I’ve been studying the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for a good many years now.
My perception of it when I was younger was based on very limited information, I came to discover. If you live in the U.S., it’s quite likely yours is as well.
Rather than get into that here I’ll let you do your own research if you are so inclined. (There are many good documentaries on the topic – of course most with a particular slant in one direction or another. A great resource is Robert Fisk who has lived in the region as a correspondent for decades and seen it all from both sides – and criticized both sides.)
I won’t make any comments on causes or “faults” here, either. That kind of discussion only forces us to regress when we should be moving forward.
And here’s the disclaimer we all somehow feel we must make when commenting on such matters: I actually do have dear friends on both sides of this conflict. My only agenda here is to ensure there is peace and security for everyone. I love people. All people. No group is more deserving of human rights than another.
To all my lovely Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and Iranian friends: please read the last three sentences again.
So, down to business …
How to End the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
1. The UN should demand an immediate end to violence (pundits: don’t tell me “the other side won’t agree” – keep reading).
2. We immediately send an international peace-keeping force into Gaza and the West Bank, ending any occupation by the Israeli military. (What about the Israeli settlers in the West Bank? What about who gets what land? We’ll get there.)
3. The peace keeping force will be there to provide security for everyone.
4. We ask both sides to agree to an immediate armistice for a period of 6 months – no matter what. Give diplomacy a chance. Bombs launched by either side? Don’t retaliate. Give it 6 months. Let the peacekeepers retaliate against the individual culprits.
Armistices can work. Anyone who says they can’t need only look at the Korean Peninsula. Yes, they are still technically at war, but at least the South has been given a chance to develop into an economic powerhouse.
4. Once the peace-keeping force is on the ground, we immediately hold a multi-national hearing to establish a permanent two state solution. This may take several years, but the deal points can then be hashed out while civilians are given a chance to thrive in relative peace.
We can establish a Palestinian state almost immediately without knowing what will happen with each piece of land. An interim government will then eventually be replaced by an elected one. The elected government must be given immediate recognition by the UN and Israel. And in return it must recognize Israel.
5. Once the Palestinians have statehood, we keep peacekeepers there for a minimum period of 5 years to ensure they have a chance to develop economically.
During that period, initiatives of Unifying Social Dynamics between Israeli and Palestinian people and businesses must be carried out with great haste.
There are already plans for such initiatives in place.
…
Now, let’s fend off some of the arguments against this plan:
“So and so won’t agree” …
We don’t know that. Let the international community establish peace and let’s see what happens.
Even if there are international peacekeepers there will still be (terrorist attacks, aggression, oppression, etc …)
First of all, let’s stop using terms about violence that paint a frame around the violence. If someone kills someone else, let’s call it that. If we put another name on it, it makes the act something that it’s not. Killing is killing.
If we call it killing, people will begin to question if its necessary. Shouldn’t we? (all of us)
Now, I’m sure I’ll get cries in response to this statement of “moral equivalence” and the like. So be it.
It doesn’t really matter. The labels only make one act of killing morally justifiable and another not. We need a 3rd party to step in and stop the killing. Both sides have done their fair share. Call it what you will.
The label sends us backwards when we should be moving forward. The other side does not agree with the labels used by the other. So what? Let’s just stop the killing. All of it.
Only a well-balanced peace-keeping force can bring an end to the suffering of civilians.
There will still be violence. Let the peacekeepers keep establishing peace (by force when necessary) until the futility of any attack from either side is clear. Let the earnestness of the world’s desire for peace be felt by everyone. The sense of hopelessness that is causing the violence can be replaced by a sense of security – which is what we all need to express our full humanity.
What about the extremists on both sides?
Let the international peace-keeping force respond if they become violent.
It’s ______’s fault. How dare you not recognize that.
Recognizing fault is not important. Establishing peace is.
Saying otherwise only reveals an “agenda other than peace.”
This plan is flawed – what about _______.
No plan is perfect.
This is all nothing new! It won’t work!
In my experience, those who have studied this conflict deeply tend to agree with the general sentiments I’ve expressed above – even many of those who have deep ties with one side or the other.
This sentiment may have been expressed before in different forms. It simply hasn’t been tried (pundits: please don’t remind me about Oslo, etc – we have never put international peacekeepers in place in Gaza and the West Bank – ever).
Let’s band together as people and influence our governments to support it.
If we give up, what are we saying about ourselves?
Are we saying that if we close our eyes it will go away?
Are we saying it’s not our problem?
Is that what we actually believe?
…
In closing I’d like to say that I know I will anger some people with this article. I don’t mind.
I invite anyone who feels angered by these words to explore why they feel that way. (If that’s not you – please read the following in the 3rd person.) Is the anger motivated by a true desire for peace or by hatred toward a group of people? Do you feel you are “more chosen” than another human being who is not in your group? If so, just be aware this disqualifies you from being a humanitarian. It makes you a sectarian … a nationalist … a zealot …
The good news is, we all have these feelings from time to time. We cling to our group identities when we’re feeling threatened. Sometimes this results in violence.
We can all change.
When reading responses to this plan: try to examine the responses with this lens: is the response making a contribution to forward progress toward peace or pushing us backwards? Is it focused on faults or solution? This tool will help you to spot the propagandists. (Some of them are quite good, I must admit. But their days may be numbered.)
Ultimately, I recognize that this proposed course of action is only a band-aid where deep healing is required. As I’ve outlined before and will do so more extensively in the future, we need to address the root causes of conflict: primarily human suffering. (Extremist views are not the problem – they are only one of the many carrier waves for suffering.)
I’ll be revealing more of the plan very soon and invite the willing to join with me. Watch this space for details.
ADDENDUM: 6 January 2009 Folks, we’re starting to build momentum. The community is taking action and a site with a petition is being created. I’ll add to the above plan the following: along with the peacekeepers a contingent of reports and bloggers should be allowed in as well. Who, with nothing to hide, could find fault with that? If it’s “the other side’s fault” then let the peacekeepers and bloggers in and you will be vindicated.
ADDENDUM 2: 9 January 2009 One of the members of the community, Igor Mujdrica, has turned this proposal into a petition. How far can we take this? (It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.)
Go to Source
I’ve been studying the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for a good many years now.
My perception of it when I was younger was based on very limited information, I came to discover. If you live in the U.S., it’s quite likely yours is as well.
Rather than get into that here I’ll let you do your own research if you are so inclined. (There are many good documentaries on the topic – of course most with a particular slant in one direction or another. A great resource is Robert Fisk who has lived in the region as a correspondent for decades and seen it all from both sides – and criticized both sides.)
I won’t make any comments on causes or “faults” here, either. That kind of discussion only forces us to regress when we should be moving forward.
And here’s the disclaimer we all somehow feel we must make when commenting on such matters: I actually do have dear friends on both sides of this conflict. My only agenda here is to ensure there is peace and security for everyone. I love people. All people. No group is more deserving of human rights than another.
To all my lovely Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and Iranian friends: please read the last three sentences again.
So, down to business …
How to End the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
1. The UN should demand an immediate end to violence (pundits: don’t tell me “the other side won’t agree” – keep reading).
2. We immediately send an international peace-keeping force into Gaza and the West Bank, ending any occupation by the Israeli military. (What about the Israeli settlers in the West Bank? What about who gets what land? We’ll get there.)
3. The peace keeping force will be there to provide security for everyone.
4. We ask both sides to agree to an immediate armistice for a period of 6 months – no matter what. Give diplomacy a chance. Bombs launched by either side? Don’t retaliate. Give it 6 months. Let the peacekeepers retaliate against the individual culprits.
Armistices can work. Anyone who says they can’t need only look at the Korean Peninsula. Yes, they are still technically at war, but at least the South has been given a chance to develop into an economic powerhouse.
4. Once the peace-keeping force is on the ground, we immediately hold a multi-national hearing to establish a permanent two state solution. This may take several years, but the deal points can then be hashed out while civilians are given a chance to thrive in relative peace.
We can establish a Palestinian state almost immediately without knowing what will happen with each piece of land. An interim government will then eventually be replaced by an elected one. The elected government must be given immediate recognition by the UN and Israel. And in return it must recognize Israel.
5. Once the Palestinians have statehood, we keep peacekeepers there for a minimum period of 5 years to ensure they have a chance to develop economically.
During that period, initiatives of Unifying Social Dynamics between Israeli and Palestinian people and businesses must be carried out with great haste.
There are already plans for such initiatives in place.
…
Now, let’s fend off some of the arguments against this plan:
“So and so won’t agree” …
We don’t know that. Let the international community establish peace and let’s see what happens.
Even if there are international peacekeepers there will still be (terrorist attacks, aggression, oppression, etc …)
First of all, let’s stop using terms about violence that paint a frame around the violence. If someone kills someone else, let’s call it that. If we put another name on it, it makes the act something that it’s not. Killing is killing.
If we call it killing, people will begin to question if its necessary. Shouldn’t we? (all of us)
Now, I’m sure I’ll get cries in response to this statement of “moral equivalence” and the like. So be it.
It doesn’t really matter. The labels only make one act of killing morally justifiable and another not. We need a 3rd party to step in and stop the killing. Both sides have done their fair share. Call it what you will.
The label sends us backwards when we should be moving forward. The other side does not agree with the labels used by the other. So what? Let’s just stop the killing. All of it.
Only a well-balanced peace-keeping force can bring an end to the suffering of civilians.
There will still be violence. Let the peacekeepers keep establishing peace (by force when necessary) until the futility of any attack from either side is clear. Let the earnestness of the world’s desire for peace be felt by everyone. The sense of hopelessness that is causing the violence can be replaced by a sense of security – which is what we all need to express our full humanity.
What about the extremists on both sides?
Let the international peace-keeping force respond if they become violent.
It’s ______’s fault. How dare you not recognize that.
Recognizing fault is not important. Establishing peace is.
Saying otherwise only reveals an “agenda other than peace.”
This plan is flawed – what about _______.
No plan is perfect.
This is all nothing new! It won’t work!
In my experience, those who have studied this conflict deeply tend to agree with the general sentiments I’ve expressed above – even many of those who have deep ties with one side or the other.
This sentiment may have been expressed before in different forms. It simply hasn’t been tried (pundits: please don’t remind me about Oslo, etc – we have never put international peacekeepers in place in Gaza and the West Bank – ever).
Let’s band together as people and influence our governments to support it.
If we give up, what are we saying about ourselves?
Are we saying that if we close our eyes it will go away?
Are we saying it’s not our problem?
Is that what we actually believe?
…
In closing I’d like to say that I know I will anger some people with this article. I don’t mind.
I invite anyone who feels angered by these words to explore why they feel that way. (If that’s not you – please read the following in the 3rd person.) Is the anger motivated by a true desire for peace or by hatred toward a group of people? Do you feel you are “more chosen” than another human being who is not in your group? If so, just be aware this disqualifies you from being a humanitarian. It makes you a sectarian … a nationalist … a zealot …
The good news is, we all have these feelings from time to time. We cling to our group identities when we’re feeling threatened. Sometimes this results in violence.
We can all change.
When reading responses to this plan: try to examine the responses with this lens: is the response making a contribution to forward progress toward peace or pushing us backwards? Is it focused on faults or solution? This tool will help you to spot the propagandists. (Some of them are quite good, I must admit. But their days may be numbered.)
Ultimately, I recognize that this proposed course of action is only a band-aid where deep healing is required. As I’ve outlined before and will do so more extensively in the future, we need to address the root causes of conflict: primarily human suffering. (Extremist views are not the problem – they are only one of the many carrier waves for suffering.)
I’ll be revealing more of the plan very soon and invite the willing to join with me. Watch this space for details.
ADDENDUM: 6 January 2009 Folks, we’re starting to build momentum. The community is taking action and a site with a petition is being created. I’ll add to the above plan the following: along with the peacekeepers a contingent of reports and bloggers should be allowed in as well. Who, with nothing to hide, could find fault with that? If it’s “the other side’s fault” then let the peacekeepers and bloggers in and you will be vindicated.
ADDENDUM 2: 9 January 2009 One of the members of the community, Igor Mujdrica, has turned this proposal into a petition. How far can we take this? (It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.)
If you like this post, please consider buying me a beer!Popularity: 44% [?]