Possible Solution?

[Paris]

A Possible solution to the Arab-Israel conflict?

1. Israel pulls back to 1967 borders. There is an equal value land swap for lands that are too heavy populated to make a withdrawal possible.
2. An international peace-keeping force polices the West bank and Gaza for some amount of time (5-15 years?) until a Palestinian police force can be properly trained. This international body would also oversee elections and some running of the new state until the new government was running on its own.
3. Israel pays refugees compensation for land seized since its inception.
4. Religious sites would be made accessible to all.

I am making a number of assumptions about the parties involved namely:
1. Cause and effect and basic logic are understood and accepted by both sides.
2. Live is valued.
3. Peace is what the majority of each side truly wants (as in if, there were no perceived provocations on either side).
4. That a pragmatic solution is preferable to prolonged violence and an eventual “winner”.
5. A pyrrhic victory is not acceptable to either side.

Paris

[Mediocrates]

Arab states create an escrow account to compensate Israelis who now have to flee their homes.

Arab states sign in blood not to fund terrorism against Israel.

[gev]

Originally posted by Paris
A Possible solution to the Arab-Israel conflict?

1. Israel pulls back to 1967 borders. There is an equal value land swap for lands that are too heavy populated to make a withdrawal possible.
2. An international peace-keeping force polices the West bank and Gaza for some amount of time (5-15 years?) until a Palestinian police force can be properly trained. This international body would also oversee elections and some running of the new state until the new government was running on its own.
3. Israel pays refugees compensation for land seized since its inception.
4. Religious sites would be made accessible to all.


The solution will have to express the issues that matters the most to each side:
Israelies - The existence of Israel (as a democratic jewish state), and their safety.
Palestinians - Their Rights and Economy.

thus,I will add these to the solution:
5. the new palestinian state will not have an army, the only armed force will be the police (guns).
6. the palestinian borders, air and sea will be controlled and supervised by an International (Including Israel and some Arab states).
7. East Jerusalem Muslim part will become palestinian or international zone.
8. The international community will fund projects to build the palestinian industry in order to create jobs for palestinians inside palestine, and build the ecnomy.

[Paris]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Arab states create an escrow account to compensate Israelis who now have to flee their homes.

Arab states sign in blood not to fund terrorism against Israel.

To your first point; if the land was seized by the Israeli government then I don't see why any Arab states should have to compensate the evicted people. Perhaps the Israeli government would compensate them.

To your second point; sounds good, signing in blood seems extreme, but other than that ok.

Paris

[Paris]

Originally posted by gev


The solution will have to express the issues that matters the most to each side:
Israelies - The existence of Israel (as a democratic jewish state), and their safety.
Palestinians - Their Rights and Economy.

thus,I will add these to the solution:
5. the new palestinian state will not have an army, the only armed force will be the police (guns).
6. the palestinian borders, air and sea will be controlled and supervised by an International (Including Israel and some Arab states).
7. East Jerusalem Muslim part will become palestinian or international zone.
8. The international community will fund projects to build the palestinian industry in order to create jobs for palestinians inside palestine, and build the ecnomy.

Would they never be allowed to have an army? Even Germany has an army now.

I imagine as in the previous point that this would be for a certain amount of time? I don't think that this new state would need baby sitting forever. I imagine that when the international body pulled out then the new state would take control of all of there own management.

point 7 sounds ok.

and I would hope that point 8 would not have to be made.

Paris

[Mr. Pumps]

A solution: take Palestianian suicide bombers families and impale them alive on wooden spikes between Palestinian and Israeli Land.

Well maybe not.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Paris


To your first point; if the land was seized by the Israeli government then I don't see why any Arab states should have to compensate the evicted people. Perhaps the Israeli government would compensate them.

To your second point; sounds good, signing in blood seems extreme, but other than that ok.

Paris

It's not seized you blockhead. But of course you never see why any of them have to get off their far asses and do any goddamned thing under the sun. :p

Now don't be a lying hypocrite. Relocation is relocation. Let the peaceful people of peace put their money where their mouths are.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Paris


Would they never be allowed to have an army? Even Germany has an army now.

I imagine as in the previous point that this would be for a certain amount of time? I don't think that this new state would need baby sitting forever. I imagine that when the international body pulled out then the new state would take control of all of there own management.

point 7 sounds ok.

and I would hope that point 8 would not have to be made.

Paris

Why would you object to 8? Because it didn't say JEWS have to pay for it? Clearly the Arab states won't give one rotten fig to the Palestinians so who do you think will bootstrap them? Allah?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Paris


Would they never be allowed to have an army? Even Germany has an army now.




Yeah after 20 years they got one. Think of it as the one generation reboot theory. Did the Germans actually suffer for not having an army?

Oh ok then.

[gev]

Originally posted by Paris


Would they never be allowed to have an army? Even Germany has an army now.

I imagine as in the previous point that this would be for a certain amount of time? I don't think that this new state would need baby sitting forever. I imagine that when the international body pulled out then the new state would take control of all of there own management.




I think that it should be a long period of time before they are allowed to build an army and the borders not supervised. it would have to be when a true and responsible democracy is built and trusted by Israel and the international community.



and I would hope that point 8 would not have to be made.


It have to be, the palestinian cannot rely on Israeli jobs and economy forever. and it wouldn't be built by itself.


btw, you do realize that a similar offer have been made to Arafat in Camp David and was, ofcourse, rejected.

[Paris]

Blockhead here, a lot of the land was seized. Here is some interesting stuff to read:
Posted by Fred Aug 2002

“Since 1967, Israel has declared 73% of the West Bank "state lands," thus annulling Palestinian deeds going back generations. This sets the stage for massive expropriations for settlements, military facilities, highways and by-pass roads, industrial areas, closed military areas and nature reserves.

During the Oslo negotiations, the Jerusalem municipality and the Ministry of Interior demolished almost 300 Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.

During Oslo negotiations, some 740 homes demolished; another 2,000 were demolished during the Al Aksa Intifada, thru the re-occupation of the Spring, 2002.

During the Oslo negotiations, when the status of the Occupied Territories was supposedly being negotiated, Israel expropriated 200 square kilometers of farm and pasture land for its own exclusive settlements and infrastructure.

Since 1967, 9000 houses Palestinian homes have been demolished in the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem. Israel’s policy of house demolitions seeks to confine Palestinians to small enclaves, leaving most of the land free for Israeli settlement.”

Also read this: http://www.israeleconomy.org/policystudies/ps49.pdf

Also it seems it need clarify my point on Gevs point 8, the reason I said I hoped it would not have to be mentioned is because I thought it was obviously a good point. I said “and I would hope that point 8 would not have to be made.” I would hope it was a given.

Also to any confusion about the new states army, yes they should not have an army right away, but they should have one eventually, just like Germany.

As to Gevs statement about this being similar to Camp David: Similar yes, but also very different. In this proposal Israel would have no part in the running or policing of the new state. Israel would have no Temporary land, Israel would not have lands bisecting the new state, no security roads, no control over the borders and the land swap would be equal, not 9 for 3 or 9 for 6.
Not like this, http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/precdmap.html

Paris

[Mediocrates]

Why would the international community and by that I suppose you mean Western Europe and North America and Japan be so eager to invest? The EC countries are locked in a dead investment to them with nothing to show for it. The US provides aid and it disappears down a rathole. Why would anyone do more of that?

Somehow I think that Arab nations would hold them accountable but you seemingly object to that. Is it because you simply want reparations and not development?

[Jorge]

The points proposed by Paris(post # 1 ) plus those from Gev (post # 3 ) make a pretty good platform for a peace plan. There is however an important point missing: the problem of refugees.
Since it's clear that Israel cannot accept a return of refugees inside its borders, some other solution ought to be implemented
and again the international community will have to foot the bill.

Re., the problem of a palestinian army: if their future leaders had any sense they wouldn't even think of starting one. What use could it be? For the foreseable future it cann't be a match for the israeli army and all the other neighboring arab states are supposed to be friendly ones.

There are more than enough examples in Latin America and Africa of countries diverting funds much needed in education and
development to equip full armies. Their main use seems to be to instill some national pride by parading in the festivities of Independence Day. As I said, if their leaders were wise enough
they would realize that a palestinian army would just be a costly
white elephant to be avoided like plague. But I realize that's a lot
to ask from politicians.

[L@mplighterM]

Snip:
Cairo -- A think tank affiliated with the Arab League, the 22-nation group that seeks to forge a unified voice among its members, ended a two-day conference on "Semitism" this week at which participants labeled Jews "enemies of all nations," challenged the Jewish historical claim to Israel and cast doubt on the U.S. account of who was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...31/MN188189.DTL
Snip:

Study reveals Israeli bid to steal Palestinian history
Abu Dhabi |WAM | 09-08-2002


A study which reveals Israeli attempts to steal Palestinian history entitled Chasing History: Israel and Palestinian Antiquities has been published by Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-Up (ZCCF).

Prior to the establishment of Israel, the Zionist movement was convinced that establishing a zionist entity based on 'Torah' legends of returning to the promised land would not be complete by just stealing the geography of Palestine.

To give it a perfect shape, two objectives would have to be achieved. The first goal embodied the mass transfer of Palestinian population, either by forceful eviction or through a series of acts of genocide as committed in Dir Yassin, or the ones committed these days.

The second goal is to erase the world memory of Arab Palestine. It is not impossible for those who have robbed a nation of its country, to rob them of their history as well.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/n...ArticleID=60090

These two studies/opinions seem to indicate that the 1948 (negotiable) borders wouldn't be acceptable. Why would the 1967 borders (UN Resolution 162) be acceptable to the Palestinians and/or any other Arab country?