Talk Elections

This is not a general Israel-Palestine conflict thread -- oh, Hamas shot some rockets, oh, somebody was shot in the West Bank, oh, Zionist sharks are attacking the Sinai. This is a thread to hear your proposals for peace and the future boundaries in the West Bank. Try not to suggest something that neither side will propose. Try to stick to what you think might actually be the boundaries in the future.

Some rough points:

1.) Make Jerusalem and international city under UN supervision.

2.) Have the West Bank organized into a universally recognized state.

I would say more but I don't know what to do with Gaza. Hamas stands in the way of progress there and I would say Egypt should just annex it but I don't think they would want to honestly.

The only way I see to make peace last is to bring in a powerful and more importantly, respected, third party to keep a foot on the throat of Hamas (and the rest of the terrorists) for a decade or so while building up the economy of Gaza and the West Bank.  The world/UN can fit the bill in gold, but the powerful/respected third party is going to pay the price in blood, which is why it will probably never get done.

only US/Israel stand in the way of the global consensus for a return, roughly, to the pre-67 borders.  much like US/South Africa stood together in the Reagan years, once Israel is isolated completely on the world stage, the natural processes will be allowed to occur.

Hamas have agreed to partake in elections with Fatah. If elections could be held freely and fairly, we probably wouldn't see Hamas and Fatah dividing Palestine.

I'm pretty sure Fatah and Hamas recently reached some sort of agreement to hold Palestinian elections this year, which I'd predict Hamas winning, by a long shot.

Personally, I prefer the one-state solution, but the Israelis would never accept it...

You are answering a different question.  The question asked is what would bring peace, not what the world community thinks is fair.  Getting everybody in the world together to force Israel to accept the pre-67 borders wouldn't give us peace.  The only thing that will give the region peace is neutering the terrorists, your plan would only embolden them.again, that would not bring peace.

"the terrorists" good stuff

Are you suggesting these groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izz_ad-Din_al-Qassam_Brigades, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kach_and_Kahane_Chai) are not terrorists?


US & South Africa certainly stood together during the Reagan years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_Act

In answer to my own questions, Israel should withdraw from most of the West Bank, but keep the Jordan Valley and some settlement blocs -- the border should roughly follow the barrier, but Palestine would have to give up a few small villages north of Netafim, for contiguous Israeli territory -- for instance, for the purposes of logic, Ofarim should be connected with the Green Line in the area south of Rantis, instead of going through Bet Arye. And there could be some more expansion by Jerusalem, on the other hand, including Adam and Ma'ale Mikhmas. The Jerusalem Landfill should also be on the Israeli side. Further to the south, the barrier is very awkward, and Israel should probably give up Husan, Battir, and Har Gilo. By Gillo, the border should be expanded into Bethlehem, so as to include Rachel's Tomb in Israel. The border should be shifted around Eshkolot so it does not look like a penis. Shima should be included, and there should be another bulge at Suseya. In the north, where the Jordan Valley is included, Israel should control everything until just north of the Site of the Baptism of Jesus, which should be Palestinian. Gaza would be a Palestinian exclave; Kiryat Arba and H1 would be an Israeli exclave. Some sort of multinational elevated highway/railway, Gaza-Hebron, would be under joint control. There would be a right of return to an actual Palestine, and Palestine could totally have its own military. Jewish settlers would be kicked out. Israel would also have to pay Palestine some lump sum of money each year, for some period of time. The Temple Mount, like all of Jerusalem, would remain under Israeli sovereignty, but the waqf would be shifted from a Jordanian waqf to a Palestinian one. Palestine is to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Israel is to recognize Palestine as a Palestinian one.

Do I think this will happen? No. It gives up too much for both the Palestinians and the Israright, and it isn't a case of meeting in the middle -- in terms of land it's overly favorable for Israel, and in terms of what the post-peace governments can and cannot do it's overly favorable to Palestine (Danny Ayalon would hate it -- one totally Muslim state, one Jewish-majority, Muslim-minority state).

Would it cause peace immediately? No. But I think there's enough for the Israeli right to accept and the Palestinians get actual statehood, instead of becoming a puppet state like Ehud Barak proposed at Camp David (seriously -- airspace over the West Bank remains Israeli?), but in exchange they lose significant amounts of territory. I honestly think both sides could live with this.

Thanks for playing!

This has always struck me as a terrible idea.  Imagine calling the UN next time a streetlamp burns out to request it be replaced, or lobbying the UN to fix potholes in the street in your neighborhood, or taking a zoning dispute to the UN.  There'd be absolutely no governmental accountability to the people of Jerusalem in dealing with the functions that a local government does every day of the year.

Jordan annexes West Bank and Egypt annexes Gaza. Three state solution.

Everyone's happy...except for the King of Jordan and the President of Egypt.  :P

And the King of Jordan's life expectancy would suddenly be measured in months.

My solution would be to have two states:
Israel and the West Bank and
Jordan as a bi-national state between the non-Palestinian Arabs and the Palestinians. Jordan would consist of current borders, the Gaza Strip (assuming a saner government comes along), and the Sinai, and perhaps a large, unpopulated Egyptian governorate, like the Red Sea Governorate. There would be more than enough room for Palestinian refugees, and Israel would guarantee the transfer of refugees, if they want.
Another option would be
Israel and the West Bank and
Egypt gets Gaza
All this is presuming a saner Gaza, which there would be no peace plan without.

Jordan has a Palestinian majority, so getting rid of the Hashemites in Jordan and changing it to a Palestinian controlled republic would be part of any workable long term solution. Together with the West Bank, this would be a viable state (which the West Bank is not on its own).

2 state solution with 1967 borders with land swaps. A divided Jerusalem would be the capital of both countries, divided on ethnic/religious lines. The Palestinians would have no military, along the lines of Japan after World War II. The borders of the new Palestine would be manned by an international force, probably a UN force possibly one of a third party (I think the British were mentioned at one point). As for the right of return, a small number of refugees will be allowed to return, the rest will be compensated with money. This money should be in part provided by Israel and in part by the international community. We in America should provide a big chunk of it, as peace in the middle east would be worth the cost.

Why should the Palestinians be barred from having a military?

Because the Israelis get their knickers in a twist over the idea of a Palestinian army on their borders. There was something in the Palestine Papers where the Israelis were saying that they would never allow a Palestine with a military that had offensive capabilities and wanted to keep IDF soldiers stationed in the new Palestine, and what I said was one of the proposed compromises. Neither side likes it of course, but then again neither side likes anything but completely getting their way.

Here's an article about it on Al Jazzera: http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112512170239319.html

I'm sure they are, in the sense that they are willing to kill or injure civilians in order to achieve a political aim; but by this simply definition the US is the world's leading terror state, willing to kill, rape, maim, and destroy on a scale heretofore unknown in human history, and Israel is a most important junior partner in the ongoing genocide.  the poor fkers you just linked to in their wildest dreams will never do the damage of the Pentagon.

I'm one of the more pro-Israel people here, but I think it's a bad idea to not let the potential Palestinian state have a military.  How else are they going to keep a boot on the neck of the terrorists inside their own borders?  They shouldn't have to rely, at least not long term, on outside forces to do it.  Nor should outside forces be perpetually obliged to pay for it in blood and coin.The current western Armies are better at keeping collateral damage to a bare minimum than anybody else now or ever.  Your hyperbole shows your bias.

Give Palestine to Jordan & Egypt, bribe them with some money and let them deal with the fallout.

A country that cannot defend itself is not a legitimate state -- note that in my proposal Palestine would exchange a significant chunk of land for a working military with offensive capabilities.


This is preposterous. The US has been spending decades fighting overseas, protecting your right to say whatever you want -- like that, for instance. If it wasn't for the US government, you would not have the right to freely say that -- it always amazes me how people can criticize the US and praise its enemies, when they would not be allowed to do that same thing if they actually lived in one of those enemies. And do you really think overthrowing Hussein and the Taliban killed more civilians than would have died if those governments had remained in power?

You really have no idea at all, do you?

No, Vosem. The only reason you're free to criticize the U.S. government and such is because you or I or anyone else on our own isn't enough to be a threat. If there was, all your "liberties" would be taken away pretty damn quickly.

Unless you're in the UK, where saying something funny about a black guy can get you two months in jail and kicked out of college.

Did I say the UK was any better?

If that was so, then how come many authoritarian states, such as (for example), the Soviet Union or the Nazis restricted individuals from speaking out against the regime? Is it that the US is so firmly entrenched that individuals don't matter, but they did in the USSR or in Nazi Germany?

1967 borders.  Israel put under U.N. occupation.  ICC investigation of those who should be investigated by the ICC.

probably demonstrably true in both cases, certain in the case of Iraq.


sh**t, a political forum would be hella boring without biases.

A peace plan that involves military occupation of a nuclear power isn't much of a peace plan.

Really, this is pretty much the only solution that has a possibility of working. Egypt (assuming it doesn't have a radical takeover) is powerful enough to administer Gaza, and the Jordan situation has been the elephant in the room for a very long time.

Really, Jordan should be Palestine. The fact that this is never brought up - especially considering the Hashemite regime's crimes against Palestinians - is pretty indicative of the global bias.

WWII involved military occupation of Germany for a time.  Once Israel has undergone dezionistization, it can return to civilian rule.

I usually agree with you Morgan, but this is nothing short of insane.

That might have been possible at the beginning, but not now. Like it or not the Palestinian people are united by a shared national identity, in large part due to the occupation. And I don't see why you think that would be an idea that would work. Even with a long standing peace treaty with Jordan the Israelis still keep large numbers of troops in occupied territory manning that border. What makes you think they would be content with allowing the Jordanian army so close to the heart of their country? As for Egypt, the current peace deal keeps the Egyptian army out of the Sinai for the same reason, so how are they supposed to prevent attacks on Israel from Gaza? I seriously doubt Israel is more happy to have two more foreign armies stationed on its border.

Germany didn't have nuclear weapons. It was occupied at the conclusion of the bloodiest conflict in human history.

Not a good comparison. If the UN tries to occupy Israel by force, it'll be in for a very unpleasant surprise. The Jews kind of have a thing about being conquered by foreign powers.

Don't worry, I'm not being serious.

A just peace:  Expulsion without compensation of all land thieves and murderers, preferably with punishment for their actions.  Proof that land was non-coercively purchased from its occupants prior to 1946 will be license to stay provided the occupants are not also murderers.

The "final solution" as will most likely happen IRL:  Land thieves complete their campaign of genocide, continue to periodically bomb civilian targets in surrounding countries for sh**ts and giggles.

I am especially partial to Dereich's proposal, although it would be better in my opinion to allow Palestine to establish armed forces after a fixed period of time (maybe a decade or two). Aside from that, something would have to be done about disputes concerning water rights. A severe set of incentives laid out by the international community must also be in place to ensure all the parties involved stick to the deal - seeing as neither the Israelis nor Palestinians will be particularly thrilled with some of the agreement's outcomes.   

This, though I would include the Arab League (as the mentioned third party) along with the United Nations in policing the borders of Palestine.  

Israel may be unhappy with a lot of things, like other people living near them, but they are going to have to deal with it.

Time machine back to 1996. Rape Hamas.

It just points to the crux of the argument against the "three state solution". It makes absolutely no one happy. The Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians, and Israelis would all be unhappy with it. It probably wouldn't even stop the violence, as the Jordanians and Egyptians wouldn't really be inclined to waste blood and treasure to keep unruly Palestinians (who they never even wanted) in line. A one state solution runs into the same problems. A two state solution with an independent Israel and Palestine is really the only way to have a peaceful solution.

No solution will make everyone happy, so a solution where no one is happy is ideal. As long as both sides are equally unhappy.

I think fairness and peace is more important than making sure both sides are equal in happiness (or unhappiness).

There are, of course, no genuinely acceptable solutions.

Btw, didn't see another thread on this, but Barak floated this a few days ago:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18265526

In an ideal world an only and secular state and equal citizenship rights for Jewish and Arab populations. In the real world, two states (Israel and Palestine) with borders negotiated on the basis of 1967 ones with Jerusalem as shared capital with special status.

My suggestion to a peace treaty is to ethnic cleanse Maryland and give it to the Palestinians.

Put sanctions on Israel until they agree to withdraw all settlement from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to allow a Palestinian State to be formed and subsequently withdraw all troops from the West Bank, to allow humaniarian goods into Gaza, and to allow Palestinians who once lived in what is now Israel to return home.  And they must also have another round of sanctions slapped on them until they reverse a lot of the racist legislation of the current government. 

subtle