Friday, July 24, 2009

Middle East Peace Plan Comparison Chart

Well, they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so perhaps I can save us all a lot of time and effort by displaying an illustration of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan in relation to the other famous peace plan ideas out there.

Just click on the image below to enhance the size and once you do, it is formatted to print in landscape orientation, so you'll have to select landscape before printing to get the whole image on a single sheet of paper.

Explanation of the Questionable remarks
1) Rabbi Elon's Plan depends on the Kingdom of Jordan to enhance those civil rights, so it's a question mark whether that is an improvement or not. It can be argued either way, which may not be a good sign.
2) The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace depend on a cessation of further conflict which sadly those plans do not guarantee, merely a separation, a permanent segregation of peoples is guaranteed. That does not ensure the ability to, for example, to build a new road in Israel next to a strategic kind of hill that would be given to the Arabs. If security right at the border is not guaranteed, how peaceful is such a plan?


I took six of the most essential aspects contributing towards the long term viability of true peace in the Middle East and showed that only Everyone Wins is a sure path to peace.

If these score were grades in a school. All other plans except the Elon plan would fail. With the Israeli Initiative/Rabbi Elon plan getting a "D" at best. The Oslo Accords and the Roadmap to Peace have pathetic levels of long term viability, significantly lower than even Rabbi Kahane's peace plan which Israelis rejected a couple decades ago as even being an option. The Kahane plan breaks even at the 50 percent level of long term viability, in my estimation.

Of these plans mentioned it would seem that only Everyone Wins is a sure plan and path to peace.

May it soon be so, by the grace of God.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Land For Peace Is Reward For Belligerence

I have mentioned before my rejection of the concept of land for peace as not only not leading to peace but actually being a fuel to the fire of terrorism. This concept applies equally to avoiding war when seeking peace with belligerent foreign nations as well.

Reuters today printed
an article on Israeli National Security Adviser Uzi Arad's take on Syria and the annexed Golan Heights:
"If there is a territorial compromise, it is one that still leaves Israel on the Golan Heights and deep into the Golan Heights," Arad said, noting also the plateau's water resources.

Let's remember some of the contemporary history of the Golan Heights. On April 24, 1920 The Golan was declared a part of the Jewish Homeland by the Balfour Declaration's Mandate For Palestine (Palestine back then referred to Jews more often than Arabs). A couple years later due to political pressures of the time, Britain cut off Trans-Jordan and the Golan from the land West of the River Jordan (Which included all Green Line Israel, West Bank and Gaza). The Jews did not like this, but accepted this for the sake of preserving their rights to at least some of the land. This proved to be a bad precedent as Britain again began to whittle away at the "gift" they were preparing to give Israel until they gave only half of Green Line Israel.

If you find someone's property and return it to them, is it really a gift? If someone found your lost collection of expensive watches and returned only one would you merely be grateful or ask where the other watches were?

After various Syrian attempts to illegally interfere with Israel's water supply during the 1960s, in 1967 Syria threatened to attack Israel using the Golan as a launching ground even before the Six Day War began. Israel later won the Golan in the war. Israel deliberated long and hard, until 1981 before annexing the Golan. Israel depended on it too much, and Syria, frankly, no longer deserved it.

My question is what has changed since then? The new Assad is more verbally abusive against Israel than his violent father was. That's all that's changed.

While PM Netanyahu is opposed to territorial compromise of the Golan, a year ago, Syrian head Assad considered the possibility of some territory remaining in Israeli hands, whether or not that is the current stated foreign policy of Syria. It is important to openly express support for Bibi's policy of no territorial compromise on the Golan so that it is clear to everyone that Israel, not just Bibi, is unwilling to support laying the foundation of a new war in the Middle East.

In further comments published on Friday, Arad said he could not rule out some form of Palestinian state emerging in the next few years -- he mentioned 2015 -- but said that it would be a "fragile structure. A house of cards."

Message to PM Netanyahu. If you and your staff believe that a Palestinian state would be unstable, then why pursue a Palestinian state at all when there are safer ways out there? As I mentioned earlier, the current stated plan for peace with the Arab Palestinian refugees is a prescription for a subsequent war. Your people need you to stand strong.

Friday, July 3, 2009

Peace in the Middle East: Everyone Wins

The following is the main text of the missive that was sent to Benjamin Netanyahu four months ago. My thanks for the e-mail that Major General, US Army Ret., Paul E. Vallely sent to Bibi on my behalf. I received e-mail confirmation from Bibi's staff back in March that it was handed to Bibi himself, who sent his personal thanks to me, but no further comment was given at that time.

I only mention this at this time in order to enable the readership to better understand where I am coming from so perhaps you could be better inspired by Heaven to offer suggestions that may help us find a common ground between the current Israeli peace initiative and the plan that Hashem/God gave me, so that we may find that one elusive yet perfect path to world peace that the Lord has promised to bring to mankind.

* * * * *

Peace in the Middle East: Everyone Wins
By Alan Friedlander

In pursuit of a peace plan to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, we need to find something that ends not only the causes of conflict but also ends the foundations of terrorism. The "Oslo Accords" have failed to bring peace, only pseudo legitimacy to the PLO.

The current peace initiative, the "Roadmap to Peace" is little more than a roadmap to roadblocks and has only succeeded in giving pseudo legitimacy to Fatah and a terrorist haven to Hamas. Not surprising, the efforts by the political left wing to evict innocent Israeli Jews from their homes seemingly for the sake and lone true benefit of unrepentant terrorists has elicited a stronger reaction than ever before from the political right to instead evict West Bank Palestinian Arabs from their homes. The tit for tat cycle does not end on the path that current American Foreign Policy travels. The further the Roadmap is pursued, the deeper entrenched animosities will grow, bringing the conflict closer to the prospect of resolution being possible exclusively by full scale war.

The time is ripe for Change. Change from the failed policies of a bygone era, to a true path towards regional conflict resolution. First let's create a wish list of the goals of the new path to peace.

The Ten Commandments of an Ideal Peace Plan:

  1. To secure an end to terrorist armies within a stone's throw of Israeli cities.
  2. To maintain West Bank and Gaza Palestinian Arabic control of their cities
  3. Allow Palestinian Arabs the retention of their homes.
  4. To allow Israeli settlers to keep their homes as well.
  5. Free Palestinian Arabs in the short term from terrorist police and long term from refugee camps.
  6. Maintains Israel's military control over all the land and resources West of the Jordan River.
  7. Guarantee freedom of religious access to non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, etc.) to ancient and historic holy sites.
  8. Eventually allow West Bank and Gaza Palestinians to join their cousin Israeli Arabs within the "Green Line" by also having a right to vote in the State of Israel.
  9. Not to overwhelm Israeli's economy or infrastructure, nor significantly alter electorate configuration to give unfair advantage to naturalized Arabs and risk disruption of the entire democratic process.
  10. Put an end to the unhealthy segregationist environment that both sides are currently caught up in.

Effecting Real Change

The peace plan alternative must be as moderate and evenhanded as possible without ignoring the key needs of Israel, external and internal security, and religious freedom in order to be a politically viable option.

Everyone Wins

The "Everyone Wins" Peace Plan requires the tying of West Bank/Gaza Arabic naturalization rates to the immigration rates of foreign born Jews. Whereas previous one state solutions called for relocating masses of people, this plan calls for no segregation whatsoever. Nobody has to give up their homes, neither Jews nor Arabs (except for terrorists and those who support them). Palestinians slowly but surely become complete Israelis without overwhelming the Israeli economy and infrastructure.

The key to making this work is twofold. First: Setting the categorization of the level of security risk of each naturalization applicant. The ones who are at zero risk are immediately placed in cue and await a corresponding number of immigrants to raise enough quota to allow them entry as naturalized Israelis. Second: Setting a fair and an appropriate ratio. If current demographics in Israel are that 15% of Israelis are Arabs, then the ratio could be set at 15%. That is, for every 100 immigrants, 15 West Bank and Gaza Arabs who are not a threat are allowed in. So if in a given year there are 100,000 Jewish immigrants, 15,000 friendly Arabs would naturalize.

Once true peace exists, I would expect that Jewish immigration will likely increase by no less than 300% of current rates. Plus financial stability and growth will be at unheard of levels. The ability to power infrastructure growth and the greater Jewish immigration numbers will allow a corresponding expansion of the Arabic naturalization process that is at the core of this solution. Israel can thereby naturalize more Arabs faster and safer than currently possible. Thus the entire conflict will come to an end that much sooner, by the grace of God.

By implementing the principles of my Everyone Wins Peace Plan the Israeli government can find a single and straight path towards peace. If you agree, then we must be prepared to shout out loud and clear in support of the peace plan that seems to be the most consistent with the will of God and the needs of humankind, no matter how simple its author may be.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Preliminary SWOT Analysis of the PM's Plan

The Prime Minister must answer what is the extent of Palestinian Independence in his plan under International Law before his plan can even be called an option. Resolving all the internal strife between Israelis and West Bank and Gaza refugees is wonderful. But increasing the potential for external strife (regional war) is not a peace plan.

I am not trying to nor trying to encourage a rushing to judgment against the duly elected Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Perhaps after the Iranian issue becomes more calm than it is today, it will become easier for news agencies to receive clear communication on this matter from the PM's office and also the PM's office will have more time to present the current peace plan with all its nooks, crannies and variations to the public.

Yet, I cannot remain silent, even as I wish I could. Silence can be a sin in such a circumstance. Hopefully, the PM will accept my words for their good intent, as the Holy Sages of the Talmud said, "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone."(Avos/Ethics of the Fathers 4:1) My concern over saying nothing is that there should be open debate and honest discussion, and consequently also the potential opportunity to perfect any peace plan that is presented.

In academic circles, generally scholars humbly send in their thesis papers to other co-practitioners of their trade for assessment. Or, as in my case, nowadays scholars who are pressed for time can at least create a blog such as this one to discuss the matter and allow some sort of public review and chance to receive criticism. By denying the possibility of any real critical review, previous peace deals fell apart as their underlying theories were untested until it was too late, when it was time to actually put them into practice. So my public critique of the PM is not an effort to defame him in any manner, but to put even my very critique of his plan to the test so that I can offer even better quality aid to him the next time I open my mouth, pen, or computer. While my reverence for his office is present, the greater calling is to do the will of God and the needs of humanity, and so I comment thusly.

As the revealed aspects of his plan, as per the text that I have received so far, have been a bit sketchy, here then is a very preliminary SWOT Analysis of PM Netanyahu's peace plan (but really this sort of appraisal is for the Prime Minister's office or the Foreign Ministry to run via an objective agency or think tank and then communicate to the public when toting their plan)...

  • The PM's plan ends the dangers of missiles firing at Israeli cities.
  • It ends the dangers of roving bands of terrorists destroying holy sites such as happened with the Tomb of Joseph.
  • It increases the economic welfare of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians Arabs.

  • It keeps the noses of the nations in Israel's business. Does any Israeli like this status? If the (non terroristic) Palestinians were all absorbed into Israel instead, it would be an internal matter under International Law and an end to external interference. Such independence is a good place for an open democracy like Israel to be in. The plan was supposed to resolve this, but in my opinion it does not cover all potentialities.
  • It creates a veil of immunity to the just prosecution of terrorists based in the West Bank and Gaza that their Arab brethren inside Israel do not have.
  • It has an element of bias, as it creates an artificial limit on where Jews are allowed to settle in their historic homeland. Israel set no such limits on Arabs within the Green Line, so Jews on the other side of the Green Line should enjoy at least the same courtesy and rights as Israeli Arabs do.

  • It can remove a huge monkey off the back of the State of Israel that is impeding its finding an economic and prestigious place among the nations of the world.

  • War.
  • Perpetual international interference in internal Israeli affairs.
  • Consequently the monkey actually remains on the back with people scratching heads and asking why. Thus the opportunities that the PM's plan offers, as I have heard it, while well meaning are fallacious in character.

So, it appears to me that Bibi and his administration have come up with a sincere and strong peace plan that in its current form may begin nicely, yet does not address all of the present and pending issues in its wake, and thus creates a false sense of opportunity where, unfortunately, none exists.

I urge the Prime Minister to reread the letter that I sent him four months ago concerning the Everyone Wins Peace Plan and consider incorporating some elements therein to his plan in order, by the grace of God, to enrich and strengthen the chance for true and lasting peace.