Land for Peace

04/14/2003

If you like this post - click to Reddit!
add to del.icio.us	Add to digg - digg it

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000055.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.

by Analyst @ 07:57 AM CST [Link]

Replies: 4 comments

Maybe Sharon will be like Nixon, as in Nixon goes to China. Nixon was the only one who could go without being seen as a 'commie' because he was known as an anti-Communist.
So, Mr. Sharon...

Posted by Chaya @ 04/16/2003 01:43 AM CST

The biggest issue here is how much Sharon is actually ready to give in regards to settlements (i.e., a legitimate agreeement would, in my opinion, take away all but 'necessary' military installations), and how able the Palestinian leadership will be to persuade their people against such things as the right of return and even the aquisition of all of the West Bank, two things Israel will definately not allow.
Hopefully, to be blunt, the Palestinian Leadership will be able to accept a compromise (a word which, again from my readings, does not exist in Arabic) - unlike in the summer of 2000, when they rejected Barak's proposal (it seems so good now!) - but it is hard to see how this could happen with Arafat in power (i.e., in this case, retaining his position as 'cheif negotiator', as he seems to want to do, from my readings), a man who is not apt to realistic and concrete political discussion and agreement. I have never heard Arafat talking about the future geographical form of the Palestinian state - only about things like the right of return, accepting nothing less than all of the West Bank and all of Jerusalemm, and how 'a Palestinian Flag will fly over Jerusalem one day'. These are obviously demands Israel will not accept. As much as people might say that these conditions are right and the Palestinians deserve these things, etc., such a strong position will never result in peace. So what do the Palestinians really want: peace or the hope of unattainable ideals?

Posted by Kyle Menken @ 05/06/2003 06:40 PM CST

Kyle,

yes we can be 'realistic' as you are suggesting and this would play nicely into the hands of the Israeli government. However, why is it acceptable that Israel makes high demands and not the Palestinians? In this context we must address two issues. 1) Given that both parties are not open to large concessions we must resort to arbitration, perhaps the roadmap for peace, with inputs from the mostly pro-Israeli US government, the mostly balanced EU, the holder of the international moral high ground UN and Russia (don't know where they stand) should be used to establish, with external pressure and assistance, peace. 2) If we are to be realistic, then we must build a realistic peace, one that will last. Surely this is in Israel's interests as much as the Palestinians? Therefore a few difficult moments of soul searching is in order to ask what is required to create a viable and lasting Palestinian state. Trust me, the very least is a return to the Palestinians of all the illegally occupied terretories. If the Palestinians feel they have been wronged it is because they have, by Israeli aggression and expansion, by their own leadership's incompetencies, and by worldwide indifference. We can put this right, now, but only if we support every effort that is put on the table as a possible way forward out of this lethal quagmire.

Posted by Floris Vermeulen @ 05/20/2003 03:51 PM CST

For more than 50 years now, the Middle East Conflict has divided the world into adversarial groups, giving rise to hatred and extremism, leading to diminishing hope for world peace. The previous two to three generations of Israelis and Palestinians have been born into an environment where conflict is becoming a normal way of life and for some the only way of life with no hope for a better alternative or incentive in sight.
The gravity of the situation and accelerating implications in the form of terrorism throughout the world make it imperative upon conscious citizens of the world to no longer sit back and think it’s a regional conflict or one that doesn’t affect the world. Failures of past solutions lead to newer “think outside of the box” thinking until a global solution can be found for all races, religions and nations involved in the conflict. In order to find a plausible and widely acceptable solution to some of the complicated and competing interest problem, this missive attempts to offer a perspective for consideration as perhaps a partial and alternative solution for the people directly affected and those indirectly yet emotionally related citizens of the world with respective religious affinity to the same area:
Proposal:
1. Muslims, Jews and Christians, have an undeniable historical religious claim over Jerusalem. Total population of the followers of those three religions constitutes approximated 50% of the global population. Hence the assumption that one group will yield to the demand or possession of the other without any struggle would be very naive. Particularly in the Israeli Palestinian conflict Jerusalem is one of the more complex issues, which extends beyond the citizens of the two groups and has interest of many citizens of other nations, who are predominantly members of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions. Therefore sacrosanct areas of Jerusalem and sufficient contiguous lands extending partially into the historical lands known as Samaria and Judea ought to be declared an international territory under the jurisdiction of the United Nations accessible to visit by all qualified citizens of the member Nations, without control of any one religious group.
2. The UN, W.H.O., and International Court of Justice as well as other similar sovereign international bodies’ home offices ought to be shifted to Jerusalem permanently. In establishing international territory of Jerusalem architects may take some lessons from the examples set by Vatican City or Washington DC to design the new international territory. The UNO should be responsible for the economic, financial, security and other relevant affairs of the international territory of Jerusalem.
3. A UN committee composed of a triumvirate of renowned religiously sensitive and qualified administrators and governors of all the three above mentioned religions could be appointed by a committee of the United Nations to manage and administer the international territory of Jerusalem.
4. Distinct and obtrusive boarders between Israel, Jerusalem and Palestine ought to be constructed to control unauthorized boarder access and safety of the citizens of the respective territories from rogue or military intrusions.
5. Possible land exchange between Palestinians and Israelis to redraw new boundaries to create two separate Palestinian states for the Muslim and Christian Palestinians, allowing each Nation the benefit of independent land, air and sea access without dependency on the other sovereign Nation. (For example one state may be in Gaza and another in the Northern Israel bordering Lebanon Syria and the Mediterranean Sea, in exchange for some lands surrounding Jerusalem in Samaria and Judea) granting equal rights to the law abiding citizens of the state practicing other faiths but choosing to remain in those lands, including those citizens living in Israel.

6. Allow return of refugees to their homelands in the newly formed Palestine

Posted by Faruk Zia @ 05/27/2003 01:05 AM CST

Please do not leave notes for MidEastWeb editors here. Hyperlinks are not displayed. We may delete or abridge comments that are longer than 250 words, or consist entirely of material copied from other sources, and we shall delete comments with obscene or racist content or commercial advertisements. Comments should adhere to Mideastweb Guidelines . IPs of offenders will be banned.