[extropy-chat] FWD (SK) Peace in Palestine and Israel [new subj]

Terry W. Colvin fortean1 at mindspring.com
Fri Oct 29 03:07:02 UTC 2004


I just finished a two-day adult ed class on the U.N.,
which required a short paper. I proposed a plan to end
the Israeli-Palestininan war, based on the notion that
both populations want peace, so should be allowed to
jam it down their governments' throats: 

*******************************************************

A MODEST PROPOSAL

Jim Giglio
GVPT399Q, Fall 2004
University of Maryland University College

Inis Claude [1] discusses the role of the U.N. in the maintenance
of peace, a discussion complicated by the then current U.S. 
involvement in the Vietnam war. The policy problems he lists
include peacekeeping vs peace enforcement, the role of the U.S. 
in relation to each, and the extent to which the U.S. can or
should serve as world policeman, with or without the assistance
or approval of the U.N. Claude sees no straightforward solution
to any of these problems. And 35 years later, the situation
appears basically unchanged. 

Illustrative of the peacekeeping problems faced by the world is
the Palestinian-Israeli war, arguably the most dangerous such
situation in the world, since one side (Israel) is a nuclear
power and at least one of the allies of the Palestinian side
(Iran) appears to be engaged in a serious effort to acquire a
nuclear capability. This conflict has been running since the
onset of the Cold War and has outlasted it. Multiple attempts
have been undertaken by various intermediaries, the U.N. 
included, to defuse it. Now it has metastasized into a global
campaign of terrorism against the U.S., to include direct attacks
on our own soil. 

The Standard Model of previous efforts has consistently involved
some kind of step-by-step process for settling the issues in
dispute. All these efforts, including the recent road map, have
failed, either because one government or the other balked
somewhere along the line, or because some fanatic or group of
fanatics carried out an act of violence that derailed the
process. These outcomes are not accidental; they result from
basic flaws in the Standard Model: 

1) The plans leave numerous disputed issues to be negotiated
later, and these are invariably the most difficult issues, most
likely to result in one side or the other balking at further
progress. 

2) The plans require good faith cooperation and negotiation
between governing bodies that cannot possibly trust each other,
and which are divided internally as to whether or not the other
side should be negotiated with at all. 

Herewith, then, a modest proposal to settle the Israeli
Palestinian war, to include the terms of the settlement, a
mechanism for getting it accepted, and suggested roles for the
U.N., the U.S., and other members of the world community. 

Principal Terms of the Settlement Proposal:

1) We start with Jerusalem. Both sides want it all and cannot
compromise, so neither should get any of it. Jerusalem becomes an
International Religious Reservation; nobody comes to Jerusalem
from anywhere for any purpose other than religious observance.
The city is run by an administrator appointed by the U.N.
Secretary General and ratified by both the Security Council and
General Assembly. Policing is carried out by a multinational
force from nations that have no (or only tiny minorities of) 
Christians, Muslims, or Jews, and adherents of these faiths
cannot be members of the force. 

2) There will be two states. The border between them will be the
demarcation line that existed prior to the 1967 war, except for
the cordon around Jerusalem. Israel will be required to relocate
large sections of the barrier currently under construction. The
two sides can fortify or barricade this border as they see fit;
neither is obligated to allow citizens of the other to cross the
border. 

3) It is completely unrealistic of Israel to expect that peace
can ever be had when its nationals occupy Palestinian land, so
Israel must remove all settlements from the territory of the
Palestinian state. 

4) It is equally unrealistic of the Palestinians to hold the
notion that Israel will ever allow the refugees from the various
wars to return to their former homes; that would be national
suicide. Palestinian refugees must give up any right of return. 
If they cannot gain acceptance as citizens of the nations where
they currently reside, they are to be accepted into the new
Palestinian state. 

5) The Palestinian government must demobilize all private
militias and suppress all terrorist activity and attacks
originating on its soil. International economic assistance will
be withheld in the event such demobilizations and suppressions
are not successful. 

This settlement, if implemented, will not make the two nations
happy. In fact, no such settlement is possible. It is only
possible to equalize the unhappiness in exchange for stopping the
war. This should be recognized at the outset and any information
campaign to promote the settlement should be completely candid on
this point. 

Scenario for Implementation of the Settlement: 

1) The U.S. (or some other nation, if it so desires)  introduces
resolutions in both the Security Council and General assembly
setting the terms above as the official U.N. policy, and the
basis for formal agreements ending the war. 

2) The U.S. and other wealthy nations set up a LARGE fund (and
deposit actual money into it, not just promises) for economic
assistance in implementing the settlement should it be adopted,
and for economic development in both nations after adoption. The
fund might be administered by a new U.N. agency or an existing
agency with a good track record in economic development. 

3) The Security Council assembles an international conference to
draw up a detailed treaty implementing the official settlement
basis. 

4) Upon conference approval of the treaty and any necessary
subsidiary agreements, the Security Council adopts a second
resolution requiring (a) both governments to submit the treaty
and agreements to their respective populations for approval via
referendum, (b) both governments to allow full access to their
media and other communications channels by a U.N. commission
charged with promoting a yes vote in the referendum, and (c) 
further requiring that both governments agree that the treaty is
binding on them upon approval by those populations [2]. 

5) Economic assistance from the fund listed under point 2 above
flows to both nations to effect implementation and promote
economic development. Activities supported include rebuilding the
Palestinian infrastructure, large scale desalination projects to
increase water supplies in both nations, and relocating
Palestinian refugees and displaced Israeli settlers. 

None of the activities listed in implementing the proposed
settlement are particularly novel, nor with minor exceptions do
they require that the U.N. do anything it has never done before. 
U.N. agencies routinely hold international conferences, carry out
international economic development activities, supervise
elections, police disputed borders, and even maintain what
amounts to a system of national parks under the World Heritage
program; the setting aside of Jerusalem as a religious
reservation differs from this latter program only in the need for
heavy policing.

One novel aspect of the suggested plan is the election campaign
designed to persuade the two voting populations to say yes. 
Another is the idea of the direct referendum itself; the U.N., in
effect would go over the heads of the two governing bodies so
that people could impose peace by popular will. There can be
little doubt that the populations involved will in fact say yes; 
opinion surveys reported in the press have found repeatedly that
both populations want the war to stop. 

We know for a fact that every other standard diplomatic approach
will not work; the time has come to try something else.

NOTES

[1] Claude, Inis L. The United States and International
Organization: The Changing Setting International Organization
23:621 36 (July 1969).

[2] The idea of a peace agreement established by direct popular
vote is not original with me. It appeared in an op ed piece in
the Washington Post about a year ago. Its only shortcoming was
that the writer failed to emphasize the necessity for a FULL
agreement, with all the is dotted and the ts crossed, and nothing
left for future negotiations. 


-- 
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice


Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
     Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
      U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
   TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list