« Bibi, as seen in Ha'aretz. | Main | The Book of Netanyahu - Giraldi »

25 May 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ken Halliwell

gdledell, I like the idea of returning land in the Negev to the Palestinians. Perhaps as part of the deal, the U.S. can send a bit more money to Egypt for completing the Al-Salam Canal -- extending it into the Negev to supply water for both Palestinian and Israeli agriculture development.


This is what happens when you create facts on the ground since 1967 or 48, whichever floats your boat. I stole/won it and spent 3 decades there, you want me to give it up? Here, take the desert, the garbage dump and here's the trail you need to stick to reach any other place.

This is not a plan, it's a suicide note.

A simpler harebrained idea would be to merge all the bantustans and the self created ghettos and call it 'Loonies' country and issue passports to all and sundry within it. I guarantee you, people would make out like bandits once they get called loons.

Currently, the Israeli plan is to make life unbearable in the Territories, people would voluntarily move, die or simply give up. Especially targeting kids/schools/universities/culture so that you don't have an articulate future generation connected to their Palestinian roots.

Division? Unlikely to even get off the table.

Patrick Lang

Ken H.

The name is "Gdledell." The other was my error. If we are going to accept your idea then the "Red-Dead Canal should be revived. pl


a friend frequently reminds me of how his mother managed 2 children and one piece of chocolate cake, to be shared: child A sliced the cake; child B got first choice.


1. Israelis and American Jews have got to start dealing in truth, not propaganda. They have lied the entire world into this horrible mess, at the cost of millions of lives.
More and more Americans and Europeans are uncovering the century of lies and attempting to come to grips with the enormity and the outrage of it; Iran and the Arabs have KNOWN of the pattern of deceit and, in Iran's case, is being punished for speaking truth to the wielders of bully power. If American Jews can force themselves to look forward, they will recognize that a major problem confronts Jews in the US: how will the American people react as full realization of the extent of zionist deception becomes more broadly known? Has any nation ever reacted to exposure of such treachery with anything other than outrage? Can the United States somehow manage to respond DIFFERENTLY?

2. It HAS gone on "too damn long," gdledell, but that does not mean Israelis and Jews and the Americans who support them should be allowed to profit from the crime spree.

3. What happens to the natural gas resources in the Mediterranean? In a just world, Palestinians would be given TOTAL control of the gas in the Sea, in exchange for the land sacrifices you concede the Palestinians will have to make.

THAT would be cutting the cake in a way that would force some sense of equity.


I think some of you have your head in the clouds. If you look at a map what I have proposed is ceding land very close to the Green Line. The obvious problem is Ariel which sticks deep into the West Bank like a poke in the eye.

I have tried to compensate the Palestinians for some of their loss of land from 1967 in two ways. First by providing a much greater swap of land next to Gaza than they lost in the West Bank. It is not as fertile as the lost land but their is more of it and Gaza needs room to grow. Second the many billions investment in power plants and desalinization plants will allow the Palestinians to thrive.

We can wait for a perfect and just solution to emerge in some century in the future or we can get on living a meaningful life. I wish I knew how to provide a map so you could see how little this proposal interferes with a Palestinian state.


Israel needs to be willing to do business with an unreformed Hamas. If a country is to be a democracy, and a people free to choose their own leaders, then all points of view must be allowable. To insist otherwise is to de-legitimize the people you are "granting" the right to a democracy, and gives lie to the whole process.

The real absurdity is shown when one examines the rationale. "Hamas must acknowledge Israel's right to exist." Well, so what if they don't? Nothing, that's what. Hamas has no power to eliminate Israel and never will. Israel is just insisting they "cry uncle" before doing business with them.

I have said it before. If Israelis want Palestinians and Arabs to respect Israel's right to exist they must demonstrate that worthiness. Right now if I am a young man in Palestine, why should I ever grant that respect to Israel?

It is within Israel's power to change this. If they treat all people with dignity and respect then the idea that Israel needs to be eliminated will lose adherents.

Israel's policy for years has been to create a "double-bind" situation for Palestinians where there is no good answer. The only goal of such a policy is to crush the identity of a people. This will only change when they recognize the right of Palestinians to think and believe whatever they want, and undertake diplomatic relations with them regardless.


This damn conflict has gone on FAR too long. People can hold out for the ideal 100% solution but who wants to wait another 100 years.

Again, your ethnic tribe is not the only one who can plan. If it took 2000 years of whatnot to get to this forsaken desert as your own, you better believe the other side will wait and wait till you trip up....fatally.

Interestingly, all these plans still hinge on treating the other as enemies; thinking of which land to give up strategically and which to keep for defensive purposes. It still boils down to the same paranoia mindset then, isn't it?

That's not the peace you want or will get.


Gdledell: Thank you for a serious and humane proposed solution.

I had no problem with President Obama's statement about 1967 borders with "land swaps," but I would add the following clarifications:

1. The Palestinian state will be size of the land seized by Israel in 1967, not smaller.

2. Any land swaps must be of equivalent value, i.e., not green Palestinian farmland around the Green Line for worthless desert in the Negev.

3. International monitoring of the New State of Palestine to provide for the establishment of a truly independent state, i.e., no more "false withdrawals" like the alleged withdrawal from Gaza. This means Palestinians may need to go through a NATO staffed checkpoint in Jordan Valley for 10 years or so, but never again will an Israeli decide which Palestinian gets to travel.

3. A public end to incitement, i.e., a disclaiming of the ideology of "Eretz Israel." If the Israelis want recognition of a "Jewish state" at the end of a peace agreement, they they must publically disclaim any rights to any part of the Palestinian state.

However, I think you deserve great praise for making a specific proposal.


These should not be refered to as "The" holy lands as they are not the sole ones, other than to believers of only a few of the religions on this earth.



Which Nato troops would these be - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia perhaps? How about Turkish troops? Surely you don't mean that the US and Europe get to spend, still, their money on keeping Israel safe and sound so neither Israel and Palestine need tax their own people to pay their own way? I for one am rather tired of footing the foreigner's bills.

Patrick Lang


I don't care. It is the Holy Land to me. pl

Byron Raum


Your real problem here is that you are negotiating from a position of weakness. Time is your enemy. The longer you wait, the worse it gets for you. A 100 years is not a long time. The point that Israel and the Arabs make peace is the point from which Israel starts getting strengthened.

A cynical mind would ask, why not wait a few centuries till the problem will go away forever? They have already suffered immensely, what is a little bit more of suffering?

You have recommended realism. You should consider the possibility that perhaps too many people have already taken your recommendation seriously.



Was there a mention of Hebron and Kiryat Arba?


If you google jdledell - you will see for as long as blogs have been around I have been EXTREMELY critical of Israel's actions. I was critical when I lived there and that is why I'm back in the U.S.

Yes they are my tribe but my primary interest these days is how do we reach a peace that will benefit all the peoples.

Many of you have rightfully pointed out the games Israel has played to keep the Palestinians subjugated while slowly but surely taking over the land. I am not absolving Israel of its guilt but the longer this goes on the more Palestinians will lead truncated lives.

I have met numerous Hamas members and find them much pragmatic than Israel portrays them. I think they will strike a deal with or without Fatah.

Matthew - your points are excellent especially the no longer will Israel get to decide who or what enters or exits Palestine.



I understand where you are coming from, keep talking.

Some of Us want a Concert at Megiddo over a Battle of Armageddon.


The PA has already stated that any Israeli settlers outside the 67 borders would be allowed to stay in a new Palestinian state as Palestinian citizens. According to Netanyahu, that figure is now c. 650,000.

Just a thought--seems to me perfectly reasonable that Israel should offer to allow the same number of Palestinian refugees to resettle within the 67 borders. Seems fair, though at this stage of the game not something that maximalist Israel would consider.

Perhaps though, that might look like a good deal in 10 or so years.

Your thoughts, dledell?



We all want peace. However, Israel is presently so much more powerful than the Palestinians that even many peace-minded Israelis evidently (judging from your proposal) do not feel compelled to make the necessary sacrifices.

Israel already has 78% of historic Palestine. For the Palestinians to accept this, and to accept no right of return (and these are not foregone conclusions) would be huge sacrifices. If the Palestinians really did come to accept such a state of affairs in their hearts, rather than because they had no choice, it would be a timeless victory for Israel. I don't know if it would be enough to satisfy the Palestinians, but it seems to me to be the minimum.

The question is, what kind of peace do you want? A peace imposed by the strong on the weak? Or a peace that is truly fair and just, a peace that would seem just to both peoples even if the power relations were reversed (and who knows, in a few years, or decades, or centuries, they might be.)

You are going to nickel and dime them on the remaining 22%? That mentality won't bring you peace. Maybe a cease-fire, until...


How much are we going to pay Tonga to get their UN vote? See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/israel-lobbies-united-nations-vote-palestine_n_867532.html

Please file under "They hate us for our freedom." (Groan.)


Trent - Kiryat Arba and Hebron under any scenerio will not be Israel. It's impossible to do without screwing up the viability of the new Palestine. However, this represents a big problem for Israel and the new Palestine. My niece and her family live in Kiryat Arba its a town of 10,000 fanatics. It's going to be a mess to deal with. The people are armed to the teeth - courtesy for friends in the IDF. They have RPG's and small bore mortars amoung their arsenal. They will not go willingly and without much bloodshed but to leave them in place would put the Palestinians in an untenable spot.

Leaving some of the settlers in a Palestinian state is a problem. In my proposal I leave 118,000 Jews in Palestine. My guess is 50,000 or so will leave voluntarily with maybe 40,000 staying. That leaves roughly 20,000 troublemakers who could blow up the peace deal with violence. There are some settlers who are just as capable as the worst of Hamas in instigating violence. By the way, the 650,000 number that Netanyahu quotes is a bogus number in that it includes West Jerusalem on the theory of an undivided greater Jerusalem. Israel tripled the size of Jerusalem's municipal boundries in 1980.There really are about 485,000 Jews over the Green Line.

The question of the right of return is thorny. I know the Palestinians have discussed amoung themselves a right of return of 50,000 to 100,000 not enough to upset Israel's demographics. The younger West Bank Palestinians all want money rather than a right of return. It's the older folks who still cling to their keys. I don't know how the Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan feel but money and being a part of a new viable state of Palestine might be enough better than their present situation that they would grab it.

Kieran - Yes this is a peace by the strong against the weak. If the power disparity were not so great I think we would have had peace long ago. There is no question Israel has abused it's power position but we live in the real world where power and might make right. I think UN recognition and the Palestinians gathering the support of most countries of the world will make the relative power positions more equal.



Not sure that your position is operative, but very eloquently, and ethically, stated.

Thank you.


The new Palestinian state will not be allowed to have a military? What? :) Isn't a sovereign state entitled to a military? For self-defense? What security would there be for Palestine?



How do you feel towards the total dismantling of the current state of Israel and leaving it to the Divine Hand to deal with as discussed by several well learned Rabbis like the late Rav Yoelish? According to them, as long as the Zionist state of Israel exists on the scene, it poses a grave threat to humanity as a whole, by its continual presumptuous actions before Heaven mocking the Creator at every turn.

The Twisted Genius


Unlike the current Israeli position, jdledell's proposal allows for a Palestinian military, but not heavy weapons. I think an effective self-defense force can be built without tanks, artillery and aircraft. These conventional offensive weapons would just be a drain on the Palestinian economy. A Hizballah-like force could be more cost effective and militarily viable. Given the size and shape of any possible Palestinian state, a conventional military would be ineffective and easily neutralized.

Israel's viability is reliant on keeping all disruptions (homemade rockets, suicide bombings) to an absolute minimum. If Israelis were subject to a fraction of the physical violence that Palestinians in Gaza have been subject to, the best and brightest (and most productive) Israelis would leave in droves. The economy would collapse. If Palestine had a self-defense force modeled on the Hizballah force, I think a mutually assured destruction situation would exist. That's probably the best one can hope for.

All this is probably moot. The Netanyahu government would scream bloody murder if it had to deal with jdledell's proposal.


is he jesting????
to:jdledall, the plastic wanna be then don't wanna be no more, israeli zionist against the occupation pro palestinian yet again seeming semi-official sounding peace negotiator;

you need to read and understand the positions of the parties. the problem is not about drawing up a map, is much more complex, in case you did not notice hamas is projected to replace the pa and they have made it clear what their position is concerning any kind of peace with israel and i believe you can take their word for it rather than projecting your delusions for all of us to read out here in cyberspace. the bad news is it is too late the war has begun and when it ends, there will be a new reality, whether it will be called peace, i would think not the way you may envision it. i hope your family remains safe. i would spare them of your 'remarkable insights'.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad