[Note: I originally posted this “proposal” in a thread on the temporary board. Due to shenanigans of the original poster, C K Dexter Haven closed the thread, but only after beginning to shred my proposal. Since the thread was closed, I had no chance to debate its merits. Since then, I have been assured that my post did not lead to the closing of the thread.]
Before I begin, let me say that I am not particularly educated on the issues, having learned more from the SDMB than anywhere else. I’m sure many will claim that I am simply naive - and perhaps rightly so (I have little evidence to refute such an argument). But in the interest of finding some solution to a complicated problem, I feel compelled to put it out there and argue its merits.
First I should point out a few key assumptions that lead me to this proposal:
-
The violence and “issues” do not just affect Palestinians and Israelis. It affects the entire world. The violence and hatred spills over into other countries and cultures. We all have a vested interest in solving the problem (even an American of Irish descent, like myself).
-
While roots of the conflict may go back centuries, the recent trouble started with the creation of the state of Israel following WWII. The UN, and the US in particular, had a significant hand in helping create the political landscape of the creation of Israel (and most of western Europe benefited from the Marshall plan at the same time).
So here is the proposal in a nutshell. Israel takes control of the occupied territories. Palestinians in the those territories are compensated handsomely for the land/improvements or simply because they exist there. Neighboring countries must allocate land equivalent to the occupied territories (existing landowners/occupiers are compensated). No Palestinian state exists.
And now for some more details. The occupied territories predominantly fall into three areas, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Syria contributes land equal to the land of the Golan Heights, inside Syria’s existing borders (a possible compromise here is to annex the Golan Heights into Syria or Jordan). Jordan contributes land equal to the land of the West Bank. Egypt contributes land equivalent to the Gaza Strip on the Sinai pennisula. Preferably, each contributed land mass is local and equivalent in “livability”.
Owners (or occupiers/rights holders/whatever) in the “new” territories are compensated at fair market value plus expenses to relocate (if they so choose, read further). Palestinians in the occupied territories are compensated well beyond fair market value, perhaps 5x to 10x, plus relocation expenses. The “new” territories are “improved” with new infrastructure (roads, sewage systems, water treatment, housing, etc). Syria, Jordan, and Egypt are also compensated a negotiated amount for their land contributions.
Palestinians are guaranteed comparable space in the comparable “new” territories. But they can take their new found wealth and do with it whatever they choose to do (funny, if they have alot money, lots of other places may be willing to take them in, perhaps they may even stay in Israel).
Now, your asking about where all this money comes from, right? Well, some of it from your pocket. Some from Israel. Some from Saudi Arabia and other local Arab/Persian countries not directly participating in the land swaps. And from European Union countries. I haven’t run the math, but a few tens of billions is my expectation. I would be interested in any “back of the envelope” calculations someone would care to offer. I would expect Israel to contribute only the fair market value of the land in the occupied territories, plus a proportionate share (based on population) of the remainder. US, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and others would be expected to contribute the balance in an amount proportionate to population. Some countries, that truly have little or nothing to do with this, could be excluded completely (such as most sub-African nations, South and Central America, China, etc.)
And finally, Jerusalem. Jerusalem would become an international city, not governed by Israel. A new model of such a city would have to be developed, but the city-state would be governed under international supervision (UN perhaps), that guarantees historical preservation, access to all religious pilgrims, and extra tight security. Isrealis in Jerusalem would have the right to receive fair market compensation to relocate outside the new city-state, if they so choose. Palestinians would be eligible for the same compensation as those in the occupied territories (5x to 10x fair market value). Think of this as “imminent domain” on a very large scale.
Israel gets their country with some expectations of peace. Palestinians do not get their own country or homeland, but do get the opportunity to live in a muslim nation, and would be well compensated for their pain and suffering. The rest of the World would have to sacrifice a big chunk of money to buy peace.
Alright, so what is wrong with this plan? Expensive? Sure, but the status quo is also costing us billions. Logistical nightmare? Perhaps, but at least more plausible than a nuclear attack on Jerusalem (note: this was a reference to a “proposed solution” in the original OP on the temporary board).
The biggest problem I see is that the Israelis would be jealous of the compensation paid to the Palestinians under this plan. To that, I say tough, you got your country and your security, shut up.
Like I said - I’m no expert. I’ve never been to Israel or any of the surrounding countries, so I have no insight to any geographic issues. But I would love to understand what would make this unworkable.