of them doing patrols with the American military?

Oops. I meant to write “anyone’s personal preferences” and I wrote “my personal preferences”. Ha!

Personally, I favor of a separate Palestinian state existing in peace beside Israel, rather than a formal Israeli annexation of the WB. That much should be clear from the rest of my comment.

Another slip (I was really bad today): When I wrote,

“Any solution that puts Palestinians directly in charge of their sovereign government, which controls their security,”

what I really meant to write was

“Any solution that puts Palestinians directly in charge of Israelis’ sovereign government, which controls their security,”.

I apologize. I was distracted while writing this.

Zvi, you make more sense with errors than I do without them Excellent comment, my friend.

It’s clear that there is a gamble being taken by Israel and a gamble being taken by the Arabs as well, but that isn’t a reason to be afraid to take a stepforward. Those tentative first steps become strides as confidence sets in.
That fear is what brings comments like people working with Israel will be called collaborators and shot, Israeli contractors being attacked, and buildings getting blown up, and sabotage.
These comments and fears are valid if this is something imposed by Israel.
It isn’t…..it’s an agreed to proposal and that changes the dynamic entirely.
This will be happening in the WB and not Gaza, so hamas isn’t involved to any serious degree…..the PA will need to and want to run the show.
It will be their pleasure to maintain the only arms in the WB and it will be their pleasure to disarm ANYBODY.
As for smuggling….we will be on the same side in this arrangement, WE arab AND jew control the borders together not against each other.

Peter, have you lost confidence in the abilities of Abbas and Fayyad to solve these issues, taking some positive steps themselves? I see the goodwill behind the proposed plan, and I appreciate that, but I just cannot see the advantages for anyone. Ramzi reports that there are many changes in process, and he has some hope that positive changes will be made.

Ha! Lynne, please don’t say that (about you & me)! It’s definitely not true!

NYC, I doubt that WB contractors would be killed by their fellows. But most Palestinian contractors will not have the chance. Many of the jobs that Palestinians used to perform in Israel are filled today by Filipinos and Asians and eastern Europeans and such.

As usual, Palestinians can thank to Arafat, HAMAS & co. for ruining this aspect of the Palestinian economy; without years of suicide bombings and other terror attacks, Israel would never have been forced to look elsewhere for help.

Peter, I agree with part of what you say. My point is that the province approach is not a step forward but rather a step off the cliff What you may not realize is that even if some Palestinians agreed to such an approach – which won’t happen – a very large number of others have been raised on a diet of conspiracy theories and would instantly distrust and deeply hate what they would perceive to be a sinister plot to destroy the dream of a Palestinian state. They would immediately brand anyone supporting it as a collaborator and would do everything in their power to destroy the agreement. On the Israeli side, the province approach either involves dropping security, at which point everything blows up, or keeping security, in which case Palestinians would legitimately say “this is simply occupation in a different guise.”

Some approaches CANNOT succeed if initiated in an atmosphere such as the one we live in today, and we need to be able to distinguish the risky hope from the suicidal delusion.

As long as we’re talking about cooperative arrangements, though, forget provinces and think regional organizations. Not quite the EU – the middle east is not Europe, after all. But give people a reason not to care so much whether they are citizens of country X or whether they are in sect Y or whether they are in tribe Z. And more importantly, whether someone else is not.

I have to agree with the sceptics here. The proposal seems to be predicated upon capitalising on an (assumed) reservoir of good faith on both sides. If such a reservoir had existed the Middle East would have solved its problems decades ago and the Palestinians would now be enjoying a second generation of living in their own sovereign state.

Giving statehood to a people who aspire to it is not a magic bullet. It does not resolve underlying attitudinal problems, corruption, or aid dependence. If anything, statehood just makes it worse. In our part of the world we are seeing these problems writ large in the case of East Timor, which was born as a state destined to fail, and is already failing.

The most important thing it seems to me is to build the basis for a civil society in the territories. As mentioned in other comments, this includes infrastructure — but it also involves a self-sustaining economy. Fayyad was quoted in Newsweek a few months ago as saying the territories can generate only 10 per cent of the income required for self-sustenance. The rest comes from donor aid.

Unless that changes, with the Palestinians too busy making their living (out of necessity) to be hating and killing — which they are currently subsidised to do — there seems little chance of a viable Palestinian state ever standing beside Israel.

Hi G.
Just so you know, I did Sherut Leumi, I’ve worked and paid taxes (and complained about it) in Israel and right now I’m doing a graduate degree in the states.

“Peter, have you lost confidence in the abilities of Abbas and Fayyad to solve these issues, taking some positive steps themselves? “-Lynne

Absolutely, if they had the capacity it would have been done a long time ago.
The proposal doesn’t assume that there is a resevoir of good faith, it assumes an inability to to stop spinning the wheels on one hand and an ability to be pragmatic on the other.

It isn’t a matter of goodwill, nothing happens just because people want to be nice, it happens because it’s advantageous to the players.
This proposal happens to be a win/win situation, and while I’ll be happy to respond to all of the questions and show you why this can work….it would be nice to try a different exercise and how about some of you folks posting the upside of this and why you think it will work.
Or how about what things you would like to see added or addressed by the proposal.

I haven’t read all the comments, just schemed very briefly over the proposal. It is a blueprint for either: 1. a one state solution 2. an apartheid system. Both these options are repugnant.

Israel should not have to nurse the Palestinians to maturity. Israel should be concerned mainly with its own citizens’s pursuit of happiness. This is what every state does, looks after its own interests, first and foremost. The Palestinians should grow up and assume responsibility for their fate, their own state, their own agriculture, something they have been yelling about for 60 years now but somehow haven’t got around to implementing.

The first principle for peaceful co-existence should be Separation. It’s a very bad idea and I agree with Racoon that “It’s a good recipe for a whole lot of dead Jews and the destruction of the only democracy in the Middle East

This is just something that has been swirling around in my head and it might be something that might work. It is based on this proposal but slightly different and with a third player in the mix.

Moshe’s comment about this working with Jordan in place of Israel sparked my memory of what our Palestinian authors (Ramzi, Dalia, where are you guys? Enjoying your summer I hope!) were discussing back in the spring. According to Ramzi’le there has been a LOT of talk about, and very strong support for (among West Bank Palestinians), the West Bank forming a Confederacy with Jordan. As I recall, several months ago, a number of high level cabinet members from the PA went to Jordan to propose just that solution to Mubarak (this was before the Hamas over-throw of Gaza) and 70 of them went again to discuss it during the Gaza crisis.

What if just such a confederacy was formed –the West Bank became a temporary Province of Jordan? But also, Israel was also active in helping with setting up infrastructure and so forth. The Jordanian military –or perhaps the Badr Brigades from Jordan–would police the border between the West Bank and us just as they do along their other parts of their border. The PA police would be in charge of regular police duty. And Israel would help with building roads and schools, with agricultural technology and so forth.

A sizeable percent of the West Bankers already want to join with Jordan …why not facilitate it but with a country at the end of it rather than just becoming part of Jordan permanently?

Hello Crazyman in NYC,

“Question, if the Palestinians were able to get work back in Israel would they take it? Would those that take the work be considered to be collaborators?

Would the Israeli contractors be killed if they were mostly Palestinian? Probably what would be needed for this plan is for a border business district to be built that both Israelis and Palestinians could goto without much hassle. From that Palestinians would be hired trained and sent back to the west bank to work on infrastructure and the like.

Also, to what extent do you think that this could be changed by required national service? Wouldn’t that take many of those who would be doing the shooting off the street?”

I would use what’s happening in Iraq as my model to predict what would happen in this plan. Iran, Al-Qaida and all the
other terrorists had an interest in making sure that Iraq didn’t turn into a successful, stable American ally. In the same
vein, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and others have an interest in making sure that the West Bank doesn’t
turn into a stable, successful Israeli ally. Hamas more then the rest of them.

Admittingly, it is true that the US did impose their solution on Iraq, and Peters’ plan would only be implemented if it has
support from the Palestinians, presumably the govt and people. However, the current Iraqi government doesn’t want
American troops to leave yet and even most of the Iraqi people were hopeful about the Americans coming in the
beginning of the war. I don’t think Israel can hope for much more support then that from the Pals. It’s not like they’ll decide
tomorrow to open their arms wide and start loving Israelis. Nor is it likely that they’ll turn their brothers into the Israeli govt
if they do wreak havoc.

As for your questions, while America didn’t require Iraqis to do national service, they did request volunteers to join
the army/police. They got a large turnout of people… until they started being targeted and killed. The insurgents
didn’t care that those people were Iraqis. Even Iraqis that work with the army in a civilian role are targeted
and murdered. Interpreters are in great danger. How many random Iraqis have been murdered in the name of spreading
terror and making the US look bad? No, unfortunately I don’t think it would help much.

Palestinians do work in Israel. For the most part they aren’t labeled collaborators. But this is different then just working in
Israel, no? This is helping Israel gain influence over the West Bank and bringing the countries closer together. That’s a threat
to Hamas. Having Pals work in Israel to survive isn’t as big of a threat in my opinion.

The business district idea is interesting… but I remember that during the second intifada, Israeli business owners were
killed by their Palestinian employees. Would Israelis be willing to put themselves in this position again?

I don’t think that America in Iraq can help in the West Bank except as serving as an example to learn from.

I agree with Noga.

Yaeli, the subtext of the “Jordanian federation” plan was, simply put, that right after the HAMAS coup, WBers so deeply distrusted their government that they were willing to pursue almost any approach (except for compromising with Israel) to save themselves from the cataclysmic bad judgment and ineptitude of their own leaders.

But I’m willing to bet (Ramzi?) that calls for a Jordanian federation are less prevalent today than they were right after the HAMAS coup, because according to this report,

A poll of 800 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to be published this weekend by the Ramallah-based Near East Consulting found that 74 per cent of Palestinians have “high” or “moderate” trust in Mr. Fayyad.

If the data is accurate and we aren’t being spun by dishonest pollsters, that’s quite interesting, especially when you consider that they included Gazans in the poll. Gazans are not exactly flourishing right now, and they likely skew the average down. So the WB numbers are likely somewhat higher.

Fayyad & Abbas have several critical tasks to complete if they want to build a state. 1. close down the militias and terror groups (for Palestinians’ own sake, not for Israel’s sake; see below). 2. negotiate a real peace with Israel and make it stick, and 3. establish a self-correcting system of government that is able to survive bad leaders as well as good ones.

These will all be very difficult tasks. But for the first time there may be true intent to do at least #1 and #2. I hope that Fayyad & Abbas truly believe what Fayyad said a few days ago:

“Building toward statehood and independence on the one hand, and continuing to tolerate armed militias on the other, are two mutually exclusive paths that will never meet,” Fayyad said.

“We are learning that from experience. We need to deal with this. That’s the key principle that needs to be understood, and understood clearly, and that has to be implemented. Today that’s what we are beginning to do in the West Bank and that is something that should be generalized. We simply cannot go back to a situation where matters are taken into the hands of the people acting outside of the… Palestinian authority. This is the key requirement”

I hope he believes it, because he’s 100% correct.

Best of luck.

I hope with all my heart that Fayyad is respected and listened to by the Palestinian people because I believe that he is an extremely smart and honorable man. It seems to me that he has made a sacrifice in joining the government and that his motivation is the well-being of the Palestinian people. He seems to have the motivation of serving his people. I believe that Abbas is doing all that he can to improve matters. I hope that the Palestinian people have the sense to trust these two leaders to find a good solution for them. Ramzi seems to have hope and faith in these two leaders.

Ok I’d like to set the record straight and say that there will not be any Jordanian Federation anytime soon, at least I hope not. Many Palestinians may distrust our government, I mean one day it’s with Fatah the next Hamas, then we have a unity government which ends up with a Hamas coup and an emergency government (ofcourse that’s ignoring all the scandals that have emerged from both sides) Any sane person will stop trusting his/her government, but I doubt that the Palestinians would want to join Jordan, and I add my voice to that crowd (though I’m sure Ramzi would beg to differ).
Anyway now to the main point of my comment, this proposal is kind of interesting, a somewhat new and promising idea. But I’m going to pass on it for a number of reasons, ONE: being that Palestinians wouldn’t agree to becoming a province within Israel, most Palestinians want a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as it’s capital and that has been the dream of the majority of Palestinians for a few decades now, kind of like the Jewish dream of a Jewish homeland (I may not fully agree with this solution, because a number of problems will arise from the two state solution.) TWO: Israel has a long, long record of not treating their citizens equally, especially when it comes to the Arabs, Ethiopians and the Eastern Europeans, these groups are treated as third class citizens within Israel, with minimal funding for the infrastructure and education. Now, one can imagine how Israel will treat the “uncivilized” Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
THREE: Israel (the government and people) will never accept this solution, only because they don’t trust the Palestinians, I mean come on let’s face it, the Israeli government wants to get rid of it’s responsibility over the territories, with the pull out of Gaza being the best example to that. The majority of Israelis see us the Palestinians as terrorists, corrupt and unable to govern ourselves, so why would they want anything to do with us?

So I must say that as much as this proposal seems very promising in a sense that people are back to looking for proper solutions instead of trying to through the problems of the conflict on each other. But I think this specific proposal is not the best at this point of time, and will not happen for a long time. I am a person who supports a one state solution, but what I mean by a one state solution is to have one state with no provinces or anything, it’s just Jews, Christians and Muslims living side by side. Yes, I do admit that it is almost impossible now, but I think if this happens it would be the best solution.

if its possible, Dalia, could you elaborate on why you would want a one state solution?
do you prefer a never happening one state solution over a possible two state solution?
and about your third comment, do you think there are justifiable reasons for israeli’s to think and feel that way? why do you think most israeli’s feel that way?

Having read the responses it appears that I need to clarify a few things because people have gone off course in the sense that they are rejecting it for reasons that are not part of the proposal.
Perhaps explaining where it comes from may clarify things a little.
theolivebranch.myfastforum.org was established by some folks who choose to look at pragmatic proposals for peace, not left or right wing approaches, but approaches which may be different form the failed visions of the past.

Obviously the wording must be changed because too many of you are concentrating on the annexation aspect and ignoring the seccession which is built into the proposal.

The end goal of this proposal is a viable Arab country next to Israel on the WB, a country which would live in peace side by side.

All of the responses about palestinians refusing to be a province, refusing to give up their national aspiration, refusing to be a part of a jewish state, israel refusing to have more arabs in the country……are all off the mark.

All of these responses are the knee-jerk replies to old solutions and old concepts.
This proposal is very different and stands on very different ground. The rejection of it needs to be on different grounds though…..and that assumes of course that there is a desire for peace.

There are steps involved in the proposal and one has to read them all before stopping at the one you don’t like, skimming through and stopping at a few key words doesn’t do it justice and then we end up discussing non-aspects of the proposal instead.
A quick short list.
1)Presentation to the Arab League as a response to the Saudi Plan.
2)Presentation to the PA
If accepted by them the proposal is implemented, if not, back to the drawing board. In short, this isn’t a proposal impose by Israel.
3) Annexation and formation of Province
4) establishing Provincial gov’t and rule of law
5) extending social services to population
6) establishment of infrastructure, eg roads, utilities,business plan
7) seccession of the Province and establishment of an indepedent country.

The basis for the proposal as discussed at theolivebranch.myfastforum.org
is that one thing Israel knows how to do is build and create. Just look at Jordan and Israel, 2 countries created out of the same parcel of land at about the same time.
Jordan GNI 2000.00US
Israel GNI 18,000.00 US

I’ll admit that it may have been better had we put a finite time period of years for the interim period of being a Province, but that was left out as being of less importance than the over-all concept.
I would imagine it would be a 10-15 year period to establish enough facts on the ground to make it viable.
Perhaps reading the proposal again, using this as a guideline may bring new perspectives.
sorry if mentioning theolivebranch.myfastforum.org is out of line, I hope it isn’t, but it can be edited out if it’s a problem.

Why do you think previous plans failed?

I don’t understand where your plan differs from previous plans in the core issues.
for a few: Right of return, status of Jerusalem
or
palestinians not being ready for statehood, not ready for any type of governance (province govt. included)
palestinians prefering land over peace

I sent a reply to Moshe a number of hours ago, was there a problem with it that it hasn’t appeared?

This proposals differs greatly from any and all previous plans in that it addresses the core issue instead of getting bogged down on supposed core issues.
Jerusalem and ror are merely constructs that are in place in order to avoid dealing with the real issue.
A semblance of pragmatism realizes that 500,000 Jews living over the Green Line are not going to be moved and displaced any more than a few million Arabs aren’t going to be moved or displaced.
The Jewish State of Israel will not open her doors to millions of Arabs and discussing whether she should or could or wants to or doesn’t want to is the equivalent of a dog chasing it’s tail, it just isn’t going to happen……I must add, certainly not in the framework of peace.

The core issue is the birth of a nation and the creation of a country, as well as how it will be achieved.
Moshe, this is what the proposal addresses.
It allows us to look at realizable gains and changes the dynamic from seeking to apportion blame to seeking a way to live.
Life is full of compromises but one of the common goals we all share is that we’d like to leave the world a better place for our children and we’d like them to have more opportunities than we have.

This is the core issue and it has never been addressed before. All proposals out there discuss borders, movement of people, compensation for people, terrorism, checkpoints, occupation, liberation, apartheid,judaism,zionism and the list goes on….policing, settlements,security fence…..need I continue?

The core issue of nationhood has been left to flounder, tribal loyalties, clan mentality, various “strong-men” mixed in with claims of pan-arabism, I mean everybody is a palestinian but nobody is. There is no central national will or central body of self-determination, just a lot of loose ends.
Israel makes a gesture and holds out her hand and the Arabs take it as a slap in the face.
Right or wrong this wheel just keeps turning and turning, spinning in place.

This proposal addresses this core issue, it says not only is there a palestinan people, this is the country that will be built…..not only do we agree to it….we will use our knowledge and ability to assist in it’s creation. We will give the benefit of our experience to ensure it’s success because we want a viable neighbor next to us.

Is it our job to do it? Not at all.
Is it our obligation to do it? Not at all
This proposal says despite that we are going to do it with you because in order to change the dynamic a radical move must be made, if we are going to trust each other to be good neighbours we have to do something radical to gain that trust.
This proposal calls on all parties to do something radical that at the end of the day will be beneficial for all parties.

Peter – I would have to agree with much of what has been said by the dissenters. Plus you may not like them focussing on one aspect, but without that first stepping stone you can’t move on. However, if you want an analytical critique of each step, I can give it a try.

1)Presentation to the Arab League as a response to the Saudi Plan.

I am wondering why you are starting with the Arab League. They are on the sidelines and not really in a position to impose anything.

2)Presentation to the PA
If accepted by them the proposal is implemented, if not, back to the drawing board. In short, this isn’t a proposal impose by Israel.

OK, lets say the Arab League loves the idea and the PA accepts it. How can you then implement it without Israels acceptance? And if Israel, the Arab League and the Palestinians agree on anything then the work is done, but you haven’t responded to the critiques of the initial stumbling blocks to acceptance of the idea by the different players. I’ve yet to come across large numbers of Palestinians willing to cede large territory to the settlements, let alone Jerusalem. The concept of annexation wouldn’t be trusted and would be seen as an Israeli land grab. Israel wouldn’t want any Palestinians from the West Bank to have any say in “Federal” government and you haven’t addressed the issue of Palestinian rights concerning issues such as travel within Israel.
But, you want the rest of this examined, so lets pretend that all of those involved agree to all terms.

3) Annexation and formation of Province

Annexation would legally require that the residents of the territories be given voting rights and equal standing with other citizens. I get that you see it as temporary or with different voting rights, but that would appear to place them in the position of second class citizens. Not giving them national political power (which I don’t see Israel ever doing) would mean the situation politically would essentially be the same as it is now – Israelis with greater political power, Palestinians with only small local involvment. They already have the PA. What have you changed? Plus, the temporary nature would mean different ID’s and different legal status. Again, what have you changed?

4) establishing Provincial gov’t and rule of law

Rule of law is very important. However, you have included the IDF, army forces as part of the enforcers of law and order in the region. A lot of the problems that exist now are due to the use of the army as a police force, they work differently, treat events differently an are subject to different legal issues. Plus the army acting in one “province” is of dubious legality. You have also to address the issue of “whose law”? Do you intend imposing Israels legal system on the Palestinians?

5) extending social services to population

A worthy goal – who is going to do it? What of Israeli resistence to paying for a lot of it? What about issues of imposing Israeli practices on the Palestinians?

6) establishment of infrastructure, eg roads, utilities,business plan

Another worthy goal, however there have been several attempts at this. What do you propose to prevent this becoming a situation of Israeli businesses using cheap Palestinian labor? How would you assist in the rise of Palestinian entrepreneurship and business ownership?

7) seccession of the Province and establishment of an indepedent country.

Finish the other steps first.

I realize you are trying to think out of the box, but it appears that you are trying to impose something on all sides without taking their points of view into consideration at all.
You said that there are no idealogical differences, just empty rhetoric. But that isn’t true, there are some very real, very different expectations on each side. Many Palestinians and Israelis see Jerusalem as a non-issue. Many Palestinians and Israelis see Right of Return as a non-issue. You can’t ignore that.

lisoosh I’ll respond one by one to the statements, albeit I may not satisfy them all, after all I don’t have the market cornered on answers….others can give a hand.

1) The Arab League presented the Saudi Plan as a proposal which has never been replied to by Israel, I suggest this proposal be the reply, after all we are looking to end the Arab/Israeli problem as well as address the core issue of nation-building.

2) “OK, lets say the Arab League loves the idea and the PA accepts it. How can you then implement it without Israels acceptance?”
If Israel is presenting the proposal, obviously she accepts it, that\s a given.

3)Annexation would give the Arabs voting rights, and yes it would be of a temporary nature. I see it as the province having a certain number of seats in the Knesset so they should have a voice of sorts.
The syatem in Canada for example is done by ridings and there are vastly different population totals in these ridings. I see it as being something of the same nature.
Different ID’s, different legal status and different responsibilities to go with it, for exmple national service won’t mean army, it will mean social service within the province.

4)Establishing rule of law means the PA has to have full control of arms and control of policing. At the outset of Oslo the IDF was working with the PA to hand over the stations and it was working pretty well.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t be the same, IDF working with the PA jointly untli the PA is able to handle it on their own.
Who’s law? I don’t know but do you think anybody would mind if the 40 some odd existing PA laws calling for the death penalty were repealed?
You do realize in countries like Canada and the USA there are National laws and jurisdiction And Provincial/State laws and jurisdiction.
Given the co-operative nature of this venture I don’t see why there wouldn’t be agreement on jurisdiction.

5) What are “Israeli practices” in social services that are a problem?
Sorry but I miss your point on this.
Part of setting up infrastructure in the Province is establishing a complete social network…..there’s no reason that the Arabs have to wait until full implementation. The over-all financing of the proposal will obviously used to fund Israel’s absorbing o the increased population to serve during the interim period.

6)”What do you propose to prevent this becoming a situation of Israeli businesses using cheap Palestinian labor? How would you assist in the rise of Palestinian entrepreneurship and business ownership?”
Why would you anticipate Israeli business? Who would take the risk of establishing businesses in a place where they could get nationalized and lost?
The investment and businesses will be Arab owned and built, much of the infrastructure will be built by the youth of the WB in a sherut l’am type of system (national service) As Israel used Nachal programs to build and develop towns, similiar programs will be established to build and develop Arab towns
There is plenty of investment income avalable for a tourist trade that would be wholly Arab owned the spin-off smaller entrepeneurs will have the opportunity to fill in the shops.
The rise in ownership is part of the “business plan” that Israel will provide using some of the examples I gave above.

7)Seccession of the Province and establishment of an independent country within a defined time period.
A defined time is needed so everybody realizes this is the real deal .
I think 15 years is a realistic goal to make it viable.

I say it’s empty rhetoric and not idealogical differences because it’s the case. The so-called ideological differences are deal-breakers from the get-go and everybody knows that if you don’t want to make a deal, you set the terms to high to be met.
If you want to make a deal, you lower your expectations and compromise.
I have taken this into consideration and am well aware of ther differences.

Whoa. My comment disappeared!

Zvi, disappeared? It was posted and went away? The last comment I see of yours is in response to Noga, did you write one after that? I’m checking in moderation now…

Peter – I think you are on a losing streak, sorry.

If you anticipate this as an Israeli response to the Saudis, first of all you need the acceptance/agreement of the Israelis and you are not addressing their legitimate concerns with annexation.
I also see several points that the Palestinians and Arab nations would have serious issue with – so why not deal with those beforehand?

I think focussing on positive nation building measures is a good direction to take, but you have become hung up on one method of doing so. There are other routes that you have not explored. I understand the US/Canadian system of States/Provinces. I don’t think it is applicable here.

I am also concerned that you have come up with a plan that ignores the vast majority of Palestinians around the world – in Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the like. Be sure that they aren’t. You can’t have a solution that ignores inconvenient facts where they don’t fit the theory.

To be honest this statement from you says a lot:

“I say it’s empty rhetoric and not idealogical differences because it’s the case. The so-called ideological differences are deal-breakers from the get-go and everybody knows that if you don’t want to make a deal, you set the terms to high to be met.
If you want to make a deal, you lower your expectations and compromise.”

Compromise is key, but you have placed yourself in the position of deciding who compromises and where. And there is plenty of empty rhetoric flying around, but the fact that a refugee sitting in a camp in Lebanon wants to return “home” and that the PA is forced to speak for them, or that the majority of Israelis don’t want future Palestinian citizens to effect national policy, or that both of them fervently believe that they have to have Jerusalem isn’t empty rhetoric or deliberately set roadblocks. These are deal breakers to the people actually affected by them You have to actually come up with compromises that can work around these issues, not brush them aside. That is just arrogance.

i think your comment:
”
A semblance of pragmatism realizes that 500,000 Jews living over the Green Line are not going to be moved and displaced any more than a few million Arabs aren’t going to be moved or displaced.
The Jewish State of Israel will not open her doors to millions of Arabs and discussing whether she should or could or wants to or doesn’t want to is the equivalent of a dog chasing it’s tail, it just isn’t going to happen……I must add, certainly not in the framework of peace.
”

pretty much describes what was offered to the palestinians and was violently rejected.
this rejection is the main reason why i said a number of times that the palestinians prefer land over a state. i don’t get it myself, but maybe if Dalia who favors a one state solution will explain, we will all learn something.

if the palestinians had accepted it, they would have already have a state.
but it seems they are locked in. any acceptance to move forward, will be considered as betrail by all those palestinians in the refugees camps.
Abu mazzen is thinking to himself, well, ok, we sign a peace treaty, build a state, and hop, come in all the refugees, throw him out, and all thing turn to shit again. so why should he?

lisoosh- I don’t see you as offering up anything new or different, or responding to the initiative at all.
In effect you are returning to the status quo of explaining why there are walls and why there cannot and will not ever be a solution.

You claim that I have decided who will compromise and where….well duh, if you are going to present a proposal you have no choice but to alter the existing lines that are drawn in the sand. I’m sorry but that is an absurd statement, you can say that the lines that are drawn in the sand right now as we speak will never be re-drawn, that is your right, but that also makes any discussion moot.

I can present a counterpoint to your claims and have us return to the revolving empty rhetoric if you like and say, Israel has Jerusalem, has the WB and will continue to keep it, forcing all the arabs out because it is within our ability to settle the entire Land of Israel.
Ok I said it…now what.
Where is our basis for discussion?
Where is our basis for peaceful respolution?
You will continue to make your “claim” and fight for your “claim” until the day of devine victory will arrive and you get what you want?
Give me a reason that I shouldn’t throw down right now as we speak and have a last man standing with you when I know I can win instead of waiting for you to build up the confidence to try again?
I can go through all of those arguements and cite you chapter and verse about why my position is right based on legal and moral grounds…..then what?
That is what has been going on for 60 years and the result has been a stronger and stronger Israeli position, more deeply entrenched, with a stronger economy, larger population, greater military capacity and a weaker Arab position, weaker economy, weaker military capacity.

This proposal offers up not only huge compromises by all parties, it offers up a way of achieving the goals of self-determination, nation-building, peace, economic prosperity.
In short it offers pragmatism and not lines in the sand that cannot be realized resulting in an eroding situation.

It’s disappointing to see old failed concepts as the basis for discussion instead of recognizing that a failed dynamic will continue to reap failure no matter how many times one goes through the excercise.

Peter – talk about rhetoric.
I have made other suggestions, long and detailed ones, but the reason for this blog entry was for feedback. You asked for it, I gave it.

I did wonder about the level of dissonance I read in the suggestion/proposal, such as the talk about it being an agreed apon proposal where the conditions are imposed. Or about the need for compromise, where all of the compromise was one sided. Your filibustering last post didn’t make that go away.

So I went to your Olive Branch site and read where it all began. Quite a lot of editing done I see. Actually, your original makes a lot more sense, not that I would agree with it all, but it makes a lot more sense. Original? No. Out of the box? Can you hear me laughing?

I’ll paraphrase your actual proposal, feel free to correct me if I didn’t get the gist of it accurately.

“Palestinians are an artificial construct, a by product of the Arabs attempt to destroy Israel. Their claims are nothing but empty rhetoric. They want self determination but don’t have the “Right Stuff” to make it happen as all they really know is guns and violence. To get things moving in order to build a society Israel should annex the West Bank and build a country for them. Forcibly. F**k Gaza. F**k the Palestinians elsewhere. The price for this aid is giving up RoR (you didn’t mention compensation for lost property, I wonder why) Israeli control of Jerusalem and the Settlements remaining part of Israel, with the ties of the settlements to Israel being strengthened during the building of the Palestinian State. Afterwards, having built up this province, Israel will untangle the whole moras and jettison off the Palestinians, the details of which is lost to the fog of the future.”

You obviously hold the Palestinians in contempt (I understand you don’t like the P word, but your forum mates convinced you to use it in an attempt at diplomacy). Fair enough. But I didn’t get why you wanted people that you detest and hold in contempt a seat at the table in the Knesset, even with limited power. Nor did I get why you would want to build a society for people that you hold in contempt, you don’t strike me as that altruistic.
That was until I came across your other postings about how if the West Bank/Palestinian State were comfortable enough the Israeli Arabs would be more likely to live there and give up their Israeli citizenship. And of course if Israel annexed the region and gave the Palestinians truncated nominal citizenship, I have to assume you think that population moves within a sovereign entity would be easier than transferring citizens to another country.

Your province plan is just the current situation of Israeli control, IDF military presence, using UNWRA money to build some roads, sewers and a hospital or two attached to Leibermans “population transfer” and all tied up in a big pretty bow, using language that someone told you would be more amenable to “weak minded liberals” and Palestinians.

Actually, you might find that some above, such as Moshe or the Raccoon might be more open to your suggestions with them being cleared up.

Me, I’m a scientist by training. I like dealing with facts and processes, I want to see a plan with a beginning a middle and an end thoughtfully applied to the realities on the ground. Not wishful thinking that distorts reality to make it fit. You don’t have a plan, and your rudeness and disdain toward those who respectfully and politely pointed out the holes in your scheme and your ability to address their concerns honestly shows it.

And I don’t like liars.

lisoosh-
“To get things moving in order to build a society Israel should annex the West Bank and build a country for them. Forcibly. F**k Gaza. F**k the Palestinians elsewhere”
I said that? AN ABSOLUTE LIE.

The balance of your post weaves in and out and all over taking a lot of time to say nothing of the proposal at all.
Your emotions get the better of you, rather strange for one claiming to be a scientist, as it really makes no difference what I think or feel of the people in question. The only thing that is of concern is what I propose to be done, with, for or about them.
You latch on to the idea of land areas with a large Arab population being lopped off Israel and added on to a new Arab country as if it’s the devil’s work….rather surprising considering that it involves no movement of people and purely the movement of a “border line”, and most importantly involves the consent of the people.
Excuse me for having the temerity to suggest that an Arab village would prefer belonging to a sovreign Arab country than to Israel.
The fact that you see this as a terrible concept leads one to question your motives, considering you give no explanation other than to hint at population transfer, yes the pleasant bogeyman of guilt by association.

You bring your baggage to the table and fire old tried and true failed arguements that serve nly to widen the divide rather than take the opportunity to look at the desired results and the mutual benefits of them.

The original proposal is up at theolivebranch.myfastforum.org and there is nothing to hide about it at all.
There were edits to it of course as different people gave their feedback which I think is not only acceptable it’s to be expected.
It isn’t as if any of us are so brilliant that we can just snap our fingers and solve a situation that doesn’t appear to want solving.

I have nothing to hide as far as my personal feelings go, I just choose to not wear them on my sleeve. Resolutions are made by people who disagree and who have different points of view, as a scientist surely you must realize this and no matter what my political leanings are, the glass of orange juice I pour is the same as the glass you pour out of the same container.

It’s a lousy proposal, no matter how you try to cleanse the sheretz. It’s a very bad idea, VERY BAD IDEA, to attempt a legal, formal, system of two-tier citizenship. It’s APARTHEID!

And the notion that Palestinians will be a resource for cheap labour is something that should have been discarded, or better still, never even begun.

You will create two classes of people, masters and servants. And anyone who has witnessed the way (most) Israeli contractors treat their Palestinian employees must shudder with disgust at the idea that this could serve as a model for harmony.

Can’t you learn from Israel’s past mistakes, man? If you repeat them, under one guise or another, you’ll be dooming the Zionist project for good. Enough with this nonesense.

Ia Cthulhu! Ia Dagon! Ia Cthulhu f’htagn!

Peter – I don’t care what you propose, you are free to suggest whatever you like.
My problem, is that the piece was not honest about the scope of your “proposal” at all. You never mentioned drawing the new borders in order to remove the majority of current Israeli Arabs from the population. You never mentioned that you would annex, but not give citizenship. It seems you want people to comment on a proposal with most of the meat left out. Duplicitous to say the least.

You want honest feedback. Be honest.

You haven’t debated a single point brought up, nor have you addressed a single concern, and there were many above. Your constant refrain is that no-one read it correctly, they bring baggage, they throw out rhetoric, they are not judging it on the merits.

Your plan is to annex the West Bank, develop it and then to form a new Palestinian State with borders drawn by collecting the major Palestinian population centers, including areas within Israel such as Nazereth. If that is what you believe, fine. But say that and allow people to actually debate the issue.

Oh and a list of quotes from you on your forum. No you did not say “F**K” anyone per say, but I did mention that I was paraphrasing.

“Lieberman mentioned the land swaps and he was castigated for it, now Peres floats the idea and causes a mini uproar.
hehe, it’s land we want to swap not people is the cry by some naive ones, which is supposed to mean what exactly???
Oh no we couldn’t suggest a deal where the actual number of arabs in Israel declines, perish the thought, even if it’s part of a win/win suggestion. Nooooo we must keep arab population numbers as high as possible in Israel so we can have something else to concern ourselves with down the road.”

“It isn’t our responsibility to create another arab country, and I don’t offer it up as a choice to be fond of but……movement has to be made to speed up the process. While the arabs have pressed the revisionism of a “palestinian” people who’s lands are “occupied” we all know that if it were the case…. a “shadow country” would exist already, much as the Yishuv existed before the creation of Israel.”

“ahhh now that’s something I’m not willing to touch, the concept of “palestinians” in the “diaspora”.
so industrious and successful, why don’t they get it together and make it happen?
sorry but this piggybacking on our history for everything but the sweat, blood and guts to work and make it happen offends me. “

Peter, your proposal won’t work; it would not be accepted by Israelis or Palestinians. If you want honest feedback, you perhaps you should not be offended when you get it. I cannot see a one-state solution to the issues, even temporarily, which I believe would make matters even worse.
Dalia, I wish that a one state solution would work with everyone living in harmony, but I don’t think that it would. It seems impossible. I’d like to see two nations living side by side with friendly relationships between them. Even that seems very distant.
I think that we have to hope that Abbas and Fayyad can gain the confidence of the Palestinian people, and move toward an independent state for them. A solution is going to involve more than even compromise. Peace and harmony has to be the goal.

Yaeli, I responded to Peter. It did post and I am sure that I saw it show up in the comments area. But later it was gone. Bizarre! And loss of saved data is quite weird.

Anyway, Peter, here is a rough version of my comment:

1. The “temporary marriage” proposal won’t work. Its unspoken assumptions include the assumption that WBers would ever accept it, which they won’t; that they would trust an Israeli promise to only annex the WB “for a little while” – after which Israel would spin off the Pal state – which they wouldn’t, and would act on that misperception; that Palestinian terrorists would stop murdering Israelis under such an arrangement, which wouldn’t happen; that Palestinians would display even a shred of gratitude if Israel helped them to build their state, which the Gaza greenhouses show is a pipe dream; that the Israelis would be able to avoid security crackdowns in the WB if they only promised a future spin-off, which is completely unrealistic, or that the WBers would suddenly not hate the Israelis for instituting such security measures and interfering with their lives. The “temporary marriage” proposal is completely unrealistic. Looks great on paper, and might work with Spain and the Basques. Won’t work at all with Israel and the Palestinians.

The Jordan temporary-marriage proposal has a higher probability of working, but the Jordanians see that proposal as unrealistic. The Israeli-Pal temp marriage has no probability at all of working.

2. Here is what is actually being discussed today.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/896595.html

3. I like seeing people coming up with creative suggestions. Everyone should keep it up.

4. This approach was stillborn, but it contains pointers toward some possibilities. Instead of thinking in absolutes of state or no state, one can think in terms of what a state is and does, and do Palestinians actually think they can DO all of it at once? Right now, for example, both the WB and Gaza are in customs union with Israel, use the NIS as their currency, use some Jordanian and Egyptian services and utilities (e.g. WB students can optionally take the Jordanian matriculation exams, and many Gazans get electricity either from Egypt or from Israel), etc.

The customs union is worth special notice because Israel proposed dissolving the customs union with Gaza when it disengaged, but Abbas demanded that Israel leave it in place, and Israel eventually agreed to do so.

In other words, even if there were a Palestinian state, it might not be able to handle everything at once, and might subcontract certain state functions to private companies or neighboring countries for some period of time.

Shades of gray, not black and white.

And no, this is not a “knee-jerk reaction.” These are considered opinions based on observation of the behavior of the different populations and leaders involved over a number of years, during which I have had a number of hopes dashed, and a few borne out.

Noga-
I havn’t a clue as to what you’re responding to so I won’t even bother.
source of cheap labour?
two tier citizenship and apartheid?
masters and servants?
zionist project?
None of these classic phrases have anything to do with the Province Proposal but they sure do make a nice splash for the last round of arguements you must have had with somebody or another.

lisoosh-
I answered your points one by one and explained in each case why they aren’t problematic- you raised 7 issues and they were dealt with.

I do resent your claiming:
“the piece was not honest about the scope of your “proposal” at all. You never mentioned drawing the new borders in order to remove the majority of current Israeli Arabs from the population. You never mentioned that you would annex, but not give citizenship. It seems you want people to comment on a proposal with most of the meat left out. Duplicitous to say the least”

The proposal does not call for drawing new borders in order to remove Israeli Arabs, nor does it call for not giving citizenship during annexation.
It seems you choose to look for a bogeyman instead of taking the proposal at face value.

My opinions on what some future result may or may not be as a result of the proposal is speculation and you are intent on holding that against me.
Frankly it is a logical assumption that Arab populated villages would prefer to becomepart of a sovreign Arab country, would you prefer I made a statement that under no circumstances would Israeli Arabs be allowed to leave Israel and demand the right to secede along with the province?????
If I made a statement like that you’d be up in arms.
As for citizenship it calls for temporary citizenship on the basis that the province MUST secede in a fixed period of time.

Now of course if your goal is a one state solution I can understand what you’re really opposed to in the proposal, which is the formation of an independent Arab country alongside Israel.

You aren’t debating the proposal at all short of your initial statements that have been responded to, you have not come back with any commentary and have been busy attempting to attack other opinions, the formulation of the proposal, the thought process in arriving at the proposal.
You are struggling to stay mired in past failure while I am looking for ways to attain future success.

I agree Zvi, that there’s no trust between the parties – and after so many broken promises and lost hopes it isn’t surprising. The reactions here to the province plan mirror that sad history. I can see that

We can only rebuild the lost confidence by changing the expectations and that will be done by succeeding in cooperating for once.

It’s full of difficulties, I admit. There are thousands of small decisions to be made on every level of cooperation, in every sphere of nation-building you can mention, and it would be easy to dismiss any plan on this basis. As you propose, there should be levels and horses for courses. I have the strong positive feeling that when the parties decide to stop the antagonism and start seeing each other as allies, for some external reason most probably, there will be a 180 degree change almost overnight.

(I’ve tried several times to post to this thread but my attempts vanish and are never referred to. Your ‘contact us’ icon doesn’t work. How does one get accepted here? )

Peter, actually, it is not at all logical to assume that arab villages currently within Israel would prefer to be part of a Palestinian State –especially not given the current reactions of exactly these arab villagers in the Wadi Ara area –the area that Olmert is discussing with Abbas the possibility of including in a land-exchange. Witness the reaction of the Arab-Israelis living in this area:

Arabs Here to Stay: ‘Population exchange’ notion leaves Arab-Israelis no choice but to seek world’s help “Arab citizens in the State of Israel made it clear many times that they are uninterested in moving to the Palestinian Authority and renouncing their citizenship, for several reasons.” [The article, written by a prominent Arab-Israeli, goes on to detail what these reasons are in the eyes of Arab-Israelis]….In light of the situation, Arab citizens have no choice but to turn to international organizations and nations of the world that believe in the principles of democracy and attach importance to basic human and civil rights, and ask for their immediate intervention and help in thwarting these moves before they reach the implementation stage. Because then we may see a civil war that would ignite the sensitive and tense relationship between Israel’s two population groups.”

People talking about having a civil war obviously are not in favour of moving on over into any future Palestinian State.

Yaeli,
please this is precisely where lisoosh wants to take the “debate” which isn’t where the proposal goes at all.
My feeling is that at a future date as this proposal (hypothetically) is enacted that the feelings will change and these people will want to, or would like to be citizens of an Arab country instead of Israel.
In normal conditions the way a person does that is he gets up and emigrates, leaving behind his property and buying new property in the new country they are immigrating to.
It isn’t part of the Province Plan, it’s just one of the possible future scenarios to come out of it,as I mentioned before….had I said it was impossible for these people to ever move, as Israeli citizens they must remain Israeli….an arguement would be made that the proposal is terrible because it seeks to determine who can and cannot live in the Province and I am trying to restrict entry for Israeli Arabs.

Sorry but the population exchange idea is totally different from the province proposal…..firstly because it isn’t even mentioned in it at all.

How would this exchange be win/win today? Israeli Aabs leave a viable working society where they have more and better benefits that they would have in any surrounding country and they would move to a lawless landmass run by tribal factions????? Sure wouldn’t attract me.

Yaeli -

Actually, I am quite happy that the bastards are talking about a civil war. It’ll come soon enough anyway, inevitable like entropy.

Peter – Bull.

Oh, and I’m not a One Stater, so stop assigning nefarious motives and trying to double guess me, you are clutching at straws.

If your “plan”, recycled as it is can’t stand on its own two legs for what it is. It isn’t a workable plan.

lisoosh-
I don’t know what you are and you’re correct I shouldn’t have made that comment about one-state,
that was a mistake on my part that I would like to retract.

As for the rest, if and when you have commentary to the responses I gave to your initial objections or questions, I would try to resond to them as well.
I happen to believe that the proposal stands rather firmly on its own two legs as the bulk of the dissent deals with aspects that aren’t a part of the proposal.
I prefer discussing how this can be built on or even altered without using preconceived notions on my or others people’s part.

“Actually, I am quite happy that the bastards are talking about a civil war. ”

Well, it seems like Hamas at least is getting its constituency into the right mood for it:

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2007/08/memri-hamasstyle-lion-king-vanquishes-fa/

Peter – retraction accepted.

With all due respect, I don’t believe you answered my questions effectively at all. Or the pretty similar ones from the majority of the people here – such as the point of annexation, or the dissonance between talking about agreed solutions which are plainly imposed (I assume an attempt to “sanitize” what you believe to be unpalatable).

Rather than go around in circles it would be more productive for me to point out that your biggest problem in what your group presented is the lack of a clearly defined goal. Planning/logic 101 demands it, with a simple, clear process leading up to that goal.

To build a Palestinian society? – Societies can only be built by the people who form it, they can’t be imposed.

To build the infrastruction for a Palestinian State? More doable, but begs the questions of 1. Who would be in this state 2. Where exactly it would be 3. What form it would take 4. When it would be formed 5. Why Israel would do it and the Palestinians want to be a part of it.

“Who knows what might happen if we do X, let’s try it” isn’t a plan or a process.

I can guess more or less what your end goal is – enough infrastructure and law and order to provide the building blocks for a Palestinian State and society with major Palestinian centers and Israeli Arab centers forming this state. The main goal being separation based on ethnicity. Essentially Kahane/Leiberman with money and variable borders. And imposed by annexing the area so that Israel would have full control over where the borders are. I assume you hope that in 15 odd years the Palestinian side would be pleasant enough that Israeli Arabs would be quite happy relenquishing citizenship.

It’s full of holes, but I can’t point them out without your clear goal in mind.

Hi Liloosh.
We had an interesting thread back at shalom-salaam where people expressed their views in minimum/maximum positions, i.e. what they would choose to happen if they ran the world, and the maximum that they’d be willing to give up in the event of a peace deal.
We had one member who said that he wanted a Palestinian state on all of the land and that all of the Jews would go back to Europe. But when it came to a peace deal, he was quite pragmatic.
My point is, you should take the proposal for what is written and not what you’re trying to read into it based on Peter’s opinions.
Peter doesn’t rule the world (much to his chagrin .
The only thing written about the future is that the state will secede. Just because Peter would prefer that a few Israeli Arab villages would go along with it doesn’t mean that that’s a part of the proposal.

lisoosh-
Take the whole discussion about Israeli Arabs out over here, it isn’t part of the proposal, it isn’t part of an end goal. It was mentioned in discussion as one of the potential outcomes or directions that could be taken, it is not and never was part of the proposal, not in it’s original version or the version that we ended up with.
You are making it more complicated than it is by trying to read “intention” into it and looking for a catch. There is no catch, it really is as plain as it appears.

I’ll touch up your words in a way that would better represent understanding of my intent.
I can guess more or less what your end goal is – enough infrastructure and law and order to provide the building blocks for a Palestinian State and society. The main goal being the Arabs having their own country and striving to continue building it on their own as if they had started in 1948 when the Yishuv became Israel. The end result being that we no longer feel that the Jewish State of Israel is at risk, and the Arabs no longer feel that their country is at risk, both of us living as neighbors.

I recognize it’s a leap for you to believe it, but it really is what is being looked for in this proposal.

Then your objective would be more easily reached without annexation.

If the goal is to assist in building a state, annexation creates more problems than it solves. It requires defining the legal status internally of temporary citizens, it confuses the building of infrastructure such as roads and sewers as you could not plan around clearly defined borders, it creates mistrust both among the local Palestinians, Arabs and internationally. It actually makes secession MORE difficult, not easier. It would involve pulling populations closer and then pulling them apart.
You haven’t dealt with the issue of intermarriage between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. You haven’t talked about building plans – expansion of settlements if those settlements would secede too or become a part of Israel, permission of Palestinian Arabs to build and where. You are setting up a scenario ripe for bloodshed and a potential civil war to include Israeli Jews where the map becomes a checkerboard.

A simpler scenario is to draw borders right now and offer to assist in building the infrastructure of a state. Give the Palesinians some nice shiny passports, tie in the Saudis for funding and nations such as Jordan for assitance in providing security. Set a fixed timetable and a functional development plan.

Who What Where When Why. That is what you have to come up with.

The proposal as it is written has nothing to offer. No clear objective, no thought out path to meet that objective no logical sequence of events that takes into consideration facts on the ground right now.

“You haven’t dealt with the issue of intermarriage between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. You haven’t talked about building plans – expansion of settlements if those settlements would secede too or become a part of Israel, permission of Palestinian Arabs to build and where. You are setting up a scenario ripe for bloodshed and a potential civil war to include Israeli Jews where the map becomes a checkerboard.”-lisoosh

I didn’t realize that two Arabs marrying would be considered intermarriage, what issue do you want to bring up there. I mean I can guess but I don’t want to.
The proposal states that existing settlement blocs and Jerusalem would remain a part of Israel.
Most of the WB is empty, once again I don’t understand what you mean by where could Arabs build.
I haven’t talked about actual building plans for infrastucture and I don’t see the importance of it at this juncture.

You can always propose what types of things would be built and where they’d be built or what you’d like to see established. You could suggest if it be a secular democratic country or one guided by the main faiths for example.
The proposal is stated in a way that is open enough to build on as opposed to trying to present a fait accompli.

Peter, the big question people keep asking you is why you propose a “temporary-marriage” (temporary annexation) approach instead of simply proposing a 2-state approach with cooperation.

What specifically makes the annexation step necessary?

How, specifically, is this temporary marriage supposed to change the situation such that the subsequent divorce will be more amicable and stable than the relationship before the temporary marriage?

Through what reasoning do you discount the very reasonable claim that in fact the reverse will occur, that violence and reactions to violence will continue during the “marriage” period, and that both sides will view the other’s behavior during the “marriage” as betrayal of their trust? Through what reasoning do you reject this possibility?

And why do you ignore the incredibly strong probability that in Arab society, where the “dishonor” of being “defeated” by Israel is such a terrifying and traumatic prospect that it leads to incredible feats of self-deception, self-delusion and fantasy, Palestinians would sign up to be annexed by Israel even for a little while, even if there were any chance at all that it would work out positively for them?

Thanks.

“How, specifically, is this temporary marriage supposed to change the situation such that the subsequent divorce will be more amicable and stable than the relationship before the temporary marriage? “-Zvi

This proposal includes goals of nationhood, self-determination, structure and the building of a country. These ar all elements that are missing from any and all discussion that has gone on since 1948.
The dynamic began with trying to abort Israel, then to smother Israel, then to survive Israel, then to resist Israel…..but at no pint did the dynamic to exist as a free-standing country come up, and it still hasn’t.

The discussion on the table is always about how to get more Arabs into Israel, how to get more Arabs to be a part of Israel.
There are only two possible reasons for this as far as Israel is concerned.
1) It is an attempt to achieve by demographics what cannot be achieved by war, and that is the termination of the Jewish State of Israel.
2) People just want the ability to live something resembling normal lives and they hold Israel responsible for not having that.

If we hold by number 1, then there isn’t what to talk about, let’s have one war and duke it out till we have a last man standing, I’d rather do it sooner than later if at all.
This doesn’t appeal to me.

If we hold by number 2, we can say tough luck it isn’t our problem, we aren’t responsible for your problems.
This does appeal.
Now what? we’re nowhere and spinning our wheels narratives flying left, right and centre trying to prove and disprove Jewish responsibility for the Arabs condition.
Notice, it’s no longer about kicking out the Jews it’s all about resistance to Israel….
This is old and takes us nowhere, the discussion gets brutal and we ascribe all kinds of evil on each other, some justified some not, even a guy like me who has been around for a long time has trouble keeping the lines from getting blurred.

If we hold by number 2, we can say regardless of who’s responsible, we can help change things and we can work with you to build a viable society.

The “temporary marriage” brings with it immediate structure, and removes the tribalism.
The “temporay marriage” brings immediate rule of law.
The “temporary marriage” brings immediate results as opposed to having to wait for the investment to mature.
There is no existing framework, no existing plan, no existing country-in-waiting.

Surely you must be aware that it is easier to build on to an existing successful ways and means than to begin from scratch.

“And why do you ignore the incredibly strong probability that in Arab society, where the “dishonor” of being “defeated” by Israel is such a terrifying and traumatic prospect that it leads to incredible feats of self-deception, self-delusion and fantasy, Palestinians would sign up to be annexed by Israel even for a little while, even if there were any chance at all that it would work out positively for them? “- Zvi

Because it’s a world that is still led from the top down, and this proposal is to be presented to the financiers, Arab League, then the PA, and only if they agree to it does it get followed up on.

The reason for Israel to embark on something like this is in your question Zvi.
How much damage, how much pain do we all need to go through waiting for the incredible feats of self-deception, self-delusion and fantasy to be replaced with reality and maturity, how long will it take following it’s own natural path?

Of course this proposal assumes that the elimination of the Jewish State of Israel isn’t the goal of the Arabs, and is why Israel would work with dilligence and speed to establish the new Arab country with the existing gov’t.
One of the greatly ignored aspects of all this is that despite the amazing rise of Israel, there’s more than enough wrong that needs to be worked on in our own society that we would very much like to get cracking on.
This proposal is not an easy one for Israel, it’s a huge responsibility with huge challenges built into it.

Peter, no one who reads your proposal and your comments could doubt your goodwill. I just don’t think that this particular strategy would work for resolution of the conflict. I agree that the Palestinian people need to be supported when they begin to build their state, and of course, I believe that they need their own state. I have some confidence in Abbas and Fayyad–as much as I dare have. I try to maintain hope for a resolution to this conflict, an end to hostilities, and the establishment of a viable state for the Palestinian people, and the ability of Fayyad and Abbas to accomplish this.
I agree that top down leadership is effective and hope that Abbas and Fayyad are able to push forth initiatives that will benefit the Palestinian people and stabilize the region. Strong leadership–brave and courageous leadership–may do much. Visionary leadership is also needed in Israel.
I agree that there are things that need to be worked on in Israel–that is true of every place.
There are evidently many things at work in closed door meetings between leaders. I hope that positive changes are in the making.

Zvi – succinctly put.

Lynn – I didn’t analyse the province suggestion from the point of view of Peters beliefs. I looked at it, found inconsistencies and went looking for answers. I’m sorry, but a persons belief system and ideology is the foundation of their thought process. Studying the neo-cons who initiated the Iraq invasion I was surprised by the level of idealism. It explained a lot about the lack of actual advance planning.

Peter, Peter, Peter.

” I didn’t realize that two Arabs marrying would be considered intermarriage, what issue do you want to bring up there. I mean I can guess but I don’t want to.”
The Family Law – you know, the one where we don’t let Israeli Arabs marry West Bankers and live in Israel. Would you continue that? Tell Arab citizens who they can marry and if so, where they would have to live? Repealing it would spoil your secession plan – you could have a net Arab influx which I don’t think is your intention. Maintaining the law would require a two tier legal system dependant on ethnicity – dubious to say the least. And no, I don’t like the law.

“The proposal states that existing settlement blocs and Jerusalem would remain a part of Israel.”
Which settlement blocks? And if you are willing to sacrifice the rest, why not now? Or would you make them part of those blocks? And what provisions would you provide for small remaining settlements that are dotted all over the place?

“Most of the WB is empty, once again I don’t understand what you mean by where could Arabs build.”
You should. You’ve given yourself 15 years of social engineering and logistics. Most WB’ers would want to extend existing villages and towns, you know, the ones they already live in, where we’ve put a damper on building for a long time. I noticed in your forum discussing the building of a capital. What is wrong with Ramallah?

“I haven’t talked about actual building plans for infrastucture and I don’t see the importance of it at this juncture.”
Why? You said that we were all stuck on annexation (the Province part of the plan) and that wasn’t the meat. Now you say that a development plan, even a rough one to show how it all goes together isn’t the meat. What exactly IS the meat?

“You can always propose what types of things would be built and where they’d be built or what you’d like to see established. You could suggest if it be a secular democratic country or one guided by the main faiths for example.”

Why would I want to? It wouldn’t be my country, I wouldn’t have to live with the results. This isn’t Sim City where you can push delete and start over if it doesn’t work.

I noticed in the forum that you used the establishment of Israel as a model. It is a good model, but you missed the key point – it is what the Yishuv did for itself. If the British had dictated the details it would have been a different story. And not everyone in the Yishuv agreed or got along, there were disagreements, and fighting and competing militias and ideologies and one group won supremacy on its own. And modern Israel is still agonizing over some of the decisions that were made.

For the Palestinians to build a nation will take a lot, and they do need help, and Israel can and should provide some of that help. What you are suggesting is social engineering, history is littered with the remains of social engineering projects.

Lisoosh, you provide a much more sophisticated and knowledgeable response than I ever could. I was not suggesting criticism of your response to Peter in my last comment to him. Sometimes we (all of us —me included) develop a shrill or harsh tone when responding to each other here, and I just wanted to assure Peter that we respect his ideas and his right to explain them, but it seems that none of us agree with his proposal. And, I agree with you and the other responses saying that this proposal needs to be reconsidered and that it won’t work as it is.

Lynne – I was actually responding Lynn without the E. Sorry for the confusion.

I just found it interesting that the initial proposal is a kumbayah approach that even a lefty like me finds unrealistic proposed by someone far to the right of many dissenters.

We already control the West Bank with a huge military presence and martial law. Why not start with some mutual cooperation now? Why not start proposing infrastucture development now? Why not put together a 10 year disengagement/development plan right now? Why not encourage economic development now?

Lisoosh, your ideas sound feasible and workable.

A blunt response to a blunt question is what you want I guess, so here it is. Actually I’ll digress for a moment…I didn’t respond to the marriage question of lisoosh because I chose not to guess you were referring to the Family Law and preferred that you stated it openly…..which you have.
Yes I’d continue the Family Law for the time being.
There are two different realities to concentrate on, one being the Jewish State of Israel, the other being an Arab State next to Israel.
As mentioned in the proposal if there was an existing Arab Government that was concentrating on or had the ability to plan, execute and build towards a country it would have happened by now. There is a vacuum at the leadership level that isn’t headed in this direction.

Do I think that it is our role to do any of this? Of course not.
We don’t need the headache, we don’t ned the potential blame for failure, we don’t need the finger pointed at us…..

You know if the roles were reversed and we had Gaza and the Judea and Samaria, what do you think would have happened?

Gaza would be a beach front paradise filled with hotels, we’d be supplying the fruit and vegetables for this corner of the ME and exporting as well.
Judea and Samaria would be a tourist haven with the biblical areas built up, on top of industry throughout.
Tel Aviv wouldn’t exist, it would still be a sand dune.
heading north would still be swampland.

The Jewish State of Israel would exist just the same in a slightly different area……and the Arab country still wouldn’t exist, and we’d still be fighting over the piece of land we are on.

This proposal recognizes that fact and rather than hide away from it, tries to do something with it instead.
Waiting for the Arabs to achieve the societal maturity on their own just means we need to hunker down for more of the same for a few generations.

“You’ve given yourself 15 years of social engineering and logistics. Most WB’ers would want to extend existing villages and towns, you know, the ones they already live in, where we’ve put a damper on building for a long time. I noticed in your forum discussing the building of a capital. What is wrong with Ramallah?”

I’m not about to pre-suppose where or what to build, as it stands now there 240 Arab villages and towns that have been built since 1967, that’s more than twice the number of “settlements” that have gone up…..so who knows.
As for Ramallah, yeah I mentioned building a capital elsewhere, once again it isn’t a neccessity, just thinking out loud at getting a fresh start and building a new city to be a capital, something that represents birth and a future instead of a place tainted with past corruption.

As for the Yishuv, I mentioned it in the context that the Arabs are 60 years, more actually, behind in the building of a nation.
If they ere ready to become a nation then, they would have had all the trappings of an Arab version of the Yishuv then…..something they don’t even have today.

We can wait for them….but that is costing us lives, it’s costing us energy in defending ourselves that could be put to better use.
In the meantime they are succeeding in choking on dust and sand.
sure we stay with the status quo.
This proposal is looking for another way instead.

I agree with Lisoosh.

just to lighten things up, and add some comic relif:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26797_The_Most_Secure_Place_in_the_World

the comments are funny too.

I can see why you don’t agree with the Province Plan considering the state of tension and enmity existing between Israel and the Palestinians at present. But I don’t see what else there is on offer.

What are the alternatives?

I used to believe that Jordan and Egypt would each take over the West Bank and Gaza respectively but there’s no movement in that direction and I believe that at least Jordan has refused this solution.

Generally, Israelis believed at one stage that Gaza would be the kernel for the new Palestinian state and most accepted the disengagement on this basis. It’s become clear to me that Hamas sees itself as an heir to Arafat in the sense that it is fulfilling his ’springboard’ idea, not settling down in new territory but using it as a jumping off point for attacking Israel.

I’ve seen no reports of infrastructure preparations in Ramallah but I’m hardly an expert. Is there anything else going on?

Margie -

“What are the alternatives?”

Simple. Close PA off hermetically. Defend against the endless attacks on Israelis with better and better technologies and tactics. A 20km wide killzone would also be nice (mined and attended by automated machine guns), but is, alas, unrealistic.

Then unilaterally declare them a state whether they want it or not. Soon enough the survivors of the ensuing clan/faction/all-against-all war will indeed become a state – probably a hyper-violent theocracy or a brutal tyranny… but there’s also a tiny chance of it becoming a real state rather than a huge, self-imposed high-security prison.

From an Israeli POV the kind of state they’ll have doesn’t matter. Most Israelis have accepted that Arabs as a group (and especially Palestinian Arabs) will hate us and try to kill us as a group. Some still harbor hopes for individuals, but most gave up on that as well. It doesn’t really matter what will happen to the Palestinian Arabs as long as they’re out of our hair (even if this means holding them at an arm’s length while they’re gibbering and trying to bite us – to use a bizzare metaphor); they can destroy themselves, become the Paris of the Middle East, become Buddhists and reach Nirvana en masse… it doesn’t matter.

Therefore, we won’t be building them a state – been there, done that, went to the resulting funerals. I hope our leaders will find a couple of brain cells and stop throwing tremendous amounts of money into PA – the only thing we get back is missiles and bullets. Well, the occasional grenade, bomb vest or just a road-side IED, too… but I hope you’ve got the picture.

Raccoon – what does Cthulhu have to do with anything? I looked it up on the web (saw they’re making a movie out of it) but didn’t get the connection.

Cthulhu: Isn’t this a symbol for the most drastic kind of terror, horror, and evil? I read a long article about it and this is the meaning that I got from it.
It seems to be a fiction, thank goodness not real, but , of course, in reality there is terrible evil that human beings embody and terrible terror and horror inflicted by them on others. Evil in human form and evil done by people. That is monstrous enough, isn’t it? I am reading about evil acts every day that are occurring in Iraq by the warring factions and sometimes by the US soldiers. Darfur, honor killlings in the Middle East, crime worldwide, terrorism, senseless violence —-all evil and reprehensible.
Is there a cult following for Cthulhu?

Well, I like H.P. Lovecraft and have not read any of his stories dealing with this so it looks like I have something new to add to my reading list!

I’m pretty much done with this ideology masquerading as pragmatism charade.

I did read the other day an opinion piece about the Jews who were evacuated from Gaza during disengagement. It claimed that due to the fact they hadn’t yet rebuilt their lives and most were still in disarray, they weren’t made of the “Right Stuff” and obviously were unable to cope without government subsidies, cheap labor and ironclad ideology.

It is easy to disparage those we don’t connect with or feel empathy for. Easy to “prove” superiority.

The early Chaluztim (pioneers for non Hebrew speakers) were self selected. They were young, well funded, driven; frequently trained by youth groups. Still, there were mistakes and failures, and building the Yishuv took time. If it hadn’t been for the external threat of first the Ottomans, then the British and then surrounding nations, civil war could have been a distinct possibility. There are still major fault lines throught the population.

The Palestinians in the West Bank are just people. Old, young, enthusiastic, lazy, sophisticated, simple. They lived under the Ottomans, the British, Jordan and now us (are we going to pretend that checkpoints are conducive to economic expansion?). It is easy to sit in my comfortable chair in front of my computer and point out where I might have done things differently, but I have the benefit of distance and hindsight. There is absolutely no way of knowing what they can be or what they can build given a real opportunity. They certainly don’t lack tenacity, having managed to stubbornly hold on to their dreams for this long.

Suggestions:

The IDF is supposed to defend Israels borders, not police the Palestinians. We can’t do it effectively, in fact we suck. Jordan could assist with police and training of a Palestinian force. The police forces could be local as well as national with the national involving mixing people from different areas to promote bonding across family/clan lines. And yes, the concept of National Palestinian Service makes sense – so one for Peter.
Palestinians need a one level legal system within their territory, not Israeli civil law in the settlements, Palestinian law in PA areas and martial law when and where we feel like it. They could have help putting that together. And no, I don’t think small Jewish settlements should leave, as long as they are willing to live within the law in the territory they fall under. Of course, if they want to….
Money could be diverted from UNWRA/PA funds to set up Small Business Assoc. (joint with US/Eur) which would provide assistance and microfinancing for start-ups. Development has to be OWNED by the people, and the emerging state needs to be funded by the taxes of the people in order for them to demand true accountability.

I’m sure lots of other people can come up with stuff in short order.

I would like to see Israel working on its many many problems and divisions rather than focussing on trying to control and manipulate another people.

Oh, forgot.

Zvi – thanks.

Raccoon – I love your honesty! I might not agree with you on a lot, but at least you are upfront about who you are and what you believe.

“And no, I don’t think small Jewish settlements should leave, as long as they are willing to live within the law in the territory they fall under.”

Somehow, I don’t feel very comfortable with leaving Jews to be massacred at best and enslaved at worst (Arbeit Macht Frei, after all). Let’s be practical, eh? Leaving Jews to live under Palestinian rule is to hand them over to a genocidal enemy. Believe you me – the Glorious Khalifate of the Noble Palestinian people (or however that future political entity may be called) will be Judenfrei one way or another.

“The IDF is supposed to defend Israels borders, not police the Palestinians.”

Absolutely agreed.

Cthulhu is a fictional deity – a personification of senseless, blind, unstoppable evil. I have a Levantine flair for the dramatic…

Lisoosh – awww, thanks… no point beating around the bush. Especially when you’re trying to find solutions for things… unless they’re of the final variety.

Lynne – the way I see it, there is a mental line one can cross. On one side of that line is the moral limbo we live in normally. On the other side is evil. Crossing back from the evil side is difficult… indeed almost impossible. I have known very few people who managed to cross it back. Anyhow… a soldier killing an enemy in battle is seldom crossing the line into evil (although it IS a temporary foray. I know people who have been driven mad by it). An Al Qaeda terrorist torturing a child to death with a power drill probably went in so deep there is no going back.

And a monster is, quite simply, someone who crossed that line and didn’t cross back.

Raccoon – you dragged me back.

I know what you mean about leaving the settlers, but after much discussion with National Religious settlers who talk about Israel making the WB “Judenfrei” in order to instill some good Jewish guilt, I prefer to provide a soft target and call their bluff.

Rather than provide the PR nightmare of visions of the IDF dragging them off, ten times more dramatic than in Gaza, I would let them stay, provided they agree, in writing to become residents of Palestine and to abide by its laws. I would also make absolutely clear, to avoid any attempts at stirring trouble, that under no circumstances would Israel invade or go to war over them and that if the Pal government could not protect them, at most they could expect assistance with repatriation to Israel. Just like any foreigner anywhere else. There would probably need to be a trade off with the Pals for good will and their protection, such as a symbolic trade with some 1948 refugees in the WB.
Of course then the National Religious camp would be responsible for increasing the Arab population of Israel, so they would have to think about their priorities very carefully. Personally I think that a slow, well planned disengagement from the WB should be Step 1 and that the refugee issue should be dealt with separately, but if they insist…

- Additionally -
1. Disengaging from the WB would make Israel gold in PR terms. All eyes would be on Palestine. They would have every incentive to make sure remaining settlers were well protected.
2. Having a Jewish presence would keep a Jewish connection with holy sites.
3. Having minorities from one side living on the other would increase contact, and help prevent some of the paranoid demonization that goes along with a hermetically sealed border and discrete populations.

Raccoon, we totally agree on the concept of evil—absolutely.

For anyone who is seriously keeping track, every time a serious peace negotiation has occurred between Israel and the Palestinians, the Damascus junta has ordered a major terrorist attack. This then forces Israel to raise security demands, to freeze negotiations until the PA does more to prevent such attacks, and to increase security restrictions that Palestinians inevitably see as an affront rather than as common sense.

Usually, the blockbuster terrorist attack is carried out by Islamic Jihad, long-time tools of the Baathist regime. This time the Assadists appear to have ordered HAMAS to do their dirty work. HAMAS, of course, will do it.

The Damascus government will do anything and everything possible to prevent peaceful settlement of the Israel-Palestinian question and the creation of a viable Palesitnian state. Only one thing will bring this situation to an end: acts of terrorism must cause more damage to their perpetrators than to the people they target. Only 2 things will cause this:

1. The Damascus regime is smashed.
2. Palestinian society utterly and publicly rejects terrorism, takes strenuous action against the psychopaths, mercenaries and gangsters who employ terrorism, and clearly identifies the sponsors of terror groups as the real enemies who have prevented the creation of a viable Palestinian state.

If Palestinians want a free state, they are going to have to fight for it. But that fight won’t involve blowing up Israeli buses, bashing in the heads of Israeli children or shooting at Israeli soldiers. Rather, it will involve locking up or killing the Damascus-backed terrorists operating in their own midst.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3442132,00.html

lisoosh, i’m not sure about you,
but if i had a very stupid, and evil brother, who would get in trouble and his life were at danger, i would have helped him.

i’m not saying that the settlers are (stupid, evil), but no matter what they sign, what they ask, what they say. Israel will be forced to protect them once the palestinians try and murder them.

That’s just how things are.

as for good PR, Israel will never ever get good PR from the BBC and the likes. it doesn’t matter what it will do. so good PR is absolutly no motivation what so ever.

Zvi
Your opening point about keeping track is something that has been interesting me for some time. I’ve written to various bodies asking if they know of a time line or anybody who is keeping or making one. Up to now I’ve received no response. Does anyone here know of such an enterprise?

So much has happened in the past sixty years that the relationship between cause and effect seems to have been lost.

I recall someone accusing Israel of destroying houses in Beit Jala which seemed heinous until it was recalled that this action was taken to clear away houses from which shots had been fired day after day at Gilo residents.

m.

Moshe, I agree with you about the BBC. I checked it out periodically to see how biased and anti-semitic they are being and to see how much they are distorting the news from the Middle East (involving Israel).
If there is an agreement and some of the settlers must move, then they must move for the greater good of all. If they choose to stay, they are putting themselves and others in harm’s way. I would ask that they consider this.
Margie, maybe we should make a timeline of events.
I hope that steps are being made toward the establishment of a state for the Palestinian people. I have more hope now that Fayyad is in his position and now that Abbas has some support.

Lynne, I had to laugh about the concept of good PR for Israel from the BBC. Do you know that during the Lebanon War last year they received a record number of complaints, 5000, for their biassed reporting on the war (biassed against Israel of course) and it didn’t help at all.

There’s a site called BBCwatch.co.uk providing very scholarly and objective proof of this bias going back years. Because of their seniority and their strong previous reputation for objectivity and honesty their reporting carries great weight and is very harmful.

http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreEconomies/EconomyCharacteristics.aspx#

An interesting site to look at when it comes to considering investments and seeing the political horizon.
There are many different sections there and you can look at comparative numbers just to get an idea of what is and what isn’t likely with different ideas for this part of the world.

One of the things you will notice is that Jordan and Egypt are hardly in the position to handle their own situation and their economies are goin nowhere fast, the possibility to start up businesses in those countries are poor. Hardly a model that can or should be used if success is to be expected.

One of the issues that tire me is this one of “intent”, as if Israel needs to be benevolent or somebody coming up with an idea needs to be charitable or seeking justice in order to proceed.
These are the elements that we have been discussing for decades already and haven’t managed to make any headway at all. It’s clear that we have opposing points of view and opposing intentions that have caused us to be at war and in conflict from day one.

What makes any of you think that the Arabs are even one step closer to acting in the direction of self-determination than they ever were?
Are you really of the mind-set that we have no choice but to hunker down and continue to defend ourselves continuing to fight for our right to live in the middle east?
I mean you want to “clear out a 20km strip”…..there is no 20 km available to clear out.
The field of war has changed over the past 40 years and it isn’t enough to have air and land superiority by way of tanks, artillery and fighter jets.
The entire dynamic needs revisiting as civillian populations have become part of the battle-zone again.

Sorry to say but there aren’t very many choices left out there to consider.
There are the existing two which are derivatives of capitulation or gloves removed destruction….or there is some kind of Marshall plan derivative which is the attempt of this proposal.

The Left-wing land then more land then more land isn’t bringing us any closer to peace.
The Right-wing digging in our heels before giving up land isn’t bringing us any closer to peace either.
Disengagement was a litmus test and it failed, the desire to do the same in the WB will just compound the failure.

Peter -

There are indeed 20km availiable for clearing. It’ll just mean making the lives of quite a few people very uncomfortable, as some of them will have to live on boats. Which is why I say it’s not realistic.

“Are you really of the mind-set that we have no choice but to hunker down and continue to defend ourselves continuing to fight for our right to live in the middle east?”

Yes. I see no realistic possibility for peace (the one coming closest to realism is completely and utterly vanquishing all of our enemies, but even this is not realistic – we are not the kind of people who’ll kill off a few hundred million people). This is the Middle East. Peace doesn’t exist here. Why not work with what we have – a strong military, good technology, booming economy, a creative and productive culture…

“This is the Middle East. Peace doesn’t exist here. Why not work with what we have – a strong military, good technology, booming economy, a creative and productive culture”-Racoon

One Masada is enough and you are prescribing a route for another one.
This not a rational option for rational people.

You are proposing that people are unable to change and are doomed to repeat their mistakes from generation to generation, which is not reality.
We are human beings and capable of rational thought, we are able to break out of past thinking, we are able to condition ourselves for success not just failure.
Japan and Germany are allies of the West today, 70 years ago that was unthinkable.

Moshe – the settlers, whether you agree with their position or not, are grown-ups. No need to infantilize them. To move within the green line/prospective border with appropriate compensation or to remain at their own risk/expense is simple enough to understand.
For an entire nation to be blackmailed by a small minority holding itself hostage in order to affect foreign policy is ridiculous. And this minority will never ever compromise.

PR – How riduculous to jump to the Lebanon War and the BBC. That isn’t cynicism, it is an excuse making pity party.
There the impression was of well armed Israel bombing the crap out of a country.
Here, we are talking about the removal of checkpoints, military occupation, the absorption of settlements and an open border with Jordan (to start). All the issues which the world is bombarded with and is sick to the teeth hearing about. No more images of IDF soldiers breaking into houses, no more images of long lines at checkpoints, no more “stories” about hundreds of women suddenly having miscarriages under the eyes of a 20 year old soldier.
Most people don’t give a damn about Israel or the Palestinians. They just want them off of their nightly news.

I don’t know your members personally but it does seem that the only ones to have commented are Israelis (though I had my doubts about Lisoosh originally).

Are there any Palestinians here who have read it and have something to say? A plan like this means an end eventually to the basic causes of tension between our two people. I must admit that I can’t wait for peace to happen. The end of the fighting would mean a giant step forward for Israel, allowing us to devote all of our energies to peacetime pastimes.

I don’t want to sound horrible, but doesn’t anybody blog here anymore about other subjects?

Margie the “home-Palestinian” on GN is Ramzi (you can click on his blog) – and I personally think he’s having a break

Margie, Dalia has commented (and I was sorry to see no response to her comment) and she is Palestinian. Ramzi is also but he is on summer vacation and should be back as the summer gears down.

BTW please be aware that comments that go into moderation may take a bit longer than usual to post over the next few days (and in the last couple of days), as your moderator (me) is having connection difficulties with the cable line and has just experienced a death in the family. I will be checking only once a day for the next couple of days. My apologies for the inconvenience

My sympathies to you Yaeli.

Baruch Dayan HaEmet. I’m sorry to hear about your loss. My condolences.

Yaeli:

???? ??? ???

and it takes a lot to buck that trend.

I am sorry to hear about your loss.

Margie:

No, I don’t have a good recommendation for you in this area. I am dredging this up from memory. Yes, it would be good to actually go back and find the news reports, etc. and create the time line.

Here is some specific information, however, about the direct ties between terrorist attacks carried out in Israel by Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the regimes in Damascus and Tehran.

http://www.meib.org/articles/0211_s1.htm

Regarding the visible lack of comments from our Arab friends:

This time of year is vacation time. Many people in Arab countries take advantage of the opportunity to get away from the heat if they can, and most who can’t get away nevertheless take a break. Very little business gets done at this time of year. Of course, this behavior is not limited to the Arab world.

okay, let’s try that again.

Yaeli, baruch dayan emeth.

And please disregard “and it takes a lot to buck that trend.” That was a fragment of another line I was writing at the end of the comment but somehow dragged upward rather than deleting it.

I really need to start proofreading. Grr.

After spending part of July in the Middle East, I can readily understand how little gets done. It takes a huge effort to endure the heat. And, I can sure see why folks would choose summer to get away to other (cooler) destinations!
In regard to the “proposal”: I desperately want a resolution to the conflict and to see the Palestinians and Israelis living side by side as neighbors. I’d like to see the misplaced energy from the conflict used for a positive purpose to solve the many problems that the region is facing and to build better lives for both Palestinians and Israelis. We have about beaten this proposal to bits—it doesn’t seem workable. Perhaps there are other solutions in the works that will bring peace and stability to the region.
Summer is over for me. Today was the first day of school and the beginning of a new school year in a challenging school with 100% economically disadvantaged students. Most of the kids speak Spanish so now there is no excuse for me not to become fluent in Spanish in order to communicate. I always love the start of a new school year –a new beginning.

Zvi
Thank you for the comments and the interesting reference. If you have more of the same, I’m a good customer.

I live in Tel Aviv and I know all about the awful summer weather. The plan we are discussing here was developed in our peace forum and comments we have from different view points can only show us to what extent people are prepared to cooperate. I can quite understand that Palestinians don’t see us as benevolent neighbours rushing to their aid and composing something to their benefit, but peace is to the benefit of all of us. Whatever we think privately of the political behaviour of the other we must all acknowledge that it is the majority who are silent who bear the brunt of the situation of enmity and the small minority who actually cause the emotional reactions and perform the hostile actions.

Edmund Burke’s comment has almost become a cliche since being repeated so often “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” because it is so valid and so apt.

Yeali, condolences…. baruch zichrono/a

HaMakom yinachem etchem btoch shaar avlay Tzion vYerushalayim

Baruch dayan ha’emet.
My condolences Yaeli.

My condolences, Yaeli…

The point of this proposal isn’t to show or prove that we are better than anybody else, nor is it a matter of showing anybody what nice guys we are.
It goes to the core issue of needing to provide the Arabs with a realistic alternative, the Arabs who are living there now, those who are still in refugee cities and conditioned to be on the receiving end of whatever comes their way be it something good or bad.
It recognizes the fact that the Arabs have yet to work on or plan for any life after conflict, it’s as if the expectation is there that……..what?
Ok there’s conflict, we fight with each other, we don’t trust each other, we have demands of each other…..we all understand all of that.
Is there an alternative to conflict? We haven’t even reached that stage of being able to look beyond that horizon, and that is what this proposal looks at.
This proposal says yes there is life after conflict and this is what it will be, we will reverse the order and provide the life after conflict as a means of ending it.

Peter…

“Is there an alternative to conflict?”

No, there isn’t. That’s the point. This is why your proposal will bring only harm, if implemented. Peace in the Middle East (or Missile East, as Nizo calls it) is a pipe dream. Work with the realities on the ground – and that means perpetual war.

We did quite well in 60 years of war… and lost more civilians in the “peacetime” of Oslo than we did in many wars.

Perpetual war isn’t an acceptable option as far as I’m concerned.
You are taking the position that nothing ever changes and there is never an incentive available to bring about change.
You want to work with realities on the ground, ok, but those realities don’t give the Arabs in Yesha anything at all to hope for. All they have is being stuck between a rock and a hard place and choking on sand, never mind the empty rhetoric coming out of there.
Half the population is under the age of 16, they’ve been brought up with nothing with no hope for anything, no leadership, nobody giving a damn about them.
I recognize you’re saying that it’s their problem, but that doesn’t help us at all.

There was a period of long discussion before coming up with this idea, trying to see why and how we have such different world views, expectations and probably projections that we make.
A few examples to give you all an idea of what I’m talking about in bullet form.

- holocaust survivors rarely discuss what they went through or why until they are much older and begin re-telling their lives. Children of survivors didn’t get much first-hand information as a result until they got older.
- holocaust survivors concentrated on living and making new lives for themselves and their families.
- holocaust survivors didn’t want to return to their homes where they lived for generations.
- Jews were willing to accept less than they believed was coming to them.

The mind-set of people who think like this, naturally ask the following questions.

-after partition, why didn’t the Arabs build on whatever they had?
-after disengagement, why didn’t gazans concentrate on making gaza work as a proof that they can in order to facillitate a further disengagement in Judea and Samaria?
-why didn’t Arabs concentrate on making new lives for themselves and their families?

These questions aren’t raised in order to get answers, just to show how there is a totally different manner of thinking at play here.
It makes one wonder if it isn’t more a case of two ships passing each other all the time as opposed to two ships colliding all the time.
Maybe that’s what makes this Province Plan seem unnatractive as well, just not being able to look at it with the same eyes, and always assuming the worst or bad intent.

[...] Filed under: Uncategorized — lisoosh @ 9:26 am On August 26th in an online conversation on GNblog I made this series of [...]

Some of you have expressed puzzlement over a plan to annex the WB on a temporary basis. However, you may have misunderstood something. Only the Arab areas would be annexed temporarily. The Jewish settlements would be annexed permanently.

Israel would use this plan as a smokescreen to annex permanently all the settlements and connecting roads and infrastructure. Peter has said that this is the price to pay, 500,000 settlers would remain in place as Israeli citizens living on Israeli sovereign land. Now do you see why a right-winger like Peter is apparently trying to help out the Palestinians? Quite a plan!

Jay has discovered something earth-shattering that was “hidden” in the fine-print that nobody was supposed to notice.
errrrrm sorry but no, It was made clear and not hidden away.

What I find interesting about folks like Jay is that there is no mention or discussion of any of the benefits, a disregard for the actual ituation on the ground, and nothing said about how to improve this very situation.

We still have this fantasy that 500,000 Jews are going to be moved or transferred away or Jay will click his heels and they will be gone.
Jay believes he will demonize me by calling me a Right-winger and in so doing “prove” that this proposal isn’t worth considering.

Au contraire actually for those who choose to think as oposed to those who prefer fantasy….A right-winger who believes in greater eretz-yisrael and proposes this Province Plan do not exactly walk hand in hand.

This Plan isn’t about ideology, it is an attempt to find a way to move forward and be able to have a future that isn’t based on war and death.

I don’t want to belabor the point, but people like Jay who have never even been to Israel and make statements like:
“to annex permanently all the settlements and connecting roads and infrastructure”
What point is being made here?
Of course the cities, kibbutzim and moshavim will remain a part of Israel, of course the “connecting roads and infrastructure” will remain.

This proposal talks of creating new infrastructure, new cities, new dvelopments, an economic and societal structure…..it talks of nation building.

The JayUK’s of the world are still looking for a pound of flesh and how to subsist on dust and then there are those of us who look for a better way.

Did I say that Peter had hidden anything in the fine-print? No, of course not. The facts were there but no one seemed to notice them.

It is sad that Peter should reply to a simple clarification made for the benefit of Lisoosh and others with such abusive language. Sad but not surprising, given the fact that such behaviour got him expelled from the Shalom-Salaam forum.

However, at least he confirmed my explanation.

JayUK once again chooses to present a red-herring and any disagreement or pointing out of errors is considered abusive, oh me oh my.
The “simple clarification for the benefit of Lisoosh and others” was needed because…….oh I don’t really know considering that they addressed it, asking such questions as which settlement blocs would be included.
I’m sorry, and I don’t like talking about other sites, but it’s tiresome to have the hangers on who have nothing constructive to say just keep chirping for the sake of chirping.

An interesting article that may lend some credence to the proposal at hand or at least warrant a look with some fresh eyes.
The last paragraph of the article is rather interesting.

Palestinian street defies withdrawal supporter’s assertions
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 23 August 2007

Q1. As the Palestinian and Israeli prepare to engage in direct negotiations
that would reach to a final solution to establish a Palestinian state, to
what extent do you support or oppose each of the following:
.
2. Any land swap between both sides to reach a final settlement
Strongly support 10.8 Somewhat support 27.2
Somewhat oppose 25.0 Strongly oppose 36.4
No answer 0.6

3. Declaring parts of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future
Palestinian State
Strongly support 11.4 Somewhat support 19.0
Somewhat oppose 24.7 Strongly oppose 42.5
No answer 2.4

4. Allowing Israel to keep control of major settlement blocs inside the West Bank in exchange for equal Israeli land
Strongly support 3.8 Somewhat support 13.6
Somewhat oppose 25.0 Strongly oppose 56.9
No answer 0.7

Jerusalem Media & Communications Center poll of a representative sample of
1,199 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and Gaza Strip carried out 16-20
August 2007.

Oops!
That’s not what the domestic and foreign withdrawal supporters keep on
asserting the Palestinians will go for.
President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, PM Olmert, FM Livni, Tony Blair,
etc. are all confident, based on the handful of English speaking
Palestinians they may have actually talked with, that a workable deal could be reached based on the very same ideas so clearly rejected by the
Palestinian street.
There are two responses to this reality: One is to commission polls with
cooked questions to try to force more favorable results. The other is to
take the omniscient approach and assert that it doesn’t matter what the
street thinks because they don’t know what is good for them and will
ultimately embrace a deal based on elements that they now reject.
This is playing with fire.
Because it means creating a sovereign Palestinian state, with everything
that sovereignty means, with a built in set of grievances for a return to
conflagration.

On the other hand:
Main reason behind feeling of concern
25% The economic hardship
28% The absence of security for my family
27% The internal power struggle
03% The Israeli occupation
03% Family problems
13% I have no concerns

Near East Consulting poll of representative sample of adult Palestinians
11-14 August, 2007

Contrary to what the politicians say, the Israeli “occupation” is hardly the
top concern of the Palestinian street.
What does this mean?
That the pressure for a sovereign Palestinian state relying on a
house-of-cards arrangement is external and top down.
Creative forms of autonomy remain the most viable “solution” for the
foreseeable future.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)

One thing that I think will backfire is the IDF enforcing law in the territories. The PA police will be struggling to get control of their own and the presence of the IDF will exacerbate things and garner more support for those who are not interested in peace.
However, I do not trust the protection of Israelis to foreign armies. I think the IDF should be employed solely to guard the border and buildings and construction sites where Israelis are working. The PA needs to take over law enforcement and if they need help, the Arab League should do it.

The other thing is borders. Many of the objections to the proposal came from people who didn’t trust Israel making the territories a province first with secession in mind. They said the state should just be declared a state and outside help given with it already a separate entity They just see Israel using “shitat hasalami” to get as much land as possible. To counteract this, I think that borders of the province need to be drawn up before anything else, the status of which settlements are on Israeli land and which are on “province land” needs to be decided up front and adhered to.

I don’t have the knowledge to draw up borders, I’m not talking specifically about any areas, but just in general, province borders will be negotiated before the implementation of the plan.

What does everyone else think?

I think drawling the borders is at the code of the issue.
If the palestinians would agree to any border, it means they agree that the land on in Israeli side is Israeli.
and i don’t see that happening any time soon.

This proposal does express borders in a rough form and what’s more it actually offers up a method of establishing a viable society.
I think the security concerns are being blown out of proportion in the sense that you are looking at it from the existing dynamic as opposed to the new dynamic that this proposal calls for.

Where does shitat hasalami fit into this whole equation?
There are some realities that need to be internalized in order for anything to work.
a) Israel is an existing country that is here to stay.
b) 500,000 Jews are not going to be re-located.
c) There will never be an influx of Arabs into Israel.

If Israel wanted to “expand” she wouldn’t do it through “shitat salami” she would just take it all.
We see the world’s reaction to Darfur- “it isn’t happening”
We see the world’s reaction to what Jordan did.
We see the world’s reaction to what Syria did.
We see the world’s reaction to what Iraq and Iran did.
Annexing and transferring out Arabs can be done and the hollow moral indignation of the fringe would be heard but other than that not much. The Arab world and the International community are all tired of the dead-end that they have pushed themselves into…..while standing cap in hand.

With all this being said, I still feel that this proposal is the best of alternatives in that it actualy offers up a future to everybody involved and most importantly offers up a workable framework of how to get there.

I hate to spoil the party but any 1st year student of Political Science can punch holes in this plan that a elephant can walk through.
No one seems to be able to bring the conflict to a common denominator
1. Can Jews and Arabs live In YESHA as neighbours ?
2. Can the Arabs of Yesha and Israel remain peaceful neighbours and if so for how long?
3. Should Israeli plan for a country under seige? And if so what does it require in way of territory and buffer zones?
4. What will it take to make the Arabs good neighbours?

I maintain that this is a religious war with nothing to do with Land: The only reason that land is an issue is that the Arabs want it all.
So what is the solution. Well there are actually two very good ones. One is to create a Jewish-Arab Stae and grant it autonomy with a Jewish-Arab split governance on local issues. This autonomy would last about 50 to 100 years at which time it would become a country. We should be able to find out in the first 10 years whether the arabs are interested in sharing or they want it all. Should terror emanate from any source than the perpetrators and facilitators would be banned and sent packing to either Israel or Jordan with no right of return.

Your comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (Required, not published )

Website

HTML-Tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>