Peace Plan: Trading settler Israelis for refugee Palestinians

Haaretz does not take Ray Hanania seriously. Mr. Bradley Burston does. Or, more precisely, seems to. Neither he nor Moshe Arens is Haaretz.

although i dont agree with the solution given but what realy pained me was the last lines that said new generation have come and old passed and we cant simply tear them down so why were palestinians torn down? why were they expelled from their homes? didn't you think that time that these people are settled for centuries and we cant simply tear them down and should forget the false proposition of Israel.its true today isn't 1948 but you all remember we even go beyond 1948 we want to see the palestine of pre balfour declaration and we wil remake palestinians history from the same time. jews are very small in number and they can be easily accomodated in europe and USA and we muslim can give one concession that european and us govt can expell muslim immigrant from their countries to settle jews of Israel.

The history of how e got here is no longer relevant as pointed out by Ray Hanania. As long as we keep dwelling on what took place in 1948 and 1967 in order to determine who is "right" we will not achieve piece. The reality is that most of the people who were involved then are no longer with us and we are dealing with real existing people and real lives today. Neither side should have the sins of their fathers placed on their heads and both sides should be able to hope for a better future which can only be achieved by eliminating the conflict. This plan has merit given the situation on the ground today. It leaves the control of how many Arabs and how much land to exchange essentially to Israel to decide. I believe that it may be one of the few ways to really move forward and resolve what will otherwise continue to be dangerous and unfair situation for the real people on both sides who just want to live their lives and give their children a better opportunity than they had.

Even though I have some reservations for Ray Hanania's peace plan lets face it. If all Arab countries declare official acceptance of this plan including PLO and Hamas Israely voters will make it reality. Netanyahu would have 2 choices either accept it or step down from his office.

Accomodate your Arab refugees just like Jews accomodated threir refugees in Israel.

Who is a Palestinian Refugee?According to the Arabs millions,because not only do they count the Arabs that were born in British Mandate Palestine but those that immigrated there as well and their relatives are also considered Refugees and so on.So children and grandchildren born in Egypt,Jordan,Syria or any country are counted as Refugees even if their relative was only a migrant worker that was not born in British Mandate Palestine but lived there for a time.This definition is corrupt, abusive and meant only to perpetuate the conflict.If the Arabs want to seriously have peace they must deal in good faith.The common definition of refugee is someone born in a land and forced to leave,its not his descendants and not migrants.The few thousand remaining old men and women that are truly refugees should be well compensated or resettled in Arab territory and the same with the Jewish refugees.The world should keep to one standard even regarding conflicts against the Jewish people.

Really? Then how come you don't object when those "Israeli Arabs" build illegal settlements? Hows your illegal house going, by the way? You know- the one on indigenous Australian land?

This is just... smart.

Nearly half a million Palestinian refugees being offered home and citizenship in the Jewish state, against the same number of Jews applying for Palestinian citizenship. Surely the glorious culmination of the great Zionist dream - and a brilliant achievement of the daring enterprise that began with Moshe Levinger holding a Seder at the Park Hotel, Hebron, March 1968, an adventure for the success of which thousands of Israeli lives have been sacrificed, and has cost Israel tens of billion dollars.

Let's accept Mr. Hanania plan as a starting point for dicussion: 1. ~600 000 Jews- refugees from Arab contries plus their collective losses. plus their descendents. The total number is to be "exchanged" for total number of Palestians refugees & their descendants & losses. Israel is to accept Jews; PA is to accept Arabs. 2. If descendants are not be included it is for both side rule. If the only the descendants are to be "exchanged" it is also for both sides. 3.All losses including cost of land are to be recalculated according present day prices but only private ownership is counted. 4. Jews & Arabs having foreign citizenships or permanent residence are not be counted. It is PA VS. Israel. 5. If Israel has excess of refugees /losses or PA has it goes in calculations for the next stage of "refugees exchange' according the Hananai plan. Let's do the numbers. Anyone to turn on the PC?

Lasting peace requires common sense and equity. Zealotry impedes common sense. It is incumbant upon Israel and Palestine to suppress their extremists. The settlers are the overwhelming barrier to peace.

PA could got a longer number of Palestinians to able to return to homes in land swaps alone if they play cards right with out any of them moving into Israel. I talking about hundreds of thousand Palestinians could return in land swaps if it did that way. Israel should reject what he suggestion and push the PA to agree more resalable terms

In Morocco the Jews were not expelled, in fact Muhammed V was a friend of the Jews and protected them. I personally know that the secretary to the king was Jewish and invited to live in the Palace with their family (relatives of friends). But in Egypt and Libya they were expelled by force, and in many other Arab countries they left because they were persecuted due to 1948 war, and I personally know families this happened to.

My point that it is fair to either say that ok, there was an exchange of refugee populations and property so we are even, or to say ok, now we will compensate and apologize to the refugees from both sides on a case by case basis. BUT, it is not fair to say, as CJ does in post 44, that there are no Jewish refugees from Arab countries, because legally once they have Israeli citizenship they can't be considered refugees. They are not refugees now, but they were, and ignoring this is punishing Israel for it's correct behavior in absorbing them, while rewarding the Arab side for its incorrect behavior of refusing aid to its refugees.

"1 Mill Jews were expelled from Egypt, Libya, Iraq," (An Israeli) Is that which gives Israel the right to be the only democratic country to rule another foreign stateless population, and to build settlements for its religious fanatics on a land outside its sovereign territory, against the opinion of the rest of the world?

Syria and other Arab countries as a result of the 1948 war, at the same time as 720,000 Arab refugees left Israel. And Israel did absorb these Jews while the Arabs left the Palestinians to rot in camps. So how is that distorting the facts? Because we regarded our people as essential, while the Arabs regarded theirs as expendable? Come off it.

Israel has always depended on Jewish immigration since its inception for what is considers its survival as a Jewish state, and why it continuously concentrates on demography. Its aim is that all Jews (at least who is considered Jewish according to Israel's law of return) make immigration to Israel. How many times have Israeli official including Sharon, come here and asked American Jews to all immigrate to Israel. That's also why Israel's LawofReturn was extended to include people who had Jewish grandparents. Tom Segev wrote an article for Ha'aretz on 7/4/05 entitled "A Zionist Achievement: Germany is restricting Jewish Immigration." It read, in part: "Jews from the former Soviet Union who wished to immigrate to Germany will no longer be recognized as refugees. Israel had already persuaded the United States not to accept Jewish "refugees" from the former Soviet Union, because they have a homeland to go to." Need more be said???

Settlements and settlers should mean positive , value-added policies. In the case of Israel, it is for defense purpose, creating facts on the ground, chips for foot draging and bargaining, demoralizing the adversaries, etc. As for the wording colonies and colons are more factual. Israel left Sinae but destroyed all the outposts and colonies. Gaza too. Destructions cost too albeit far less than construction. In case of Lebanon, there was a sense of dodging and dosorders. SLA who was supposed to act as a cover, had deserted first. Nobody in Israel, left or right, peace-orieted or war monger suggested leaving those farms and houses, to the poor Egyptian bedouins or Gaza refugies, as gifts or goodwills. Why?. Muslims know the answer, but let's hear from your side.

Now you want to equate Palestinian refugees who were forced to leave their land by the power of arms and terror with Arab Jews who were shipped to Palestine by Jewish and Zionist organizations, or left by their free will. I would like to ask the Moroccan Jews of Israel to come up and say publicaly: we were driven away from our Moroccan homeland by force! As far as Morocco is concerned for instance all Jews of Moroccan origin are welcome back to their country. Can you do the same for the Palestinians? With no conditions!

It should be brought to Ray's attention that the settlers living in the West Bank are all citizens of Israel and are living in territory occupied by Israel. While some people may call this "disputed," UN resolutions clearly set forth that this is occupied territory. These are the facts, and should have nothing to do with personal opinions. The Palestinian refugees were dispossessed from their lands and homes, even contrary to Resolution 181 which partitioned Palestine, and it is the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to be permitted to return to their lands which has has been reafirrmed time and time again by the United Nations, of which israel is a member of and vowed to adhere to its charter. Is it radical that one refers to international law and UN resolutions to resolve issues, or one (such as Ray) refers to people as though they should be traded like baseball cards

There may NO LONGER legally be any Jewish refugees, but at the time of the creation of the ARAB refugee problem there certainly were ( and more of them too.) So what you're saying is that because Israelis took in our brothers, and absorbed them and gave them citizenship, while the Arab side left it's brothers to rot in camps for 60 years - in any proposed fair solution this population and property exchange (and the Jewish refugees left behind more property than the Arabs did) should be ignored? This would result in Israel being doublely penalized - once because it's FORMER refugees (who are former because of Israel's correct behavior toward it's brothers) will not be compensated, while Israel will at the same time have to compensate the Palestinian refugees, who are STILL refugees because their (oil-rich) brothers refuse to help them? How is that fair? And while we are at it - In 1945 there were 10s of millions of refugees a result of the war. Name any besides Arabs who still are.

The patrilineally inheritable "right" of return of refugees, as articulated by the Palestinians and supported by UNRWA is a unique and arrogant assertion. Not only is there NO basis in law for the descendants of refugees to inherit "refugee status", the Palestinians also seem to arrogantly assert that this unique eternal right only applies to them and NO other refugee populations. Interestingly enough, in recogniton of the fact that most "Palestinans" that left pre-state Israel in '48 were themselves recent arivals from neighboring Arab countries, UNRWA only required residency in pre-state Israel from '46-48 to qualify as a "refugee." Its a ruse.

UNSCR 1701 google it Ahmed.

Wishful thinking as they (Saudis)couldn,t care two hoots about the peasants of Palestine ,like their fellow Sunnis in the Gulf they,re too busy wasting petro- dollars on indoor ski-slopes and ice rinks in the middle of the desert.

Good point Daniel sounds fair to me .

I think things may finally be calming down. Finally! But you know something? You still never let your guard down! Always keep an Eagle Eye. Obama is correct! Afghanistan and Pakistan's problems will still continue to hatch bad eggs.

Re: Your point 4 Dear Ms. Stephanie, May I put to you that, had Zionism not prevailed in 1948, the Arab autocrats who had sent their armies against us would have divided the spoil among them rather than offer it on a silver plate to their Palestinian brethren, and no one, today, would be talking about a Palestinian people. Is that helping the Palestinians, or not? I don't know, and frankly, do not care much.

The international statute that says they CAN RETURN in the circumstances will do. It is a legal minefield if UNSCR 242 had meant for Arabs to be repatriated they would have said repatriated and solved it with one sentence,they did not for obvious reasons. Why are you waffling about compensation for the confiscated property of 850,000 Jews? Taking citizenship has nothing to do with it? Being born Jewish means nothing in and of itself. It is used as figleaf by ideologically driven Israel haters. PS Why do you keep ignoring Arab apartheid and its role in all this?

"The Jews did not go about expelling the arabs from the land voluntarily or maliciously". Well that is where you are wrong. Ethnic cleansing by zionist extremists started in Palestine well before WW2.

to more war and death and destruction than the status quo. Only disaster will come of this. When fools rule then no one is safe.

"There is NO country of return!" Israel doesn't exist? Strange.. "No legally binding R.O.R." Read the Declaration of a Jewish State, then the UN Charter, then the UNHCR statute, then the Refugee Conventions "UNSCR 242,which superseeded the UNGAR resolutions makes clear it asks for a "just solution",right of return is specifically not mentioned." LOL every funny....RoR comes under CONVENTIONS, not UNGA OR UNSC resolutions "Why do you people avoid the confiscation of the property of 850,000 Jews by the Arab countries?" A) I'm a Jew B) if a refugee, ANY refugee Jewish, Arabic, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, takes up citizenship in a new country, they are no longer a refugee.

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c39e1.html The competence of the High Commissioner shall cease to apply to any person defined in section A above if: (c) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality;

UNSCR 242,which superseeded the UNGAR resolutions makes clear it asks for a "just solution",right of return is specifically not mentioned. Why do you people avoid the confiscation of the property of 850,000 Jews by the Arab countries? Why ignore the Arab apartheid where inter alia generations of Arabs born in their countries have been denied citizenship or have had their citizenship stripped? If this happenned in Australia would you be ignoring it? Why the double standards for Arabs?

Dear Mr CJ: perhaps you are right, nevertheless: 1) achieving alternate citizenship does not rule out the "right of return" according to international law (UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). 2) achieving alternate citizenship does not rule out civil compensation for damages/losses etc. So, my dear, nothing is lost by accepting alternate citizenship !

Dear mr. Lincoln: 1) Ben Gurion was forced to keep some Arabs out of areas gained in the 1948 war because the original partition plan had two waistlines which were indefensible from a military point of view. Since these were armistice arrangements, they were supposed to be temporary. However, since the Arabs refused to officially talk to the Jews of Israel for the purposes of peace negotiations (kind of like north Korea refuses to talk) , the armistice arrangements became permanent facts. 2) Irgun and Etzel did not want to "exterminate" Arabs . Now, now... how do you explain your inflammatory language ? 3) are you aware that Birzeit University conducted an in-depth study of Deir Yassin and revised the number of deaths in the massacre to about 107, with negation of all the so-called atrocities of rape and disembowelment that coursed in some of the original accounts ? 4)you do not help the Palestinians by writing that they became a nation only after 1948.

"garbage" "idiots"...I apologize for not in a few brief paragraphs outlining a plan that filled in all the details and resolved all the obstacles and issues you cite. Which by the way are valid in my judgment. The idea it to spark debate and ideas. Two, you may be interested to know that the ideas I used to formulate my opinions include a IDF general (regarding land from Egypt...he even proposed from Jordan as well) and some other ideas from a former, and now deceased Professor of Jewish History from Hebrew University. As for your 1922 reference I doubt you will go far in your reference that Jordan is for Arab citizens and the region West of the river, should be all Israel. Your need to defend your views with characterizations as idiot and garbage speaks to a larger issue. Why do you need to characterize other viewpoints in such a way? Unless you claim to be all knowing you should be a bit more tolerant of other viewpoints. Unless of course you are more then a mere mortal...

Dear mr Cummings: the filght of ca 1 million Jews from arab countries was a direct result of governmental policies in those countries in response to the situation in palestine and in solidarity with Palestinian arabs. the Palestinian leadership did not speak out against it, far from it ! additionally the Palestinian leadership from the mid 30's to the mid 50's was in the hands of a nazi collaborator and Israel can demand compensation for the damages from the actions of the Arab Higher Committee and its chairman Amin al-Husseini. Also for his involvememnt in progroms against Jews in Iraq. After all, in civil suits, the standard is "more likely than not" and that should be easy to prove with regards to the damages to Jews from all these entities. let's not forget the Arab League ! They too have liability exposure !! Guess what , brother C. ! The law cuts both ways. Arabs , including the Palestinians have been avoiding the bill for over 60 years !!

dear Mike: 1)jews need sovereingty because of pogroms and the holocaust, wheter you like it or not, we don't care. 2)there is no such things as "billions of muslims" 3)you think israelis are wrong to think they can survive the hatred; well, tell you what, when we were minorities, we know for a fact it was not survivable for 1/3 of our people so we'll take our chances with our own state. 4)we won't take your word for it that jews will fare better as a (non-sovereign )minority in the middle east. gee, it's back to the drawing board for your banckrupt ideas.

Under ordinary circumstances, that is to say, without the UN financed UNRWA cradle nto grave welfare system, the Arab states refusal to re-settle Palestinians etc,etc, peopke would have emigrated to a place with more opportunity. It would be less expensive to finance a business and a home in various places overseas for each Palestinian than any of the other plans ever proposed!

Dear Ahmed Hussieni: hahaha ! did you think you could cheat everyone ? 194 is NOT a UN Security Council resolution but a general assempbly resolution !! hahaha ! general assembly resolutions are NOT BINDING !! Google it, yourself !

dear Steve: Juea and Samaria is NOT rightfully ours. There is no international or natural law that gives this right. I don't know how many ways to explain this, but it is a fact you have to deal with.

It would be good if it were posible. Just one problem. RELIGION.

dear joe: individual Palestinians certainly have a right to recover the value of lost personal assets, just like the Jews. However, Jews are not suing to go back to a certain address (domicile) before the war. There is NO SUCH RIGHT. In fact Israelis and Jews would be happy to reimburse Palestinians for lost personal assets. In turn Palestinians and other Arabs woudl also have to reimburese Jews for lost assets as well. I'm sure you will agree this cust both ways. However, recovering the value of lost assetts is not what "the Palestinian right to return" means to Palestinians, correct ? What that means is they want to return to their addresses, appartments, dwelling and buildings BEFORE the 1948 war. Now, let's face it: international law DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SUCH RIGHT. I don't know how many different ways of saying this it will take until it sets in.

before posting any more garbage take some history and law lessons start in 33ad. 1922 and arab palestine set up for arabs where they should all now be housed !

for idiots who dream up different plans they forget the basic premise with every plan 1 acceptance by all parties 2 performance 3 failsafe terms 4 enforcement oslo and every plan has failed because all or none of these conditions was present !

that is a deal breaker for israel.the arabs would attack israel when they think they have a chance to achieve something.israel will never be left in peace.military control is essential.

Why do you people avoid the Arab confiscation of the property of 850000 Jews from Arab countries .? The Arab apartheid that denies and strips citizenship from people born in their coutries and living there for generations? UNSCR 242 calls for a just solution Not return. UNGAR resolutions are not binding

Though the obstacles are huge in the earlier proposed alternatives I provided (really taken from others) the possible benefits are also huge. Here they are: 1) The new Palestinian state would be much more viable as well as able to successfully integrate the large refugee population. 2) The Israeli right would be greatly diminished in power in a plan that included another Arab land contributing land and Jews living in a new Palestinian state. This would increase the likelihood that Israel would be willing to go back to borders similar to the 67 borders albeit some land swaps, take in a limited amount of refugees, and contribute to an international refugee development fund. 3) The concept of "development" as envisioned in the plan would provide a new focus, and vision, for a post settlement era. Of course this is not perfect, but the continuation of this conflict will bring new horrors yet to be witnessed...and that is a guarantee!

There are many obstacles to the alternative solutions I am about to propose. I doubt, however, there is any possible solution that does not come with heavy obstacles so here goes: 1) The amount of refugees Israel is willing to accept would be equivalent to the amount of Jewish settlers the new Palestinian state would strive to make feel comfortable enough to remain within the new state. First with dual citizenship but then after a period of 5 or 10 years at most with simply Palestinian citizenship. Who said the new state has to be Jew free? 2) Either alone or simultaneously with the above a narrow strip of land extending from the Gaza strip to just before El Arish that becomes part of the new Palestinian state. This in return for generous international development projects to reward Egypt for such a sacrifice. Israel would contribute to a fund to help with such resettlement as well as accept a division of Jerusalem and boundaries similar to the 67 boundaries albeit some minor swaps

I applaud the overall effort the writer who proposed the plan. Its overall desire to seek balance is commendable despite some important sections being deeply flawed. If I recall correctly Israel already has about 20% if not a bit more of its population being arab. The addition of over 400,000 more is simply asking Israel to take on something that threatens the very reason for the state's creation. That may sound "racist" but only if you do not ask how many Jewish citizens exist in all of the arab and muslim countries...not to mention the religious underpinning of just about all of them. No, the spirit is good but I am afraid the reality of this one begs for different solutions. I will pose some in a second post.

Israel won't be able to control the West Bank militarily. Realistically, no Arab leader will go for that.

Realistically, resettling all of the people who've built homes in and around Jerusalem is just not happening. The Russians wanted out of Russia. The settlers in the Jerusalem neighborhoods don't want to move. I know it might be a tough pill for many Palestinians to swallow, but that's just the way it is. No Israeli government, no matter how left wing, will give up those areas. Those are just the facts.

You are right about the settlements around Jerusalem, like Gilo. But if Israel IS capable of setteling one milion Rusian Jews in 10 years, they are capable of doing the same with 500.000 in 5 years.

The chasing out of Palestinians by the Israeli army wasn't the big crime. And like any Dutch person, Palestinians had the right to leave their land (go on vacation, or on business travel) The biggest Israeli crime was the closing of the border for the legal residents returning from abroad. THAT was a human rights crime of the highest order. That is what the Palestinians and the entire world are angry about.

"The confiscated property of 850000 Jews from Arab countries driven out by pogroms etc has to be refunded." If someone takes up citizenship in a new country they have no refuge status. " In listing the reasons for the Arab failure .. etc etc" Irrelevant..because RoR applies only to civilians who might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regime starting a war.

The confiscated property of 850000 Jews from Arab countries driven out by pogroms etc has to be refunded. They have been avoiding the bill for 60 years now. Benny Morris disagrees with your "Hagganah sources" and here is what the Arabs said themselves. . In listing the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948, Khaled al-Azm (Syrian Prime Minister) notes that "the fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries. Since 1948, it is we who have demanded the return of the refugees, while it is we who made them leave. We brought disaster upon a million Arab refugees by inviting them and bringing pressure on them to leave.-Khaled el-Azm, after the 1948 War in his 1972 memoir . "The 15th May, 1948, arrived...On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."-Cairo`s Akhbar el Yom, 10/12/63.

that is the only way forward.umm al fahm to the palestinians and ariel to israel.and other similar exchanges. kfar qassem wadi ara jet taiba all must go to the palestinians and we would get parts of judea in return. israel will control the whole of the west bank militarily.

accepts reality. has anyone realised that a palestinian state will cut off jordans water from israel ?

This proposal is backward. It's an attempt to move things as to how they were in 1967, and partially before 1948. It is an attempt to turn back the clock to some imaginary period when all was right and just. The problem is, time has marched on, and there is no going back. The only thing worth working towards is a plan that works. This plan just doesn't. It's a thinly veiled scheme to reduce Israel's Jewish majority in an attempt to destroy what we know as the Jewish state.

Once a refugee takes up alternative citizenship in a new country they no longer have refugee status.

"you seem to forget 1.4 million Palestinians are Israel citizens" No they aren't. They're Israeli Arabs. "does that mean over half a million more Jews may move the the West Bank?" No.

How's that?

The curious result of not admitting to oneself what one's goals and methods to achieve them are is that it results in a fundamentally insane policy. The current government, the second Netanyahu government was the product of open and fair elections. It is clear from polling that the overwhelming majority of Israelis - including many who voted against him - support him now. Israel now has no interest in any peace settlement. It is only interested in increasing Settlements.

"The Jews did not go about expelling the arabs from the land voluntarily or maliciously." - Dan The Irgun and Stern Group were most outspoken with their intent to drive Arabs from 'Eretz Israel.' See: Dir Yassin. The forces under Ben Gurion did - by his admission - cleanse areas considered strategically necessary of all Arabs. It is impossible to say at this late date what portion of Arabs fled extermination by Irgun and Etzel, how many were driven out by Haganah and Palmach, and which fled simply to get out of a war zone. There probably were some that fled simply because they were asked to by the invading Arab armines. "Palestinian did not mean what it means today until 1964, and between 1948 and `67 there was little if any calls from the `Palestinians` for a state from Jordan and Egypt . . ." - Dan True, the modern notion of "Palestinian" was forged by the Israeli occupation.

"Sounds fair to me." - David, on forcing ALL Arabs out of Israel For all but the last decade of Israel's existence the idea of forcing all Arabs out of Israel was unthinkable. But Tzipi Livni, from the middle right, has speculated that Israeli Arabs would like to move to a Palestinian State. Many to the right of her favor outright expulsion.

is that not only would it represent essentially a modified version of what exists, it would also maintain barriers that would prevent the ease and comfort that you mention. the map of the west bank is virtually littered with settlement/outpost enclaves. maintaining them as extensions of israel would severely inhibit the contiguity of the palestinian state with an israeli presence similar to that which exists. but even MORE problematic, is that doing what you suggest would prevent the interaction and familiarity needed to remove the fears and stereotypes that prevent trust, friendship, and cooperation. meanwhile, the quickest way to remove these impediments is by interacting as equals.

What about the nine hundresd thousands Jewish refugees from arb countries. What the proprities they left behind. Can we have an answer about it.There is something positive about the idea. But what everybody classified as settlements are in reality small towns. That is how different gouvernement in Israel spend the money to build the infrastructure for the palistinian state.

In Latin America, they used to say that a constitution was poetry. High sounding but easily violated. Peace plans are the same however well intentioned and thought through. What makes peace is sufficient interest groups and institutions having power who think it works for them and not having other individuals or interst groups with sufficient power to disrupt it. The rest is poetry.

Otherwise there is no end to it.If only Bibi and Abbas can kiss each other and forgive we can move forward

If I recall the Turks invaded Cyprus imagining they would do a repeat of the transfer that occured in the early '20s of the last century between Greece and Turkey. It kinda worked, but when Cyprus was about to enter the EU and the Turkish Cypriots thought they might reunite the island, the result of the double referendum was that the Greeks told the Turks "no!". So far Nicosia is still divided, and nothing has been solved between the two parts of the island. Is that what Mr. Hanania wants. It doesn't sound right to me.

Surely there is a way to resolve this conflict and allow a Jewish state that doesn't have an expiry date. Are you calling for dissolution of the vatican? Of Saudi Arabia or the other 50 Muslim states countless of which are theocracies? So why can't we have a state that has an organized religion, a state that isliberals and not a theocracy but still has a state relihion? Canada is a great example of this, it is a xstian country but it's not a theocracy. We have Xmas parades, trees, festivals, Xmas is anationsl holiday etc... Why can't two states with these types liberal values work?

sides. The rent payable is also subject to agreement but in this case is really academic and could be set to $1 / annum. I am assuming the settlers would want to stay there for what they believe in but this doesn't mean their sons and grandsons would share the same values although they should remain there is they so chose to do. A Palestinian state will happen and is only a matter of time but the sooner it happens the sooner we get rid of this diabolical situation and bloodshed. If there is a will there is a way... must add to this a little commonsense which seems to be the most uncommon thing these days.

just like you or I do. He's trying to find the balance between the two antagonists. I agree with a lot of what he's saying. It makes far more sense then the latest "peace" attempts.

Arab grievances have to do primarly with the refugee issue and the nature of Israel as a Jewish state (one where Pals cannot feel at home). Here, I think an answer may lie in a two-tiered approach. In the short term, after a Pal state is established along the lines of Ray's plan, reparation packages (perhaps even "symbolic" ones) should be provided to the families of both Palestinian and Jewish refugees. In the longer term (and here's the real kicker), I think Israel and Palestine should agree to become a single state in 100 years with one key stipulation: There is no longer a need for a Jewish safe haven. In the new state, Palestinians and Israelis would have no state religion, and be allowed to live where they wish. This plan would provide a much needed long-term opportunity to cool down, establish real relations, and perhaps come up with an even better solution.

before you start questioning this article.

However one counts it, 700,000 Arabs were either driven out by force or fled in 1948. (The Haganah report at the time concluded that under 5% had left due to urgings by invading Arab armies). That 700,000 lost land, homes and businesses, were never allowed back and were never compensated for it. That doesn't work post WW2, Israel owes these refugees and their descendants big style and big dollars. Attempts to equate the forced eviction of the Arabs with the later, and consequent, flight of Jews from Arab countries only works up to a point. The PLO/PA did not cause the flight from Morocco, Algeria etc. They are not responsible and cannot negotiate that, it is a matter for Israel to take up with the countries themselves and sort its own deal out. Israel has been avoiding the bill for 60 years now.

It would recognize that post-1948, a trade was achieved between the expulsion of 600K Palestinians from west-of-green-line Israel, and the expulsion of 600K Jews by Arab states. Both were horrific crimes, but are a fait accompli, and are at least symmetrical injustices. Any population movements after that are asymmetrical, and should be compensated. Unfortunately, Israel will never relocate 400K settlers, nor will it accept 400K Palestinians. Look at the furious opposition in these comments.

The Israeli settlements have made the two states solution impossible. Very wrong are those Israelis who think that a solely Jewish state can eternally survive the hatred it creates in the hearts of billions of Muslims. Just as wrong are those who think that a solely Jewish free Palestinian state is attainable any time soon if ever. The only option left is a one secular state for all Palestinians and Israelis, in which all have equal rights and responsibilities ; a state in which all can live, work and travel any where in the holy land. Such a state will guard secular Israelis and Palestinians as well as the minorities of both peoples from a state ever becoming a theocracy. I believe any other alternative will, in the long run, spell the annihilation of both peoples and perhaps millions more.

Typically a "Land Lease" is for 100 years,and thats what it would need to be considered effective. It would be a very good idea that would generate revenue for an eventual Palestian state(if there ever is one?),and keep down the cost of removing settlers. Although you would first need a strong judiciary made of both Israelis and Palestinans to distinguish land claims. In theory Communism was a beautifull idea also,but for the most part that did not work out too well either.

Google it!

While I love Ray's plan overall, this last piece isn't going to fly. The vast majority of the settlers are in larger settlements around Jerusalem. At this point, these areas are now city neighborhoods and suburbs. Israel simply won't be able to move these people (there are just too many and their lives are too entrenched), and I highly doubt that they will stand for becoming citizens of a Palestinian state (in fact I can pretty much guarantee this). In addition, Israel simply won't (nor can't) absorb the same number of refugees into Israel. Sorry, but this just ain't happening. To insist on this is simply to perpetuate the conflict. I can forsee a land swap the would enable Israel to keep the main settlements, but I can't ever forsee real justice for the Palestinian or Jewish refugees. It sucks, I know. I have one idea that might work, but which I don't have room for. I'll put it in another post.

From both artciales in this regards I say Mr. Hanania has it 100% correct. His plan far exceeds anything the Quartet or anyone else has come up with so far. I commend him for his vision, fairness and intelligence. He and others like him will determine the future of the region and not Bibi etal and Abbas-Hamas etal.

What's the fastest thing in Tel Aviv? Bradley Burston and Ray Hanania on a bicycle. Yuk-Yuk-Yuk! Kol Hakavod Bradley!

Why Palestinians and Israelis do not exchange rights of return. What it means is Israelis would give to Palestinians refugee the right of return to live not in Israel land, but to live in past Jewish land located in Arabs countries like Iraq, Syria, etc. This will answer if the Arabs are truily interested in peace.

Perhaps oil rich Saudia could finance relocating the poor Palestinian Arab brothers refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Emirates, Kuwait and Saudia, not only financially but in a brotherly manner just as Israel/the Jews helped their brother Jews from Arab countries.

I am sure the palestiians will absolutely love it because they would use this to push for a single state. We give the Israelis settlers palestinian citizenship anyway so now Israel gives palestinians Israeli citizenship also. Look already we are offering each others people dual nationality, lets end this silly idea of 2 states lets all have a single state where we will live together as one big happy family. The idea is rediculous what settlements Israel does or does not keep will be the result of negotiation not trading settlers for palestinians. What we should consider is trading settlers for Israeli arabs. If we abandon a settlement of 10 people then in exchange 10 Israeli arabs become citzens of the arab state, If we are going to do arab / jew trades then thats how it should be. For sure Bibi is going to try and offload as many Israeli arabs as possible onto the palestinians even Olmert was trying to do that.

The number of Arabs that voluntarily left Israel before seven Arab armies invaded in 1948 hardly equals the number of Jewish refugees fleeing the Arab world with only the shirt on their backs. Israelis will settle in Judea and Samaria because it is rightfully our land. No serious Israeli politician has any intention of evicting the Arabs that migrated into our land and are now living in the West Bank. We will not accept Arab terrorists claiming to be returning "Palestinians".

All settlers on WB Settlements, should go back to Israel as demanded by world communities, then a LOTTERRY be organised by United Nations, so that each unit is given fairly to that number of REFUGEE. The next Project is a MASSIVE BUILDING program organiz by the UN to house the rests. The Working program should be organized in such a way that UNEMPLOYED refugees be given the works so that they can start earning some good money to spend on their new abodes.

Israel holds the position that property rights from before 1948 are still enforceable when Jews benefit from the situation. The problem being that there are LOTS of Israelis living where Arabs did before 1948. Ooops. Getting rid of the Settlers would be a big plus for Israel. And the Palestinians might be willing to enforce the law when Settlers break it.

land on which the settelments are built from the Palestinian state for say 25 years. In this case technically the land belongs to the state of Palestine while in practice it continues to be run by Israel while confidence is built during these "lease" year. When the lease is over the settlers can either stay as Israeli citizens living in Palestine or move somewhere else. The lease may be extended on 5-10 yearly basis for say another 25 years until such time both parties feel very much at ease with each other and peace has established firm roots.

both Netanyahu and Abbas put together. I totally agree with all his ideas, of how to solve the problems of this long standing conflict. When negociations start this man should form part on the third bench. (THE QUARTET) + + + Israelis/Palestinians .

Why not just kiss and forget? How many peace plans are wasted. The most simple is to kiss each Palestinian ( and israeli) and speak about the future.Both Palestinians and israelis are BEAUTIFUL.

Seems to have a flawed sense of history, population numbers, also ignores the fact that Israel has already let tens of thousands of Palestinians to live in Israel under family reunification, also that 1.5 million Israeli citizens are Palestinian. Not only would thisplan not bring peace, it would bring more terror into the heart of Israel.

What about embezzlers from UNRWA? How they will react? You will make 25 thousands people unemployed. Otherwise his plan is not much different from the plan of the racist-fascist-rightist-communist-arab hater Lieberman.

Too much simetry for the sake of simetry. We are not dealing with a geometry problem, we`re dealing with History, Politics, Terrorism and willingness to build and settle. Where was the willingness among the Palestinians to build and settle , even in their restricted areas. The Jews did build and settle even in their original reduced areas of pre and around 1948. And Israel encouraged Diaspora Jews and helped them settle in Jewish lands, so why did the Arab nations refused Arab brothers and why let them live in refugee camps ? Politics, power, dictorships stopped that, and Hanania is equating the rights and wrongs of Israelis/Jews with the rights and wrongs of Palestinians/Arabs. That cannot work. Look for other more realistic solutions..........

A very interesting proposal. But in the end, both settlers and refugees, should accept settlement on land or return to villages, only a few kilometers from their intended goal (i.e. pre 1967 Israel for the Jews and the West Bank for the Palestinians). Grownup people all over the world move out of their ancestral homes all the time, to live and work dozens or even hundreds of kilometers away.

The Palestinians Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 were "traded" for Jews from Arab countries who fled in 1948. The numbers were roughly equal with about 100,000 more Jews. Since this trade has already taken place. Furthermore, usually population swaps in nationalist conflict are done to make the respective countries more ethnically homogenous and prevent further conflict. Hania's plan does the opposite and would be likely to encourage more violence. The obvious population swap in this situation would be to draw a national border that includes Jews living east of the 1967 line in Israel and includes Arabs living west of the line in Palestine. This will minimize nationalist friction.

Again this article is a selfserving Jewish wishful thinking. While Jews are bring lawsuits all over Europe to recover homes, property and other assets they lost prior to 1948, if that's not enough Jews are also making claims to homes and property in the westbank they lost prior to 1948 and the state of Isreal is granting jews that right. Palestinians are told, today is not 1948, lives have come and gone, events have occurred and circumstances changed. In short Palistinians don't have the same rights as Jews to recover their lost property. What a joke! As long as Jews beleive they have more rights than Palestinians, how do they expect a true peace to take place?

I don't know if I got this guy's name right, but from what my followers have told me he seems to be an actor and comedian. So how come Haaretz, a wdiely respected newspaper, is taking him seriously? Who is he to announce a peace plan? (Thanks Olivia)

Except for those in exchange for the Jews of Judea and Samaria. Sounds fair to me.

During the negotiations the Palestinians should link settler?s illegal homes with the refugee problem. In the same way we used to say ?land for peace? we could say ?Homes for refugees?. Direct Linkage! It almost comes out as a poem. Negotiations after a settlement freeze, Settler home for returning refugees, All ?67 Land for Peace. Indiscriminant war must cease.

The proposal and its clauses offers a good outlook for a solution. However it fails to recognise the roots of the history which left untendered will manifest themselves. The Jews did not go about expelling the arabs from the land voluntarily or maliciously - only as a reaction to the arab belligerency of the 1947 partition plan in which the arabs fired the first shot - and a big one at that. The rest left out of fear of the impendong war or were coerced by the arab governments asserting the Jewish menace will be driven into the sea. The greater issue is an Arab-Israeli problem, and not a Palestinian-Israeli one. It is interesting to note that the term Palestinian did not mean what it means today until 1964, and between 1948 and '67 there was little if any calls from the 'Palestinians' for a state from Jordan and Egypt who controlled the WBank and Gaza respectively. Labelling Israel as the big culprit as what sems to eb the undertone in not fair on the state, its people and the Jews.

does that mean over half a million more Jews may move the the West Bank? Never heard something so stupid.