Style

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

The Solution to the Middle East Crisis

At the moment the fundamental problem that exists in the region is a lack of equal opportunity for both Arabs and Jews. If the Palestinian people are provided with an opportunity to a sovereign state of their own without occupation, they would have reason to elect a party responsible to govern their land, and that would outweigh their reason in wanting one to "react" to their rights being denied.

Israelis already have an independently established state, yet it still remains very volatile. This dilemma would naturally be dissolved when the Palestinian people no longer have a reason to react, which therefore means "reactionary" groups like Hamas would cease to exist. This is Israel's best and only means to defeat their counter-parts in the Gaza Strip.

The question is, how can equal opportunity be established?
The following points would provide the best solution:

1. Right of return for all Palestinians refugees, including those who originally lived within the current Israeli borders becoming Israeli citizens. That involves most of the 4.5 million displaced people rebuilding their homes if they were originally demolished.

2. Pure democracy without racial discrimination, meaning that a majority vote for any political body to govern Israel and the new Palestine. That includes the possibility of an Arab President and/or Prime Minister ruling Israel if that is what the people's majority want. The same would obviously be implemented for the new Palestine if a Jew wanted to run for elections with the backing of the majority. The very definition of apartheid is the minority ruling the majority based on race or religion (e.g. pre-1994 South Africa with black and white, or today's Bahrain with Sunni and Shia).

3. No boundary redrawing to take into account any settlements, because all have been deemed illegitimate by International Law. Palestinian citizenship would be required for those settlers, however the land would still remain part of the new Palestine. The pre-1967 borders are already a large concession considering that it is probably more realistic to implement something similar to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 based on populous, however most Palestinians are already willing to accept the armistice green lines.

4. Equal opportunity for both Palestine and Israel to establish a defence force in their respective states, just like any other sovereign state. Weapons can be supplied to both states regardless of who supplies them so long as they are legal. (Probably meaning the confiscation of grad rockets... and of course adhering to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as confiscation of white-phosphorous chemical weapons). Every peaceful country has the right to defend itself appropriately.

These elements would naturally dissolve organisations like Hamas and any other radical group when freedom of opportunity and free elections are given to the people. "Reactionists" and "uprisings" would cease to exist when people believe they have a chance to live a normal life.

A good first step would be an immediate halt to any new construction of settlements in Palestinian territory since they are not defensive strategies nor are they provoked reactions.

The above points would define the inalienable rights for the Palestinian people (UN Resolution 3236), and naturally that would also define the inalienable rights for the Israeli people.

Regarding these points, however, is that in order for justice to prevail there has to be a like-for-like. Either a full withdrawal of settlers back to Israel and the millions of Palestinian refugees squeezed into West-bank, Gaza strip and East-Jerusalem, or otherwise the Palestinian refugees returned back to their own lands even if they fall within Israeli borders at least as citizens of Israel. This would mean that Israeli settlers could stay in Palestinian land as citizens of the new Palestine.

The latter would have the millions of refugees out-number the Israeli population, and if pure democracy is implemented, meaning that no race will be prevented from the right to rule, the state would then be ruled by a consensus, most likely resulting in Arab leadership.

Obviously that means that the Jews no longer get what they want with regards to their traditional prophecies, so the former solution would most likely be more practical to them. That ultimately means they would have to oblige to a full withdrawal of the settlers camped within the Palestinian territories to fit the millions of displaced refugees into the relatively smaller patches of Arab land.

The problem with this is that a full withdrawal of settlers has not been a popular concept in the Jewish sector regardless of what their own government has to say about the matter, and that is exactly what the issue is.

The current situation clearly shows that ancient traditions cannot be forced into the region regardless of the overwhelming population, especially when those traditions do not cater for the interests of the multicultural society that undeniably exist in the region. It has evidently resulted in the pushing out of Arabs, with a further pushing out because of the illegal settlements. This situation gives very little option for a lasting stability in the region; hence why there is a growing number of "reactionists" and "uprisings".

Arabs are asked not to look at past acts of systematic deportation and genocide so that there can be a viable solution moving forward, yet Israelis tend to look to the past when considering their own Promised Land which only sees fit to benefit their own Jewish interests.

If cultures and beliefs can provide open-minded approaches towards equal opportunity for humanity in general and not for one race, it would definitely be possible to have a scenario where both can co-exists, just as it did centuries ago.

5 comments:

  1. What about the possibility of a single-state where all Israel and occupied Palestine are one state:

    1. The Refugees could return to their homes.

    2. There is only one state, everyone has the same rights, and there is one election for all.

    3. The settlements don't have to be dismantled since they fall within the new single state, so Jews who have been living on the illegal settlements don't have to suffer the same upheavals that the Palestinians suffered during the Nakba. The Settlements however would no longer be Jewish-only settlements.

    4. Since they are part of the same state, the Arabs and the Jews will both defend it. Threats of "wiping out Israel" or "occupying Palestine" become obsolete since the fate of Arabs and Jews are both entwined, the defence of the state becomes in the interest of all.

    The culture of resistance to occupation would cease to exist and along with it, the militant extremism.
    Maybe someone should point out that Jews converted and became Christians, and then some converted and became Muslims. The Jews who were "promised the holy land" have Muslims and Christians as their desendants today, who both believe and follow Moses, so would both have the same biblical ties to the land.
    Jews, Christians and Muslims have the same ancestors who would have been promised the holy land.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fantastic idea, I never even thought about the settlements potentially being mutli-cultured.

    Unfortunately these days the one state solution has become a "threat" to Israel rather than a potential option. How Ironic that one true perfection in the solution for peace becomes their threat.

    The reason is because they want a Jewish only state. Racism rings true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The irony is that the "identity" in the politics of identity is not as clear-cut as zealots on both sides imagine. I am an ashkenazi Jew of the Levite tribe. I am of European appearance. In genetic tests on a mixed sample of 1,000 people, 49% of ashkenazi levites had more genes in common with central and east European non-Jews than with other Jews. This gives some support to the historic evidence that many of us are the descendents of an historic East European nation, the Khazars, whose King converted his subjects to Judaism to avoid participating in wars between Christianity and Islam. Possibly my ancestors were never in the middle east at all. Therefore that deluded racist maniac Hitler was exterminating his own European "cousins" together with the more historical Jews when he murdered my grandparents, uncles and aunts. Conversely, there is no evidence that all Jews left Palestine after the destruction of the second temple - so where are they now Shlom Sands hypothesises that Mohammed's take-over of Palestine resulted in the Palestinian Jews converting to Islam (willingly or unwillingly). In that case, today's "Palestinians" would be descendents of the Jews whose land is being occupied by a mixture of other Jews and the descendents of non-Jewish converts to Judaism. Isn't this enough to make you a Humanist, thereby adopting the only real identity that we all have? It is for me! Palestinians and Israelis who realise this could lead the way for a better future for all. Forward to a democratic, secular, antiracist state where freedom of religion (and of no religion) are protected in the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brilliantly said. In fact there never were border lines until the British Empire carved up the entire Middle East with man-made lines. That, along with the decades of inter-racial mixing, as well as the reality when we delve even further back, that "Jews" and "Arabs" never really existed at one time, being decendents of one man, means there are pointless arguments on whos Promised Land it belongs to and who was there first. We all own the land and there is so much space to allow people to live without being trampled on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Solutions 'nuclear' Iran http://laodongme.blogspot.com/2011/11/giai-phap-van-e-hat-nhan-iran-thang.html

    ReplyDelete