Two states, one Holy Land: A potential framework for Middle East peace

[oberliner]

Excerpt:

The Declaration of Principles, so optimistically signed on the White House lawn in September 1993, proclaimed as its goal a “historic reconciliation” between the two peoples.

Today, even optimists seem to hope only for a definitive separation of the two peoples behind high walls and fences.

Can Israelis and Palestinians really do no better than this?

Might it not still be possible to blend the practical and psychological preferences of both peoples for a two-state solution with some of the best aspects of a humane one-state solution to produce a vision of a possible future so bright and appealing that both Israelis and Palestinians would be inspired to act on their hopes and dreams rather than their memories and fears and to seize this future together and make it a reality?

Sharing the Holy Land is not a zero-sum game in which any development advantageous to one side must be disadvantageous to the other. One can envisage a society in which, by separating political and voting rights from economic, social and residential rights in a negotiated settlement, both the legitimate national aspirations of Palestinians and the legitimate security interests of Israelis could be simultaneously satisfied.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=31&article_id=119690#axzz11rwVajLN

And the last paragraph:

Israelis, Palestinians and the true friends of both must now resist the temptation to despair, raise their sights and pursue a compelling vision of a society so much better than the status quo that both Israelis and Palestinians are inspired to accept in their hearts and minds that peace is both desirable and attainable, that the Holy Land can be shared, that a winner-take-all approach produces only losers, that both Israelis and Palestinians must be winners or both will continue to be losers and that there is a common destination at which both peoples would be satisfied to arrive and to live together.

[ConsAreLiars]

1. Thanks for posting that.

The writer has really tried to think out of the box (-ed in zero sum game-playing). I'd like to see some of this as an alternative path. Obvious problems are the proposal that Palestinians (other than Police), but not Israelis, would all be disarmed and only Israel will be allowed an army. Increased tyranny would be the predictable consequence. And probably the hoped for result.

But an interesting read. Some of the ideas re: undivided Jerusalem should be added into the talks, even though the author sees moving embassies there from Tel Aviv as his main selling point.

(edit phrasing)

edit further to add:

The following is the full of his Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_V._Whitbeck :

John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer based in Jedda, Saudi Arabia. He writes about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often from the Palestinian viewpoint, and "has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel".<1> He is also an adviser to various Fatah committees that negotiate on a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since 1988 his articles on behalf of Middle East peace have been published more than 450 times in more than 70 Arab, Israeli, and international newspapers, magazines, journals and books.<2>

On June 21, 2001, Whitbeck was given a four year suspension from practicing law because of the money laundering he engaged for his employer, a Saudi Arabian company.<3><4>

[LeftishBrit]

2. Very interesting.

This is the sort of solution I would favour if it could be arranged - but it would need a lot of effort and goodwill, and plenty on both sides would try to sabotage it.