[Oxymoron]

I would like for all parties on all sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict to lay out a plan that would bring an equatable peace to the region. Please refrain from trolling, keep your ideas realistic(No just kill them all,drive them into the sea type of Bull).

[Nets]

Good topic Oxy:

If I were PM of Israel, this would be the plan I would offer. I've put a fair amount of thought into it. I think the solution is equitable, but I am biased, I acknowledge that:

______________________________________________________
Plan A:

Borders and Settlements:

Click for larger view:

These are the borders I just drew up. Israel would maintain everything west of the red line, Palestine everything east. Israel would keep the large settlement blocks (Ariel, Latrun, Jerusalem Suburbs and Eztion Bloc).

Palestinian would gain land in the Wadi Ara region as well as in the Hebron Hills. (Palestinians would also gain land in the Gaza area (not pictured), possibly in three way swap also involving Egypt.)

Israel would lease (from Palestine) a small enclave adjacent to Hevron. Settlers would be pulled from Hebron proper.

The benefits of these borders:
- About 360 of the 450 thousand or so Israeli settlers would be annexed by Israel on about 6-7% of the WB. 90000 would be evacuated, forcibly if necessary.
- About 340-370 Arabs would be drawn out of the borders of Israel proper, between E. Jerusalem and Wadi Ara. This would decrease the Arab population of Israel Proper by about 28%.

[I would push for Jordan, Gaza and WB to enter into a confederation, but ultimately this is up to those parties. I think that would be the most stable configuration which makes the most sense].

These terms to be implemented no later than five years after ratification of treaty. All Israeli settlers not annexed must be evacuated in this period.

Jerusalem: (see map)
- (Most) Jewish Neighborhoods to Israel
- All Palestinian Neighborhoods to Palestine, as basis for twin capital city. This will include Suleiman steet.
- Old City: Armenian and Jewish Quarter to Israel, Muslim and Christian quarter to Palestine.
- Joint custody of Temple Mount between Israel and Palestine.
- East and West Jerusalem will be an "open city", freedom of movement between two sectors (provided for security arrangements).



Refugees and Grievances:
- [Symbolic] Right of Return for 20 or so thousand Palestinians for the sake of family reunification, etc. PA waives demand of Full Right of Return in exchange for formal apology from Israel.
- Arab League establishes trust fund to reimburse Jewish refugees who lost their property in Arab lands
- Israel establishes trust fund to reimburse Arab refugees who lost their property in Israel
- UNRWA being disbanded is a requirement
- Palestine will remove all materials from schoolbooks inciting violence towards Israel or Jews. Israel will make similar move in Leumi-Dati schools.
- Israel will make formal apology for Palestinian suffering
- Arab League will make formal apology for Israeli suffering. (Both of the above will hard to say, but they mean a lot for both sides).

Security:
- Palestine will be demilitarized except for Police for a period of 10 years. Security of Palestine guaranteed by E.U. and Arab League.
- E.U./Arab League peace keepers will assist Palestinians in folding militant groups into national security services
- Joint Palestinian/Israeli/EU/Arab League patrols in Jordan valley for period of 5 years. (See purple line on above map).
- Peace with Palestinians conditioned on non-belligerency pacts (if not peace treaties) with all Arab league states (except Syria, to be discussed later). In exchange, Israel will dismantle its Nuclear Weapons.
- Establishment of Mixed Armistice Committees to adjudicate border violations, terror acts. Composed of international jurists as well as Israelis, Palestinians. Decisions of the committee are binding.

Economics:
- Israel - Palestine - Jordan established free trade zone. Barriers to movement of capital and labor are removed (day labor, not actual movement of people).

Water and Environment:
- Israel and Palestine establish joint Agency to monitor Mountain Aquifer, Jordan River headwaters; guaranteeing equitable distribution of water resources.
- Joint Israeli/Palestinian/Jordanian "Peace Park"/Nature reserve running from Lake Kineret to Red Sea

Religious Sites:
- Both parties agree to free access to all religious for all religions. Temple Mount, and Tomb of the Patriarchs jointly administered.
- WAKF will agree to halt all construction on Temple Mount, except for mutually agreed upon repairs. This is a must.

Prisoners:
- All Palestinian Prisoners pardoned on condition they sign a paper pledging to never again use violence against Jews or the State of Israel. Released on recognizance of Palestinian Gov't. (This too is painful but necessary).

Contiguity
- Land corridor in the form of a four lane highway from Mt. Hebron to Gaza will connect Palestinian areas. Jointly administered by Israel and Palestine, under Israeli sovereignty.

Implementation:
- Upon ratification by PA legislature and Knesset by simple majority vote, the treaty will be put to referendum. 55% must agree in Israel and Palestine for treaty to take effect. Else, back to the drawing board.

Ultimately, this would be very painful for both sides. But I think it is a fair compromise.
______________________________________________________
Plan B:

Ragnarok.

[John08]

I think Nets pretty much covered it. But, that's what you get when you ask a Labor Zionist.

Anywho... I have an idea for if there is any conflict afterwards (this is somewhat unrealistic, but would be alot less bloody then most ideas that could be proposed). If the PM of Israel thinks that the PM (if that's what the title would be) of Palestine is doing something he shouldn't, they should have a to the death fight. The winner of the fight is right, the loser is dead and needs replacement. The nice thing about this, it would give rulers a really good reason to play nice. Afterall, it's one thing to send tens of thousands of strangers to there death, it's another entirely to risk your own life for somthing you now isn't all that important.

Who thinks I have a good idea?

[War Angel]

Who thinks I have a good idea?

Heh... the vast majority of Israel's top leaders, prime-ministers as well, are and were possessors of extensive military experience, mostly with the special forces. Sayeret Matkal had Ehud Barka as its commander, and Benyamin Netanyahu (whose brother died in Entebbe, 1976) was also a senior officer in the same unit, to name just two.

So, yeah, good idea overall.

Anyway, I don't have a detailed plan, per ce. I think Israel should push the Palestinians back as far as possible, establish strongholds, build up a motherfuckin' huge wall with machine-guns and AA guns every 1-3 KMs, and disengage COMPLETELY. Absolutely no interaction between us and them. If they manage on their own, awesome, maybe some day they'll be willing to have us as their good neighbours. If they don't, well... then once they've all died of famine and disease, we'll come back to reclaim our land.

I'm a realist, though, and being one, I know this conflict's here to stay. I know my kids will serve in the military, as I did, and my father before me. My brother is already working on getting into one of the top units, as I did... nothing ever changes.

[MVictorP]

Quite a thought-out exposé, Nets. Nicely presented. Makes sense, too. Here are, however, the points on which I frowned as much as a little:

The land exchange around Jerusalem seems logical, given the de facto status, but the de jure part, here, takes on a symbolic importance, because:

1) If Israel takes it, it effectively cuts Palestine into 3 parts, making it even more hard to administer/police (a more viable corridor linking Gaza should also be considered).

2) By allowing this harshly colonized part of Palestine, you are rewarding a crime. I'm not so much bent on the moralistic aspect of it, but rather on the long termed social/political implications that it would undeniably have.

3) Well, it is Jerusalem.

Jerusalem should be made an international city, governed and policed as such as the universal patrimony it is. I also suggest Vatican-like city-states for all faiths involved therein (if they care), governed by the full religious aspects some seem to crave, but lack. Both neighboring states would then establish their administrative capitals somewhere else.

As for Palestine, I agree with many zionists on this board on the idea that they should divided between their neighboring Arabic states. The problem, however, is that the Palestinians are a de facto nation of their own, with their own history and culture, and as such, they would be a source of political unstability in theit "host" countries, maybe even a dangerous one when relations with Israel are concerned.

Arab League will make formal apology for Israeli suffering.

Mmm, more for Jewish suffering than for Israeli one, with the recent Jewish exodus in mind. Smallish, but important nuance.

The rest of your plan sounds pretty close to what I thought, but, you know, more elaborate. On what did we disagreed on, already?

[dudekebm]

Jerusalem should be made an international city, governed and policed as such as the universal patrimony it is. I also suggest Vatican-like city-states for all faiths involved therein (if they care), governed by the full religious aspects some seem to crave, but lack. Both neighboring states would then establish their administrative capitals somewhere else.

Actually wasn't that the original plan back in 1948 back at the UN: Jerusalem/Quds being a corpus separatum? It could probably end up with Tel Aviv for Israel perhaps as the capital and Ramallah for Palestine. However, Nets plan is great, but it seems the extremist elements on both sides have more of a voice than those wanting to live in peace.

On the Jerusalem subject, I know that Arafat had long preached about eliminating Israel and establishing Palestine with Quds as its capital. I think on the Israeli side it there was the same goal of establishing Jerusalem as the capital of a 'Greater Israel'.

Personally I'd be a little more forward on pullback from settlements in the West Bank. IMHO they were pretty much established to surround Jerusalem to incorporate that city into Israel but the cost of maintaining security and supplies for such settlements is really hitting the Israeli economy.

I would welcome a solution that would be pretty close to that of Nets with the changes of pulling back to the 1967 borders and setting up Jerusalem as a corpus separatum rather than a Berlin-esque divided city. I don't know if making a corridor linking the West Bank and Gaza is viable or even warranted however, considering it appears as though the West Bank and Gaza are almost run internally by two separate groups of people.

[Nets]

I'm a realist, though, and being one, I know this conflict's here to stay.

I pray that you're wrong, War Angel.

The land exchange around Jerusalem seems logical, given the de facto status, but the de jure part, here, takes on a symbolic importance, because:

1) If Israel takes it, it effectively cuts Palestine into 3 parts, making it even more hard to administer/police (a more viable corridor linking Gaza should also be considered).

2) By allowing this harshly colonized part of Palestine, you are rewarding a crime. I'm not so much bent on the moralistic aspect of it, but rather on the long termed social/political implications that it would undeniably have.

3) Well, it is Jerusalem.

Jerusalem should be made an international city, governed and policed as such as the universal patrimony it is. I also suggest Vatican-like city-states for all faiths involved therein (if they care), governed by the full religious aspects some seem to crave, but lack. Both neighboring states would then establish their administrative capitals somewhere else.

As for Palestine, I agree with many zionists on this board on the idea that they should divided between their neighboring Arabic states. The problem, however, is that the Palestinians are a de facto nation of their own, with their own history and culture, and as such, they would be a source of political unstability in theit "host" countries, maybe even a dangerous one when relations with Israel are concerned.

[1] I don't think the cut into three parts argument is that applicable. The distanced from the Maale Adumim Bloc - Yericho bottleneck that I think you are speaking of is only slightly shorter than the distance from Qalqilya in the WB to the Mediterranean. By this logic Israel is also cut in half, between the Negev/Sharon and the Galil.

[2] As for point two; I see where you are coming from. Ultimately my philosophy though is that it easier and cheaper to shift the borders than to shift hundreds of thousands of people. My plan would compensate the Palestinians for the annexed bloc through land swaps and monetary compensation. It shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Basically, there is no reason to view the 1949 Armistice line (note: not a border) as set in stone. Making border adjustments/swaps is more pragmatic than moving hundreds of thousands of people.

[3] Indeed.

Ultimately, I disagree with you vehemently here. No Israeli Gov't can surrender Jerusalem, they simply can't. Similarly, no Palestinian Leader can either. Jerusalem/Al Quds forms such an integral component of both sides national mythologies that internationalizing it would just leave everyone unhappy.

I basically see two different philosophies at work here:
[a] The Israelis and Palestinians are primitive savages who can't be trusted with J'lem; internationalize it, or
[b] The Israelis and Palestinians have to learn how to share; and what better way to teach them then to have them split their holy of holies.

I have faith in [b].

As for the Palestinians being distinct from their neighbors; the only difference between a Jordanian Arab and a WB Arab is that the WB Arab has lived under Israeli administration. There is no discernible difference between Jordan and the WB. Jordan is something like 2/3 "Palestinian" anyway.

Actually wasn't that the original plan back in 1948 back at the UN: Jerusalem/Quds being a corpus separatum?

A proposal that both the Arabs and Jews rejected.

Personally I'd be a little more forward on pullback from settlements in the West Bank. IMHO they were pretty much established to surround Jerusalem to incorporate that city into Israel but the cost of maintaining security and supplies for such settlements is really hitting the Israeli economy.

I would welcome a solution that would be pretty close to that of Nets with the changes of pulling back to the 1967 borders and setting up Jerusalem as a corpus separatum rather than a Berlin-esque divided city. I don't know if making a corridor linking the West Bank and Gaza is viable or even warranted however, considering it appears as though the West Bank and Gaza are almost run internally by two separate groups of people.

The 1967 "lines" (not borders, the Arabs were very clear in 1949 that the Green Line in no way constituted a border) are history. The final border should basically follow 1949, with oscillations taking into demographics. (i.e. Wadi Ara in Israel to Palestine, Etzion Bloc in WB to Israel).

Also, go back to my plan. The Jerusalem I propose wouldn't be anything like divided Berlin, it would be an "open city", just with an invisible line and a few checkpoints here and there between the sectors. I would envision "sister city" cooperation between the two sectors for sanitation, parks, etc, but at the end of the day they would be two capital cities.

--------

So no takers for Plan B?

[Maxim Litvinov]

A single, federated state with a large amount of centralised power, two official languages (+ English) and a constitution that outlaws the creation of laws based on religion or ethnicity.

[Oxymoron]

A single, federated state with a large amount of centralised power, two official languages (+ English) and a constitution that outlaws the creation of laws based on religion or ethnicity.

So you want to encourage a Radical Muslim insurgency which will target Jews and Secular Arab elements, and all will end in a bloody civil war. Where did you get your idea, British post colonial foriegn policy?

[Paradigm]

Actually, I think a one-state solution would be more likely to be rejected by Israel than by Palestine, since it would render Jews a minority.

[Oxymoron]

Actually, I think a one-state solution would be more likely to be rejected by Israel than by Palestine, since it would render Jews a minority.

Indeed a one state solution would be a Muslim Theocrasy if not immediately then very soon after the states creation .

[Donna]

I don't know about a 'Muslim theocracy' but dominant Arab rule would be unlikely to preserve the Westernization of Israel.

So you want to encourage a Radical Muslim insurgency which will target Jews and Secular Arab elements, and all will end in a bloody civil war. Where did you get your idea, British post colonial foriegn policy?

There would be an insurgency all right, except this time the guerrillas would be singing the Hatikvah.

[jewrilla07]

It seems to me that the solution offered by Nets is fair and forthright. It respects the notion of a Jewish state as well as offers compensation to the Palestinians.

It encourages military dismantling as well as a unilateral approach to fighting terrorism.

It acknowledges Israeli settlements while maintaining some form of fair land swap for the Palestinians.

Lastly, it allows for peaceful autonomy of the two states.

Kudos!

[Oxymoron]

Yes I agree Nets has the best ideas, although many rely on trust and regional players ability to be constructive.

[Paradigm]

although many rely on trust and regional players ability to be constructive.

That's ultimately what it comes down to. If no one's willing to make concessions, then no proposal is going to work, no matter how good.

[Tailz]

My comments might be right out of the park at the moment, I am speed typeing this as I am trying to make a comment before having to run and catch a train. So my comments might be harsh, or really wacky as I have not really thought them through.... anyway, here goes.

Nets wrote:

These are the borders I just drew up. Israel would maintain everything west of the red line, Palestine everything east. Israel would keep the large settlement blocks (Ariel, Latrun, Jerusalem Suburbs and Eztion Bloc).

I'm not too up to date about the geography and the line the border should take, so I'm just going to skip that. Personally I'd prefer something less... wiggly, I like straight or curved lines, not wiggly ones - but thats just me.

The settlers, yup they have got to go. Work out some land swop for the big settlements, but otherwise, the settlers should not have been there in the first place (and Israel should cover the clear up cost for the settlers).

The long narrow strip of land with that settlement in map ref F7, I can see problems with that jutting so far and so narrow into the Palestinian state that it could cause problems. Although its a big settlement, might be best to even the border out and remove it. Less areas for future contention the better - part of the reason why I like smooth lines.

Israel would lease (from Palestine) a small enclave adjacent to Hevron. Settlers would be pulled from Hebron proper.

Nets, thats a stupid idea. You go to all this trouble to try and create the conditions for peace, yet leave the Hebron settlers there, are you insane? Apart from this being like a reward for those settlers, their antics in the future would create friction, there would have to be a multi-national (IDF plus Palestinians) force there to protect the settlers and the Arabs from each other. It would be better to remove them - once again, don't leave space for future conflict - and the Hebron settlers have generated enough conflict on their own.

- About 340-370 Arabs would be drawn out of the borders of Israel proper, between E. Jerusalem and Wadi Ara. This would decrease the Arab population of Israel Proper by about 28%.

I bet the Israeli-Arabs will not be happy about that. Why not leave them where they are, unless your aim is to increase the jewish majority of Israel. Why not give them the choice to immigrate to the new Palestinian state? I think this sort of thing reeks of racism - but thats just my feelings.

Jerusalem: (see map)
- (Most) Jewish Neighborhoods to Israel
- All Palestinian Neighborhoods to Palestine, as basis for twin capital city. This will include Suleiman steet.
- Old City: Armenian and Jewish Quarter to Israel, Muslim and Christian quarter to Palestine.
- Joint custody of Temple Mount between Israel and Palestine.
- East and West Jerusalem will be an "open city", freedom of movement between two sectors (provided for security arrangements).

I'm in favor of this being an international city, nether Israeli, nor Palestinian. The whole idea of splitting it up reminds me of East and West Berlin and the Berlin wall.

Refugees and Grievances:
- [Symbolic] Right of Return for 20 or so thousand Palestinians for the sake of family reunification, etc. PA waives demand of Full Right of Return in exchange for formal apology from Israel.
- Arab League establishes trust fund to reimburse Jewish refugees who lost their property in Arab lands
- Israel establishes trust fund to reimburse Arab refugees who lost their property in Israel
- UNRWA being disbanded is a requirement
- Palestine will remove all materials from schoolbooks inciting violence towards Israel or Jews. Israel will make similar move in Leumi-Dati schools.
- Israel will make formal apology for Palestinian suffering
- Arab League will make formal apology for Israeli suffering. (Both of the above will hard to say, but they mean a lot for both sides).

Didn't you and I discuss something like this a while ago?

A point of contention regarding wording with the line: "- Israel establishes trust fund to reimburse Arab refugees who lost their property in Israel "

By "in Israel" do you mean only those who end up falling within the new borders of Israel? Or thought Israeli action?

Why disband UNRWA? Surly it would have a lot of work to do to help build the new Palestinian state and to help relocate Palestinian refugees from Arab states into the new Palestinian state? Could not a role change be in order instead of complete disbandment?

I agree that all hate material should be removed from schools, but why are you specific in regard to Israeli schools, instead of a general statement in regard to Palestinian schools? Will not a meeting of educational minds have to take place to work out the history of the region, a history free of political bias and propaganda from both sides?

Security:
- Palestine will be demilitarized except for Police for a period of 10 years. Security of Palestine guaranteed by E.U. and Arab League.
- E.U./Arab League peace keepers will assist Palestinians in folding militant groups into national security services
- Joint Palestinian/Israeli/EU/Arab League patrols in Jordan valley for period of 5 years. (See purple line on above map).
- Peace with Palestinians conditioned on non-belligerency pacts (if not peace treaties) with all Arab league states (except Syria, to be discussed later). In exchange, Israel will dismantle its Nuclear Weapons.
- Establishment of Mixed Armistice Committees to adjudicate border violations, terror acts. Composed of international jurists as well as Israelis, Palestinians. Decisions of the committee are binding.

Although I pretty much agree with this, I have to say, the security issue has to go both ways. It can not just be Israel's security alone that is considered.

The biggest thorn will be the Israeli desire for revenge, the IDF can not be permitted to just go charging off and bombard or shoot up the countryside anymore in the name of security.

Economics:
- Israel - Palestine - Jordan established free trade zone. Barriers to movement of capital and labor are removed (day labor, not actual movement of people).

Water and Environment:
- Israel and Palestine establish joint Agency to monitor Mountain Aquifer, Jordan River headwaters; guaranteeing equitable distribution of water resources.
- Joint Israeli/Palestinian/Jordanian "Peace Park"/Nature reserve running from Lake Kineret to Red Sea

Religious Sites:
- Both parties agree to free access to all religious for all religions. Temple Mount, and Tomb of the Patriarchs jointly administered.
- WAKF will agree to halt all construction on Temple Mount, except for mutually agreed upon repairs. This is a must.

Cheer!

Prisoners:
- All Palestinian Prisoners pardoned on condition they sign a paper pledging to never again use violence against Jews or the State of Israel. Released on recognizance of Palestinian Gov't. (This too is painful but necessary).

Investigate allegations of torture in Israeli jails - This too is painful but necessary.

Contiguity
- Land corridor in the form of a four lane highway from Mt. Hebron to Gaza will connect Palestinian areas. Jointly administered by Israel and Palestine, under Israeli sovereignty.

Again, I see this as a major problem, and could create future conflict.

Implementation:
- Upon ratification by PA legislature and Knesset by simple majority vote, the treaty will be put to referendum. 55% must agree in Israel and Palestine for treaty to take effect. Else, back to the drawing board.

This will be tricky - especially given the MK's squeezing through laws requiring a vote to give up any land at all.

Ultimately, this would be very painful for both sides. But I think it is a fair compromise.

I agree, needs tweeking, but its a good starting base.

Plan B:

Ragnarok.

I'm in favor of dropping a solid iron asteroid on the place - about a mile across rock should do the trick...

John08 wrote:

Anywho... I have an idea for if there is any conflict afterwards (this is somewhat unrealistic, but would be alot less bloody then most ideas that could be proposed). If the PM of Israel thinks that the PM (if that's what the title would be) of Palestine is doing something he shouldn't, they should have a to the death fight. The winner of the fight is right, the loser is dead and needs replacement. The nice thing about this, it would give rulers a really good reason to play nice. Afterall, it's one thing to send tens of thousands of strangers to there death, it's another entirely to risk your own life for somthing you now isn't all that important.

Who thinks I have a good idea?

As long as it includes a ring of jelly and scantly clad young ladies, I'm all for it.

War Angel wrote:

Heh... the vast majority of Israel's top leaders, prime-ministers as well, are and were possessors of extensive military experience, mostly with the special forces. Sayeret Matkal had Ehud Barka as its commander, and Benyamin Netanyahu (whose brother died in Entebbe, 1976) was also a senior officer in the same unit, to name just two.

Oh geez, can you not turn everything into an Israeli military pissing match?

I'm a realist, though, and being one, I know this conflict's here to stay. I know my kids will serve in the military, as I did, and my father before me. My brother is already working on getting into one of the top units, as I did... nothing ever changes.

The conflict will only continue for those who don't want peace - so I guess you don't desire peace, or rather, you desire another piece of land.

Maxim Litvinov wrote:

A single, federated state with a large amount of centralised power, two official languages (+ English) and a constitution that outlaws the creation of laws based on religion or ethnicity.

Maybe, a very very long time down the track, and maybe one day after a multi-state peace, they might get past their own bigotry and get to a real peace such as this.

[War Angel]

Oh geez, can you not turn everything into an Israeli military pissing match?

Hey, I didn't come up with that idea.

The conflict will only continue for those who don't want peace - so I guess you don't desire peace, or rather, you desire another piece of land.

Yes, because the reason we're in this shit, is because of Israeli desire for fighting and gaining land. You think I want to fight? You think I fancy the idea of my brother getting killed? Do you honestly believe I'm somehow different, and that I don't enjoy a peaceful, stress-free existence? I don't have the luxury - there are millions who want me dead.

[Muck]

Good thread Oxy, and well constructed reply Nets. I think most of the ideas for the West Bank are reasonable, but I think the real bone of contention that will always remain is Gaza. As I see it, given its graphical size, population density and lack of resources, Gaza will never become a viable entity. If that is true, it will remain a breeding ground for resentment, and will be cited by Arab nations as a reason to oppose Israel. The only method to resolve it is to remove the poverty, and I believe the only way that can happen is with cooperation from Egypt. As such, Egypt would again administer Gaza, with the ultimate aim of fully incorporating it into Egypt proper, given time. Israel would also permit the expansion of the region, as suggested. How receptive Egypt would be to the suggestion, I have no idea.

[Oxymoron]

Investigate allegations of torture in Israeli jails - This too is painful but necessary.

Investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes by Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad for terror attacks targeting civilians. If you want peace no such investigation can take place a clean slate must be established for any possiblity of stability.




.

[Ter]

There is a problem that has not been mentioned yet... water. However you divide the land, access to water will be a major bone of contention.


Ter