In the Washington Post section called “PostGlobal,” Yossi Melman of the liberal Israeli daily Ha’aretz suggests a plan to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, get the Palestinians a state, get Israel some peace, get the refugees some compensation, and get the terrorists out of the way. His plan has nine points, which are as follows:
1. The world has to acknowledge and declare unequivocally that Hamas is a group of Muslim fundamentalists and terrorists, sponsored by Iran. They hate Israel and don’t recognize our right to exist, not to mention the right for self-determination. They hate the U.S. and the West and see them as the source of all evil on earth. They are an anti-democratic movement seeking to establish a theocracy. They toppled the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority in a military coup.
Amen and amen.
2. If the Arab world, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE, really care about the fate of the Palestinians, they must stop their financial, military and political support for Hamas. The moment Hamas loses its constant supply of weapons and money from the above-mentioned states, it will cease to control Gaza.
Amen again. Personally, I have doubts that the rest of the Arab world does care about the Palestinians as anything other than a bludgeon to use against Israel. This would be an opportunity for them to demonstrate otherwise.
3. Gaza would return to its original rulers: the Palestinian Authority, led by Mohammad Abbas (Abu Mazen).
4. The rocket shelling of Israeli towns (which is a war crime) would come to an end.
5. In return, Israel must stop all its military operations in Gaza and the West Bank.
These go hand-in-hand. One additional item, though, and that is that the PA would have to actually stop terrorism by Fatah and its subsidiary the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Another to put it is that all of the shooting, rocketing, bombing, and military operations would have to stop, not just the most irritating.
6. After securing a stable and permanent cease-fire, an intensive round of negotiation will be opened to conclude a peace treaty based on four central principles:
A. Israel has to agree to withdraw from all the occupied West Bank lands and dismantle most of the Jewish settlements there, while guaranteeing its security needs.
Agreed. The settlements never should have been built.
B. A Palestinian State will be declared and recognized by the UN. The Palestinian State will be fully demilitarized.
There are ways to guarantee the peace and territorial integrity of a demilitarized Palestinian state. It can be a joint venture between Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and whatever outside forces (the U.S., Russia, EU) are felt to be needed to supplement the local nations. One thing that should also be done is that the United Nations is kept out of the process, and no blue helmets ever allowed to set foot in the Levant.
C. Arab States and the Arab League have to recognize Israel and form full diplomatic and commercial relations with it.
That will hurt, psychologically, but they’ll get over it, and in 10 years be a lot better off for it.
D. Israel within its 1948 recognized borders will not accept Palestinian refugees.
The “right of return” is a formula for the demographic destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. The interesting thing here is that Melman makes no mention in his plan of Jerusalem, but does refer to “1948 recognized borders.” If that means re-dividing the city, I doubt that it would fly among Israelis.
7. An International Fund has to be established, with monies contributed mainly by the rich Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia (which is also a very wealthy nation), U.S., EU, China and Japan to compensate the 1948 Palestinian refugees for the loss of their of their property. The refugees can resettle in the newly established Palestinian State and or Arab states.
This is problematic. Even if the nations mentioned were willing to put up the money, for Israel to not do so is for it to say that it bears no responsibility for those who left. While I think this is largely true (since most of those who left did so at the urging of their Arab brethren, the better for the latter to have a clear field of fire on Jews), there were incidents where people who didn’t want to go were forced from their homes. Given that, I think it only right that Israel also be a contributor to this fund. The rest of the contributors would basically be paying for one of the world’s biggest headaches to go away. It would be well worth it.
8. An international force will be deployed to supervise and implement the agreement.
Again, as long as there are no blue helmets (which are either worthless because their rules of engagement never let them actually enforce any agreements, or because they plunge into the vilest kind of corruption, or both).
9. The U.S. administration will exert its ultimate power and influence to coerce all parties to accept this international agreement. If a party or parties refuse to cooperate with the agreement, the U.S. will break off its relations with that party and together with the UN Security Council will impose sanctions.
As any good debater knows, your plan always has to have an enforcement mechanism, but I’m not sure this one is realistic, in the sense that it may allow splinter groups to hold the whole thing hostage, which has been a large part of the problem all along. But that there needs to be some kind of mechanism is certain.
This is, by and large, a pretty good plan, one that therefore has virtually no chance of being adopted by anyone. (If you want to get an idea why, check out the comments, which by and large are vitriolic, irrational, anti-Semitic, and/or mindlessly oppositional.) But one can dream.
(Hat tip: Hampton.)


March 5, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Excellent Topic I Think.
Also, it provides that their are intelligent, caring people in the world who are clearly commited to helping provide a sensible, mutually equitable resolution to a problem that seems self-perpetuating, Ergo, without end -of it’s own self.
One thing that concerns me with the proposition of compensatory reparation: Offering said compensation, would I think provide ideologic ammunition for those who clearly have no interest in PEACE thusly; It provides an admission of guilt to those who would stoke the fires of rhetoric and hatred that the world actually owed them something.
Evil is owed nothing. Otherwise we provide merit to their insane arguments.
So, my answer is? “No move is better than a bad move”. More thought and international participation is clearly needed, however, Clearly not in a manner that admits guilt, or encourages fanaticism.
M. Thomas Southerland
March 5, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I believe that the best thing would be for Jerusalem to become an “International” city sort of like the Vatican with rotating forces offering security, EU, NATO, UN etc. That way, all three religions could have secure holy places.
Now THAT most decidedly won’t fly with Israel.
Alan
March 5, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Question about the compensation.
It is my understanding that most of the land in British Palestine was owned by absentee landlords. Title records and sales transactions were mostly done in Egypt and Lebanon. The displaced people were largely from a a tenant population.
Is this accurate? Even if so, the affected population will have to get a monetary settlement for any resolution to happen.
March 5, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Alan: The Vatican isn’t an international city. It’s an independent city-state with its own government. As far as I know, nothing quite like the international city idea has ever been tried, given that it would presumably mean that sovereignty would not be held by any single state.
By the way, I should also mention here that, unlike Jordan’s rule over East Jerusalem (which resulted in desecration of many Jewish sites and the absolute closure of the Wailing Wall to Jews), Israel has carefully tended to Muslim and Christian sites while insuring, as much as possible within the limits of safety, access to worshipers of all three religions. The Temple Mount, for instance, has rarely been closed to Muslims wanting to go to the Dome of the Rock or al-Aqsa, and is run by Muslim authorities.
Chip: I’ll check, but I think that’s correct. One of the myths that has grown up over the years is that Jews stole Arab lands en masse, whereas most land owned by Arabs that came into Jewish possession was actually purchased either by private owners or by the state, usually at significantly higher prices than non-Jewish buyers would have paid.
March 5, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Item D, Israel within its 1948 borders seems to present some real defense problems with respect to the Golan Heights. I’m certainly no expert on the geography of the area, but I think that this puts the Heights back in Arab hands and that has proved to be a disaster every time it has happened.
The 1948 borders just don’t seem to be entirely realistic, even if they have a historic attraction. It seems like some thought needs to be given to what can be reasonably defended in the future, because human nature is not going to change with this fine agreement.
March 6, 2008 at 12:12 am
Not seeking to speak out of turn…
This is wise, I believe Dr. D. Although there are certainly others who could reflect on human nature more eloquently and, more accurately than I,
I must agree. As the evolution of human nature at least for now seems somewhat stagnant, to me. We all seem to seek the same thing. Perfection. Whether it be quality of living, status, territory….
I believe that “GOD” alone is that perfection which we search for ultimately. (Although for some, it may seem that a new Porsche will do the trick.)
As we observe, in this conflict – some are obviously seeking that higher power, that higher being. and the safety of their homeland, While others, at least to this stray dog, seem less interested.
So perhaps leverage is the only solution. I believe that Israel will exert said leverage before the end of this year. Then the debate will certainly change.
March 6, 2008 at 10:50 am
There is potential in a plan of this kind – as a general basis. But I’m not overly optimistic.
The land / compensation issue is more complicated. Paying reparations based on presumed guilt is not really viable. For one thing, a very large number of Jewish people were also dispossessed in 1948/49 – being forced to leave neighboring countries without compensation of any kind. That something needs to be done about the Palestinian refugee situation is true – it is a situation that has not been adequately addressed. But that it should include a placement of blame is faulty.
I don’t favor an international city. To date, the international community has been uniquely biased against Israel. (Yes, the US has taken a different stance, but look at UN statements, Durban, etc.) I can’t see that this will help the situation.
The 48 borders are problematic in defensive terms – but I imagine some equitable arrangement could be found.
But whatever the details – people actually have to want a solution. I’m not sure that is the case. (I say this for a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is this: until that is desired, no plan, no matter how reasonable it may seem, will work. And I think this applies to the participants, as well as to the international activists who have inserted themselves into the situation.)
March 6, 2008 at 9:30 pm
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/8-die-in-shooting-at-jerusalem-seminary/20080306143909990001
Enough Is Enough. This is just heartbreaking.