Proposed Peace Plan to the Israeli / Palestinian Conflict (r.5)

A Bridge for the World   

– Proposed Peace Plan to  the Israeli / Palestinian Conflict

Separate Palestinian State

Jerusalem will be the capital for both Israel and Palestine.

Jerusalem will become a city-state. 

A city-state is an independent country whose territory consists solely of a single major city and the area immediately surrounding it. The term “city-state” should not be confused with “independent city”, which refers to a city which is not administered as part of another local government.

Whereas the nation-states rely on a common cultural heritage, be it linguistic, historical, religious, economic, etc., the city-state relies on the common interest in the function of the urban center.  The urban center and its activity supplies the livelihoods of all urbanites
inhabiting the city-state.

Jerusalem will be divided as allotted in the 1947 UN Partition Plan -Resolution 181(II). The City of Jerusalem shall include the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Adu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem; the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu’fat.

The General Assembly also recommended that the City of Jerusalem be placed under a special international regime, a corpus separatum, outside both states; this was to preserve peace, given the unique spiritual and religious interests in the city among the world’s three great monotheistic religions: “in view of its association with three world religions” to be “accorded special and separate treatment”.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, 11 December 1948 established a United Nations Conciliation Commission and reaffirmed this statement. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 303 confirmed the decision to place Jerusalem under a permanent international regime according to the provisions of General Assembly Resolution 181(II).  Note: the resolution states that a transitional period under UN auspices was to begin with the adoption of the resolution and last until establishment of the two states; given the creation of the two states the UN auspices would begin and end.

  1. Egypt will agree to release all property rights to the North Sinai Governorate and Sount Sinai Governorate (60,714 km2 (23,446 sq mi).
  2. US will agree to raise aid to Egypt; to assist in the aid of a new democracy (for a period of time).
  3. The Noth and South Sinai Governorates will become the new Palestine.
  4. Palestine will be divided proportionately to all the Palestinian people, including any and all refugees; the existing Bedouin population and all people that chose to remain living in the former Sinai Governorates.
  5. Palestine will be initially governed by the existing Palestinian Authority; free elections to be expedited.
  6. Palestine will agree to release any claim to all territories, other the specified territories of Jerusalem, which were allotted them in the UN Partition Plan of 1948.              
  7. US will agree to aid Palestine in an amount equal to or greater than 35% of the aid it provides to Israel, initial major contributions to
    repartition efforts of the Palestinian people
    .
  8. US will agree to commit to the immediate and most effective economic and agricultural growth in Palestine (i.e., Sharm-el-Sheikh, Taba, El Arish/Zaraniq).
  9. Israel and Palestine will agree that their border will be the existing western border of Israel (an almost straight line from Rafah on the Mediterranean shore to Taba on the Gulf of Aqaba).
  10. Israel and Lebanon will agree that their border will begin at the Hasbani River and follow the Blue Line (published by the United Nations
    on 7 June 2000).
  11. Israel and Syria will agree that their border will begin at the Hasbani River, from the Lebanon border to the Jordan River tributary, and then follow the Jordan River south; dividing the Sea of Galilee evenly.
  12. Jordan will agree to fully compensate all Palestinian refugees, for their existing properties in Jordan, who wish to repatriate to Palestine.
  13. US will agree to raise aid to Jordon, Lebanon and Syria by 35%.
  14. Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria will agree to a peaceful co-existence under these terms, given full support by the
    US and fully sponsored by any nation or other elected body or party.

A previous proposal mentioning a new state (separate area)

The Elon Peace Plan (now “The Israeli Initiative”, formerly “The Right Road to Peace”) is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict originally proposed in 2002 by
Rabbi Binyamin Elon, who was the Israeli tourism minister at the time he put forward the proposal. The plan advocates the formal annexation of West Bank and Gaza by Israel, and, originally, the Palestinians becoming citizens of a new Palestinian state in Jordan. Elon and Moledet (Elon’s party and the chief supporter of this plan) proposed that “Israel, the United States and the international community will allocate resources for the completion of the exchange of populations that began in 1948 and the full rehabilitation of the refugees and their absorption and naturalization in various countries”.

Seeing as it concerned the transfer of Palestinians to this hypothetical designated state without their consent, and that Jordan was far from enthusiastic to allocate its own territory for the sake of a Palestinian state (having reneged on its claim to the West Bank and taken away citizenship of the Palestinians living there in 1988), this idea came to be seen as irrelevant by the majority of Israelis and Palestinians. Elon continued to advance his plan, including a 2004 visit to Jordan for this purpose, but did not manage to win
substantial support for it.

General public support for Elon and his plan has been ambiguous. The National Union received 5.5% support on the Israeli legislative election of 2003 (which went up to 7.14% in the 2006 election after the party’s merger with the National Religious Party); a survey conducted by Mutagim in January 2005 showed that public support for the relocation of Palestinians outside of Israel, a tenet of Elon’s original proposal, was about equal to the support of Ariel Sharon’s then soon-to-be-executed unilateral disengagement plan.

Israeli
views of the peace process

There are several Israeli views of the peace process. One Israeli view is that the conflict stems from the 1967 Six Day War and consequently the peace process should stem from this and thus have negotiated on the basis of giving up some control of the occupied territories in return for a stop to the  conflic and violence. Hardliners believe that no territorial concessions should be given to Palestinians and want to maintain an Israeli sovereign state over the whole area it currently occupies,  or if it does negotiate with territory in the peace process only with the Gaza Strip.  Israelis view the peace process as hindered and near impossible due to terrorism on the part of Palestinians and do not trust Palestinian leadership to maintain control.   In fact, Pedahzur goes as far as to say that  suicide terrorism succeeded where peace negotiations failed in encouraging withdrawal by Israelis from cities in the West Bank.  The Oslo Accords and the Camp David 2000 summit negotiations revealed the possibility of a two state system being accepted as a possible peace solution by Israeli leadership.  However the violence of the second intifada has strengthened the resolve that peace and negotiation is not possible and a two state system is not the answer which is further enforced by the coming to power of Hamas.  A common
theme throughout the peace process has been a feeling that the Palestinians ask for too much in their peace demands and offer little in return.

Palestinian
views of the peace process

Palestinians have held diverse views and perceptions of the peace process.
A key starting point for understanding these views is an awareness of the differing objectives sought by advocates of the Palestinian cause. ‘New Historian’ Israeli academic   Ilan Pappe says the cause of the conflict from a Palestinian point of view dates back to
1948 with the creation of Israel (rather than Israel’s views of 1967 being the crucial point and the return of occupied territories being central to peace negotiations), and that the conflict has been a fight to bring home refugees to a Palestinian state. Therefore this for some was the ultimate aim of the peace process and for groups such as Hamas still is. However Slater says that this ‘maximalist’ view of a destruction of Israel in order to regain Palestinian lands, a view held by Arafat and the PLO initially, has steadily moderated from
the late 1960s onwards to a preparedness to negotiate and instead seek a two-state solution.  The Oslo Accords demonstrated the recognition of this acceptance by the then Palestinian leadership of the state of Israel’s right to exist in return for the withdrawal
of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and West Bank.  However there are recurrent themes prevalent throughout peace process negotiations including a feeling that Israel offers
too little and a mistrust of its actions and motives.

The Solution

The territory currently known as the Sinai Peninsula will become Palestine.

Thoughts

Egypt will still retain land one mile east of the Suez Canal.

The Sinai Peninsula had already been taken by Israel (1967), given back in the Camp David Accords (1978).

The Sinai Peninsula has been and will continue to be the land bridge for Africa, Asia and Europe.

A Bridge for the World.

Prior Correspondence:

Tuesday, May 19, 2009:

emailed the first version to The Whitehouse, US State Department and to the Vice President of the United States.

Friday, September 25, 2009:

emailed updated file: A Bridge for the World – Proposed Peace Plan
to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – Michael Ruark (2) 
to the Whitehouse (whitehouse.gov), US State Department (state.gov), Vice President of the US (whitehouse.gov/administration/vice_president_biden), Clinton Global Initiative (clintonglobalinitiative.org) and to the Jimmy Carter Library and Museum (jimmycarterlibrary.gov)

Friday, December 11, 2009

emailed file: United Nations inquiries@un.org; State of Israel (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) sar@mfa.gov.il; Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan JEmbassyDC@jordanembassyus.org; Republic of Lebanon (Embassy) info@lebanonembassyus.org; Palestine National Authority pmc@palestine-pmc.com; Council of Foreign Affairs bgude@cfr.org (on behalf of Hamas and Hezbollah); Sinai Bedouin population info@sheikhsalemhouse.com

Sunday, December 13, 2009

emailed file: The Arab Republic of Egypt webmaster@ad.gov.eg, Syrian Arab Republic info@syrembassy.net, consular@syrianembassy.us; Palestine National Authoritymenawb@gov.psenvironment@gov.ps

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

emailed updated file: A Bridge for the World – Proposed Peace Plan to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – Michael Ruark (4) to: comments@whitehouse.gov; president@whitehouse.gov; u.s.state.gov@usa.com; vice.president@whitehouse.gov; info@clintonglobalinitiative.org; inquiries@un.org; sar@mfa.gov.il; KJEmbassyDC@jordanembassyus.org; info@lebanonembassyus.org;
pmc@palestine-pmc.com; bgude@cfr.org; info@sheikhsalemhouse.com;
webmaster@ad.gov.eg; info@syrembassy.net; consular@syrianembassy.us; menawb@gov.ps; environment@gov.ps

Friday, July 27, 2012

emailed updated file: A Bridge for the World – Proposed Peace Plan to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict – Michael Ruark (5) to:

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s