A Comparison of Peace Plans

A peace process should have the potential to lead to actual peace. If it does not, then it should not be considered a viable option even on a temporary basis. Each time a peace deal fails radical elements become even more radicalized. True lovers of peace, should therefore have zero tolerance for fake peace processes.

Two State Solution Based Peace Plans

• Madrid Talks
  
• Oslo Accords 1 & 2
• Roadmap to ?Peace?

All of these have thus far been unworkable. From an International Law perspective, any compromise of Jewish religious sites, with no true expectancy of Palestinian compliance with Succession laws, is illegal from the start. The reason the Quartet are forcing Israel into a continued cycle of violence rather than using a more workable plan is perhaps threefold...

1. Israeli governments literally asked for it.
2. The potential economic boon for all nations from a peace deal is just too alluring to ignore.
3. The focus is on assembling a united world against Iran, so even International Law itself needs to take a back seat, they apparently argue.

One State Solution Based Peace Plans

• The Friedlander Peace Plan, as briefly described in the previous post. This requires the tying of West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. Nobody has to give up their homes. Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis.
  

• The Binational Solution, which is supported by many right wing Israelis, and parts of this plan have been accepted even by some American Republicans, including former Presidential candidate, Sen. Sam Brownback. Essentially it calls for Arabs in the East Bank of the Jordan and Jews on the West Bank, in the spirit of the Balfour Declaration. This is consistent with some aspects of Kahanism, in that the Arabs relocate; only in this case it is to a legally declared target country. Such a target country's population would increase in Palestinian favor, rather than what would occur in being sent to a random country. Thus Palestinians would at least get the benefit of increased political power from this forced exile than what they currently have in the West Bank.
  

• The Saudi Plan calls for a Palestinian Right of Return whereby the goal is possibly to overwhelm the Jewish population of Israel with an influx of many immigrants of Palestinian descent, who have been living in Arab lands since either 1967 or as far back as 1949. The ultimate result would be to vote in a Hamas like government over the entire state of Israel, not just Gaza. The Saudi plan, therefore, is consistent with terrorism. ...If there should be a Palestinian Right of Return, it must be decided upon by Israelis, all Israelis. Jew and Arab alike. The Friedlander Plan allows for this debate as to whether there should be further Palestinian immigration in the future, but the Saudi plan attempts to prejudge, preempt, forestall and force dangerous and economically destructive immigration practices down Israel's collective throat. Saudi Arabia could become a force for peace in the future, but this current plan of theirs doesn't come close to fulfilling that role.
  

Thus out of all the plans reviewed, the Friedlander Peace Plan sounds like the most fair and therefore the best plan of all of these. It seems to be the most consistent with true American values, and therefore should be the selected vehicle of American Foreign Policy towards the Palestinian issue. I recommend that all parties involved adopt this plan immediately.