|
|
| Today is: Wednesday the 8th of Sep 2010 |
|
|
|
| Peace in the Middle East. Here |
| Published 15 Oct 2008 20:14 |
| Updated 15 Oct 2008 20:21 |
|
Peace in Middle East: the News-Debate plan
Sponsored by Ozonology: Replacing germs with Oxygen
Author’s note –please read
Please read this through carefully and with an open mind.
This paper has only one aim: to move on the debate around the primary Middle East problem, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and to present an alternative vision that might catch the imagination leading to a peace breakthrough.
Over the last half-century no answer has emerged on how to solve this problem. Whereas it is almost impossible to find the course which will lead to lasting peace, it is very easy to see which course will make finding peace much more difficult. Despite this knowledge, this is precisely the path which has constantly and repeatedly been followed. Simply; if you hope to stop rockets and stones raining on your children, don’t kill other people’s children, their parents, their brothers and sisters. If you want peace, give peace to others. Of course it’s easy to say but when emotions are running high after burying your child, people don’t react logically.
So we are at the difficult impasse. There is no trust, only hatred. No dialogue, only fighting. No hope, only misery.
This proposal may not be the perfect answer but it might be the best available. Significantly, it is different to the many failed road maps of the past. It throws another option into the mix in the hope that the stumbling blocks become irrelevant.
No doubt it will divide opinion. Expressing any view on this subject brings accusations of favouring one side or another, anger and possibly hatred. I hope people keep their emotions in check, and see this paper for what it is: a neutral attempt to stem the bloodshed and bring peace, prosperity and happiness to a troubled region. No offence is intended and no one should feel angry, even if they completely disagree.
This paper needs to be read completely and in detail otherwise the crux of it can be missed. Just read it carefully and then think about it.
Introduction
This is the solution to the Middle East’s long standing Israeli-Palestinian dispute. This is different to the usual type or ‘roadmap to peace’ solutions. This recognises that Israel is in such a strong position that it is unlikely to give up much. It also recognises that the Palestinians need to be given something so worthwhile that a clear and overwhelming majority of people are very satisfied with the settlement. And even those who aren’t very satisfied still think it reasonable.
This solution recognises these seemingly contradictory desires and moves on.
Some assumptions have been made.
Firstly, all people involved love their children so much that if it could be demonstrated that their children can be safe, educated, and healthy, have prospects, jobs and the potential for a good life; they might look past their painful memories and move on. The key word here is ‘demonstrate’. There is so much distrust that no one will believe words only. This solution is able to demonstrate intention AND can be started without a trust-building ceasefire – because that never lasts.
The other assumption is that land which has been developed is worth more and is more desirable than less developed land. In other words people will prefer to live in Singapore than, say, Sudan. So the size of a Palestinian state might be small but if is highly developed than it is also highly desirable.
However good the plan might be, it is still nothing compared to execution of the plan. This means the focus and emphasis should be on executing, the means to achieving, rather than the plan itself. This cannot be stressed enough. The most obvious example to the contrary is the US-UK invasion-occupation of Iraq. Although possibly illegal and wrong in so many ways, none of this would have mattered if it was done in the right way. If the occupation was managed properly and achieved dramatically different results, even those disagreeing with it would have become silent.
In Iraq, if law and order was achieved with infrastructure and economic benefits. If corruption was modest and economic benefits great. If the occupation was similar to Japan after WW2, then Iraq and the status of those which led the invasion would be very different to what it is today. The lesson here is the importance of detail, thorough planning and management.
The solution
The solution is to persuade people of another country to swap a proportion of their land for massive infrastructure improvements. Also, by offering Palestinian people a vision of a healthy, safe and prosperous life by migrating into this vacated land also with massive infrastructure developments. The donor country might be one of a few; an African country or Lebanon or another. However, it needs to be a reasonably well run, preferably a democracy. For the purposes of this article, I use Lebanon because it holds some unique attractions. It is geographically closer, it has similar weather, and familiarity as a neighbour. And since the donor country will benefit greatly, this is also an opportunity for Lebanon to put its troubles and divisions behind it.
This plan has the potential for massively escalating the existing troubles. If it is done wrongly the Middle East could be on fire like never before. But as I have already said the magic is in the execution. Crucially, the plans rest on all people concerned overwhelmingly approving in a referendum. The details on executing the plan are outlined below.
Donor Country
This proposition could be very attractive to many poor & impoverished countries; although since good governance is a requirement, maybe less attractive to some leaders. Nevertheless, once this plan gets publicised there should be 3 or 4 countries which want to be considered as potential donors.
One way to narrow down interested countries is by looking at how easy it would be to clear a sizeable portion for a possible future Palestinian state. The area needs to be fully cleared, willingly and happily, with generous settlements for people needing relocation. The clearing should be made immediately after the donor country has been selected, as any hiccups here (people unwilling to move) after the project has started, could derail the whole plan.
Once a donor country has been chosen, the task starts to persuade the vast majority of the people that sacrificing a percentage of their land will be beneficial and transform their lives for the better. By giving them infrastructure such as an airports (maybe in the sea); bullet trains criss-crossing the country, new roads, underground metro in cities, hospitals, schools, universities, parks, and optical fibre covering the country to provide every person the fastest broadband in the world. Good housing, good jobs, good health and good opportunities.
People would benefit from free education, training and health care. Good jobs would be created with enterprise help. Governance, laws, regulations and taxation would be light enough to promote wealth, but strong enough to spread wealth and create a fair and just society.
In short, the people of the donor country would get a rich and highly developed country albeit with smaller land area. The model would be something like Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
The people from the donor country would have to be overwhelmingly convinced and need to vote in a referendum 75% in favour. This is to avoid having a situation where people feel pushed and impotent. It’s this type of scenario that can sow the seeds for discontent leading to terrorism. Terrorism only needs a few extremist individuals to exist, but a sizeable chunk of the population need to help and approve for terror to be sustained and grow. So by seeking a 75% approval, the threat of terrorism jeopardising the peace solution is kept to a minimum.
The only way to even get near 75% approval is to demonstrate what they will get. Words are simply not enough; they need to see a sample of the infrastructure improvements which can be expected.
Persuading the people
The debates start in both the donor country and West Bank-Gaza, about whether this is a solution or a cynical land grab by Israel and the West. It needs to be made absolutely clear that (a) this scheme won’t proceed unless it has overwhelming public support on each side and (b) a sample of the benefits will be available before any decision is expected via a public referendum.
The sample construction could be a hospital, a few schools, bullet train line between two prominent destinations and maybe even an airport.
The sample project will take a number of years to complete. No doubt an intense debate will continue. As always with a big change, people tend to be reluctant. Fear takes a hold; will they loose what they already have rather than gain? They feel that their views and feelings will be ignored or misrepresented. These are natural feelings, but will subside with time when they see the sample construction coming to fruition. The 75% threshold should also reassure doubters. And spur on supporters to actively champion it for fear the threshold may not be reached.
Similar campaign and debate will take place in the Palestinian territories. Here also needs to be emphasised the 75% support requirement, and even then those who don’t want to go, can stay behind. They can visit the new Palestine before deciding. Only incentives can be used and should they still want to remain, they can. No punishment or force will be used; this is no Bantuland exercise. Those who want to remain will become citizens of Israel, and be expected to enjoy the responsibilities and privileges like every other citizen.
As the construction starts of sample projects, plans will be drawn for all the development. Public consultation will start, finance arranged, and contracts advertised. These can take place for both the donor country and the new Palestinian state.
Construction
The so-called reconstruction in Iraq shows how not to do things. When people - taxpayers - who are funding the construction and prospective voters in the crucial referendum see blatant profiteering or corruption, they will lose confidence in the plan, fatally undermining it. Furthermore, since this is going to be a very expensive project, profiteering will take the costs into stratosphere, again undermining and probably killing the project.
All construction has to be costed with such accuracy; the project will be delivered cheaply and on budget, with bidding open and fully transparent. We want to bring work, enterprise, prosperity, and happiness to the area. Therefore local people need to be given priority for the jobs and need to limit the amount of money which can leave the country. The money pumped in largely remains and circulates locally.
Costs
There is no doubt all this infrastructure building will be very expensive. Although, if the aims are all met, it also will be cheap. What savings could be made with the Middle-East at peace?
However when savings are made, someone loses out and if there are many losers and they are powerful enough, they could present this project with a big hurdle. To minimise this scenario, funding needs to be wide and shallow.
One possible way to fund this is with US$ 0.10 per gallon fuel duty for G8 countries and $2 from the price of barrel of oil from the 10 richest oil-producing countries. Since the plan will take about 10 years to implement, these measures should fund it without it affecting the average person in the contributing countries. Over time savings due to peace and prosperity will filter down and actually reimburse all costs.
Conclusion
Throughout history people have migrated to other lands in search of peace and prosperity. This is not a new idea, except maybe in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It may not be the perfect answer or the fair answer. But if migration is managed with care, thoughtfulness, and sensitivity, it might be the best available answer.
Some people may say, what does Israel ‘pay’ in return for peace and ultimate control of all present Palestinian lands. If the Palestinians are asked to move to another country, what is asked from the Israelis?
Firstly, the Palestinians are not asked to move. They are shown a doorway to peace, prosperity, security, and a life of opportunity and hope. They are offered incentives but they have a choice to go or stay.
Secondly, Israel is in a position of strength. This plan, uniquely, acknowledges this. Israel may pay for the sample projects, without certainty what the results of the referenda might be.
With this plan everybody wins. Some may gain more than others, but people need to look at what is best for themselves, their family and their children, rather than what other people are gaining.
The new Palestine would have much better infrastructure than Israel. With free health and education, numerous bullet trains, motorways, city underground trains and mega-fast optic fibre internet criss-crossing the country. The opportunities and enterprise afforded with this could make Palestine a fantastically prosperous country within a generation. Much more so than Israel.
I have deliberately ignored the contentious issue of Jerusalem, hoping that people could look beyond it, towards the greater goal. Maybe Israel could offer easy tourist visas for Jerusalem after, say, a decade of peace.
They did it in Northern Ireland, they did it in post-apartheid South Africa and it can be done here. If people can move past retribution, a new era can dawn. It just needs courage and optimism, walking together towards the framework of peace built on this plan.
Copyright by Ash Nehmet
This article can be expanded into a book. Interested publishers contact: n.ash@usa.net
Author is available for interview by media organisations.
This article is sponsored by Ozonology: Replacing germs with Oxygen www.ozonology.co.uk
See also: Proqul Ozone Store
The sponsors neither agree nor disagree with the articles contents or opinion. They only help to provide a forum for discussion of ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| << Back |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amistad Opinion
Proqul OZONE Store