Palestine/Israel

Israeli Madness

David Glick
June 9, 2010

Whatever one's view of the legitimacy and historical necessity of the creation of a Jewish state after the Holocaust, one must in all honesty conclude that today's Israel has become a rogue state flagrantly violating international law and ruthlessly oppressing the Palestinian people. Israel's recent murderous attack on a peaceful flotilla of boats carrying human rights activists and humanitarian relief to the besieged people of Gaza reveals a poisonous cruelty that has infected Israel’s national consciousness. The attack, which occurred in international waters, resulted in the deaths of nine peace activists by Israeli commandos who dropped onto the lead ship from helicopters in the dark of night. Many others aboard the ship suffered serious injuries at the hands of the commandos. It was a clear and simple case of state terrorism and piracy that rightly occasioned an outcry all around the world.

The question must be asked, "How can a people once the object of such horrific persecution become, in turn, the persecutors of another people?" While this is a question for psychologists and philosophers, there is a more urgent and immediate question facing all of us. It is U.S. unconditional support--military and diplomatic together with some $3-5 billion annually in our taxpayer money—that sustains Israel. We, then, are unwitting accomplices in Israel's brutal and illegal treatment of the Palestinian people.

The recent Goldstone report documents that Israel committed war crimes during its 2008-09 attack on Gaza. Israel's colonial settlement of Palestinian land is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and numerous UN resolutions. And Israel's use of American provided military weapons in acts of aggression is a violation of U.S. law under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

The failure of the Obama administration to forthrightly condemn the Israeli attack and demand an independent, un-biased international investigation is shameful. It is time for this administration to develop some backbone and moral clarity and cut off all military and economic aid until Israel ends its siege of Gaza and the entirety of its occupation of the West Bank and allows for the creation of a sovereign and viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital, together with a negotiated resolution of the Palestinian refugee crisis.

As far back as 1991, a prominent military officer, General Matti Peled, was quoted in the Progressive Magazine as saying, “The (Israeli) expansionists, the annexationists, are deliberately working against every possibility of solving the conflict. So those of us who believe that this is an unacceptable development must think of radical and unprecedented steps. And since they cannot go on implementing their annexationist policies without American money, I think it is our duty to call upon the United States to stop giving money to Israel.”

While many mainstream Jewish organizations like AIPAC claim to be simply defending Israel from its enemies, they are, in reality, actually taking sides in a struggle within Israel itself, supporting its rightwing government against the forces for peace within Israel. Given that AIPAC is in reality a lobby for a foreign government shaping public opinion and working to elect pro-Israel members of Congress, the U.S. Justice Department should, under the law, require it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. According to the act passed in 1938, its purpose “is to insure that the American public and its lawmakers know the source of information (propaganda) intended to sway public opinion, policy and laws.”

It has long been a triumph of Israeli propaganda that it has been able to couch its acts of aggression against the Palestinian people as acts of self-defense by exploiting the memory of the Holocaust to justify its actions. This manipulative use of the Holocaust to disingenuously transform Israel’s aggression into acts of self-defense desecrates the memory of those who perished in the ghastly inferno of that Nazi hell. Nonetheless, in recognition of this tragic history of the Jewish people, the noted Palestinian-American cultural critic, Edward Said, once said, “It is the tragic fate of the Palestinians to be the victims of victims.” Consequently the sorrowful history of the Palestinians at the hands of Zionism is seldom given the recognition it deserves in the shameful and biased pro-Israel coverage of the mainstream media. Despite this fact, a growing worldwide movement of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel has grown up as a non-violent response in support of Palestinian human and national rights.

The question for our government and for all of us is this--what side are we on--that of the Palestinian people and the Israeli peace forces or Israel's fanatical right-wing forces. Our silence is complicity in the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people and a betrayal of those courageous individuals in the Israeli and Palestinian peace camps who have worked tirelessly for justice for the Palestinians, security for Israel, and reconciliation between them. The fate of the Palestinian people and peace in the region hangs in the balance. Moreover a just solution to the Palestinian crisis will eliminate a major grievance tragically fueling anti-Jewish sentiment around the world and increasing hostility toward the U.S. as Israel’s benefactor.

More than ever Israel is in a defiant, bunker mentality blind to how its own aggression is fueling anger and hatred toward it around the world. This then seems to confirm the belief that the world is unalterably against them and the Jewish people. This vicious circle has by now become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If this dilemma is not soon resolved and Israel continues with its settlement activities and its siege of Gaza, the fast disappearing chance for a two state solution will soon be history and the only remaining remedy will be a single bi-national state, secular and democratic, with equal rights for all its citizens, Israelis and Palestinians alike.

David Glick is a member of the Marin Peace and Justice Coalition
and Jewish Voice for Peace.

Parity for Peace in Israel-Palestine:

Two States on the Same Land with Bilateral Governance

Juggling the conflicting claims of two nations for the same piece of land is a major challenge. All existing proposals for peace between Jews and Palestinians leave one side or the other feeling shortchanged with respect to the land and its resources. This proposal, called the Parity for Peace plan, starts by asking what people in each nation want and then seeks to meet as many of these wants as possible in the fairest possible way.

Clarification of Words Used in This Proposal
What People on Each Side Want
Shortcomings of Existing Proposals in Terms of Wants
The Basics of the Parity for Peace Plan
An Elaboration of the Parity for Peace Plan
Why This Proposal Is Better Than the Others
Questions and Answers

Clarification of Words Used in This Proposal

1. “Proposal” here does not mean an official offer but an idea for a solution.

2. This proposal stretches the conventional notion of statehood; it is out of the box.

3. This proposal distinguishes between Israelis and Jews because 20 percent of Israeli citizens are of Arab (Palestinian) ethnicity and their interests are not the same as those of Jews. Furthermore, Israel is designed to serve the interests of Diaspora Jews as well as those who have Israeli citizenship.

5. “Mandate Palestine” refers to the geographic area called “Palestine” during the British mandate, that is, land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

6. “Palestine” in this proposal refers to the state that is envisioned for the Palestinians.

What People on Each Side Want

Jews

1. Control over their destiny after centuries of persecution and discrimination culminating in the Nazi Holocaust. (“Never again!”)

2. Physical and economic security.

3. A geographical place where they can express their nationhood.

4. In an ideal world, physical possession of all of Mandate Palestine (“the Land of Israel”), with its historical and religious associations.

6. Control over sites that are sacred to Jews.

5. International acceptance.

Palestinians

1. Control over their destiny after centuries of occupation and empire.

2. Physical and economic security.

3. A geographical place where they can express their nationhood. (If they were not formerly a nation, they are now.)

4. Recognition of Israel’s role in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

5. Israeli recognition of the right of Palestinians to return to the homes they lost when Israel was created (and subsequently). (“the right of return”)

6. Compensation for property lost to the Israelis.

7. In an ideal world, physical possession of all of Mandate Palestine.

8. Control over sites that are sacred to Islam.

9. International acceptance.

Thesis: The best way to produce a lasting peace is to satisfy as many of these wants as possible.

Shortcomings of Existing Proposals in Terms of Wants

A binational, secular, democratic state:

1. Jews would soon be outnumbered by Palestinians and would thus lose control over their destiny in a democratic state.

2. The Jews would no longer have a Jewish state.

Transfer of Palestinians to a state to be carved out of one or more Arab states:

1. No Arab state has offered land to the Palestinians, nor is one likely to do so.

2. Palestinians do not want their state to be outside the territory in which their forefathers lived for many generations.

3. Forcing millions of Palestinians to move would be extremely expensive and traumatic.

4. Many in the international community would consider the wholesale, forced transfer of Palestinians to be morally unacceptable (in contrast to the transfer of settlers out of land the settlers knew from the beginning was in dispute).

Two states, with enforcement of UN resolutions:

1. If all refugees who wanted to return were allowed to do so, it would upset the demographic balance in Israel, and Israel could not then be both democratic and Jewish.

2. If Jews were required to withdraw to the pre-1967 border, they would lose control over the heart of their ancient kingdom, with its historical and religious associations.

3. If Jews were to withdraw to the pre-1967 border, Israel would be vulnerable to attack, both along the Green Line and from the hills overlooking Jerusalem.

4. Relocating settlers would be very expensive and traumatic.

5. Palestinians would be left with 22 percent of the land they once thought of as theirs; the division would seem unfair.

6. Israel would lose control of the aquifer and of fertile land along the Jordan River.

7. Israeli Palestinians would continue to live in a Jewish state in which they are second-class citizens because they are not Jews.

Two states along the lines of the Geneva Accord (an unofficial peace plan):

1. Palestinians could return to Israel only in token numbers, thus being unable to exercise fully their right of return.

2. Jews would be giving up the heart of their ancient kingdom, with its historical and religious associations.

3. Israel would lose control over part of the aquifer.

4. Relocating settlers would be very expensive and traumatic.

5. Palestinians would not have full control over their borders or airspace.

6. Palestinians would have only 22 percent of Mandate Palestine; the division would seem unfair.

7. Palestinians would be asked to trade fertile land for desert on a 1:1 basis.

8. Israelis of Palestinian ethnicity would continue to live in a Jewish state in which they are second-class citizens because they are not Jews.

Two states as apparently envisioned by Sharon:

1. Palestinians would be left with an even smaller fraction of Mandate Palestine (10–15% instead of 22%), making the division of land seem extremely unfair.

2. The Palestinian state would likely not be viable: (a) There would be insufficient land to absorb refugees. (b) Palestine would be dependent on Israel for water (Israel would control the aquifer) and electricity (which would also be true of other two-state plans), both of which could be cut off or rationed at will. (c) Palestine’s borders and airspace would be controlled by Israel, making it difficult to conduct commerce. (d) Movement between different parts of Palestine would be by very narrow corridors (roads), which could be cut off at will by the Israelis, further impeding the free flow of commerce. (e) Because Israel has expropriated the best farmland, because so much Palestinian infrastructure (farmland, orchards, commercial enterprises, housing) has been destroyed, and because Jerusalem and its associated jobs (including jobs in the tourism industry) would belong to Israel, it would be difficult for Palestinians to make a living.

3. Because of Palestine’s small size, and because movement to, from, and within Palestine would be controlled—or could easily be controlled—by Israel, Palestinians are likely to feel imprisoned and harassed.

4. The Palestinian claim to a right of return would be met, if at all, in only a token way, leaving many Palestinians unsatisfied.

5. Israelis who live on the Palestinian side of the Wall or Fence would feel isolated and vulnerable; the same would be true of Palestinians living on the Israeli side.

6. Moving settlers from Palestine to Israel proper would be very expensive and traumatic.

7. Jews who feel that God has given all of Mandate Palestine (“the Land of Israel”) to the Jews as a birthright would feel bereft.

8. Palestinians who feel that God has given all of Mandate Palestine to the Arabs would feel bereft.

9. Israelis of Palestinian ethnicity would continue to live in a Jewish state in which they are second-class citizens because they are not Jews.

In sum: Implementing existing proposals would leave major groups unsatisfied. The conflict would remain unresolved, and violence would likely continue.

The Basics of the Parity for Peace Plan

(1) Two states—Israel and Palestine—on the same land (each state encompassing all of Mandate Palestine) (2) with bilateral governance in which each state has equal power regardless of the size of its population but (3) with economic resources allocated on a roughly per capita basis, taking the population of the two states as a whole, (4) with management of religious sites to be determined by the clerics of the religions involved, (5) with Palestinians who lost their homes and businesses being compensated for their loss and having the right of first refusal to buy them back, (6) with amnesty for all political and military prisoners who agree to live in peace, and (7) with a publicly funded program to heal psychological wounds, arrive at common understandings, and promote goodwill so that the two nations can be reconciled.

An Elaboration of the Parity for Peace Plan

(1) Two states on the same land: The psychological and practical benefits to each nation of being able to claim the whole of Mandate Palestine for its state are tremendous. Jews and Palestinians could now rejoice in what they have rather than lament over what they have lost or are about to lose. Because the boundaries of each state would be internationally recognized as going from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, Jews and Palestinians could now settle anywhere, subject to land laws agreed to between the states. Jews could retain the heartland of their historic kingdom, and Palestinian refugees could reestablish themselves in or near their former homes. Two of the biggest obstacles to peace would thus be removed.

Each state could express its nationalism through the usual trappings: flag, song, holidays, the issuance of passports, and so on. Jews could call the whole place Israel and sing “Hatikva.” Palestinians could call the whole place Palestine and sing their own national anthem. No longer would Israel’s Arab citizens of Palestinian ethnicity have to sing “Hatikva”; they would now be citizens of Palestine and have a national anthem they could identify with.

Each state would have a legislature, a president, and representation in the United Nations. The legislature of each state could pass laws where uniformity with the other state is not required, such as laws on marriage. Within narrow areas, people might even be able to choose between sets of laws. In Israel today, people can choose to be tried under Jewish religious law or under secular law. Palestinians could be offered the choice of being tried under Islamic law or secular law. This possibility might satisfy Islamists.

Children of mixed marriages could choose which state they wanted to belong to.

(2) Bilateral governance in which each state has equal power regardless of the size of its population: Because of the intermingling of the populations, the two states would have to agree on laws affecting everyone, for example, laws regarding traffic, commerce, taxes, natural resources, land use, the environment, immigration, and government expenditure. To ensure equal application of the law, executive and judicial branches of the bilateral government would need to be fully integrated, with power shared as equally as possible at all levels.

As in other institutions of international governance, for example, the General Assembly of the United Nations, each state would have equal power regardless of the size of its population. Each nation would thus have sufficient power to protect its interests. Jews would no longer have to worry about demographics. They would retain enough power to continue to be a haven for Jews and a place where Jews would never again be at the mercy of a government that chose to discriminate against them. Some mechanism, such as international arbitration, could be worked out if there were a true deadlock between the two states, but on the crucial issue of human rights (“Never again!”), it could be assumed that international arbitration would decide in favor of human rights.

Laws could be passed in one of two ways: the two legislatures, which would be of equal size, could meet jointly and pass laws with a simple-majority or higher-majority vote, or a system could be set up whereby a bill would have to be passed by both legislatures to become law. The former is less likely to lead to gridlock.

Although it would be up to the Jews and the Palestinians to decide how to organize the government, the following is suggested:

At fixed intervals, say, every four years, each state would select a prime minister from a slate of candidates presented by the other state. This would encourage moderation. The two prime ministers chosen would rotate positions, say, every six months, with the alternate serving as deputy prime minister during the same period.

The prime minister, deputy prime minister, and presidents of the two states would then select the ministers and deputy ministers of each ministry, subject to the approval of the joint legislature. The rotation principle could apply here and to lower executive levels as well.

Foreign policy would be handled jointly by the two states because of the need for uniformity in immigration, trade, and matters of war and peace. Israel would benefit from the special relationship Palestinians have with the European Union and the Arab states, and Palestine would benefit from the special relationship Israel has with the United States.

To avoid the influence of big money or money from outside interests, campaigns for elections in both states would be paid for by state funds.

(3) Economic resources allocated on a roughly per capita basis, taking the population of the two states as a whole: This is a matter of equity and is fundamental to an enduring peace. Water resources have to be allocated so that each person gets his fair share. Israelis and Palestinians as individuals would have equal access to state land, currently 80 to 90 percent of the entire area of Mandate Palestine. Offering Palestinian refugees state land would help to compensate them for the economic losses they incurred in 1948 and 1967 and would enable them to reestablish their villages if the land were still available and they agreed to live in peace. Peace would free up money for bringing water, sewers, schools, and other essential services to Palestinian areas.

(4) Management of religious sites to be determined by the clerics of the religions involved: The clerics know what is involved to make the sharing of religious sites work and are probably more inclined to be conciliatory than the politicians are, assuming they are people of the Spirit. Furthermore, clerics have the ability to make whatever they decide (if they need to bend some rules) sound as if it were God’s will, thus bringing the people with them. They are better able to lead in religious matters than the politicians are; politicians look over their shoulder and try to figure out what will be tolerated, whereas clerics can set policies and get people to follow them.

(5) Palestinians who lost their homes and businesses being compensated for their loss and having the right of first refusal to buy them back: This seems fair to both Jews and Palestinians. No Jew would be kicked out of a home or forced to sell a business, but before either the home or the business were put on the open market, the original owner would have the right to make an offer on it.

(6) Amnesty for all political and military prisoners who agree to live in peace: This would follow the customary practice of releasing prisoners at the end of a war and would signal a new beginning.

(7) A publicly funded program to heal psychological wounds, arrive at common understandings, and promote goodwill so that the two nations can be reconciled: This would entail Living Room Dialogue Groups on a massive scale, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the pairing of Palestinian and Jewish families, and a conscious effort to develop skills in compassionate listening and forgiveness. Such programs already exist, but they need more funding to make a difference. Both in schools and in society at large, Palestinians would be taught the Jewish narrative, Jews would be taught the Palestinian narrative, and every attempt would be made to come up with a common narrative about the history that has affected both peoples. To facilitate communication, all schoolchildren and government workers would be taught Arabic, Hebrew, and English. Language courses would be available to other adults as well.

Why This Proposal Is Better Than the Others

This proposal recognizes the rights of both nations to the land and asks the same concession of each: that each nation give up exclusive control of the land in exchange for peace. By meeting the key needs of each nation and coming up with a solution that is fair, the causes for the conflict are removed. As a result, Jews and Palestinians can expect a peace that endures. This proposal also recognizes the current reality: an intermingling of populations in the West Bank that makes it impossible to divide the land in a way that does not leave tens of thousands of people on the “wrong” side.

Questions and Answers

1. What if there is a bloodbath?

If key wants for land and self-determination are met on both sides, there is no need to destroy the other to achieve these wants. Once the plan is agreed to and implemented, anyone who continued to resist, or who sought revenge through killing, would be apprehended and dealt with through the courts. People are less likely to kill others if there is another mechanism for settling disputes, which the judicial system provides. One advantage to an integrated police force and judicial system is that people who harm and harass other people would be more likely to be arrested and tried than is now the case: for example, injury and harassment of Palestinians by settlers is largely ignored by the Israeli police and military officials; this would not be the case if Palestinians had the power to arrest them as well. Taking care of conflicts as they arise would help to keep them from blowing up into larger conflicts. A publicly funded effort to heal psychological wounds, arrive at common understandings, and promote goodwill (the last element of the plan) would help to reduce the hostility that now exists. Agreement to the plan would in itself bring a great feeling of catharsis among those who feel victimized and would replace despair, which leads to violence, with hope. If both sides can see steady progress being made in implementing the plan, the frustrations that have led to violence could be avoided. Special care would need to be taken at the beginning to prevent possible exuberance from descending into lawlessness. The presence of a large number of trained, nonviolent peace workers could help with conflict resolution, especially during the transition phase. Respect for each nation’s sensitivities would have to be a part of the framework. For example, drawing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed or drawing swastikas would need to be outlawed from the very beginning.

2. What is to persuade Israel, which now has the upper hand, to agree to the terms of this proposal?

Precisely because Israel now has the upper hand, any willingness on the part of Israel to come to a truly fair settlement would gain Israel tremendous respect in the international community. Fairness is a key value in Judaism, and a policy that embraced this principle would be in line with Judaism’s teachings to “love the stranger” and to treat the stranger justly.

Israel would gain by having legitimate, internationally recognized access to all of the Land of Israel that was in Mandate Palestine; Israel would no longer be regarded as an occupying power: its obligations to the Palestinians under international law would be met. Working with the Palestinians as partners in governance would hasten the Palestinians’ skills in governance, leading to more stability in the region.

Israel would be safer under this plan than under other two-state solutions. With other two-state solutions, Israel will always be worrying about a possible attack from Palestine and other Arab states. If the borders of Israel and Palestine are the same, Israel will have better control over what comes in and what goes out, and other Arab states will have to think twice about attacking Israel, because an attack on Israel would also be an attack on Palestine. Most important, however, is that this plan provides so much of what the Palestinians want, they will likely have no more incentive to resist. They would have a governmental mechanism for dealing with their grievances and the incentive to help apprehend people who were not willing to live in peace. If Palestinians were to accept this plan, so, surely, would their international supporters, including other Arab states and Iran.

3. What is to persuade Palestinians, who never agreed to the Zionist enterprise, to agree to the terms of this proposal?

Israel is a fait accompli; it is not going away, and a one-state, one-vote solution is simply unacceptable to Jews unless Arabs are transferred out. More than any other two-state proposal, this proposal restores what Palestinians lost when Israel was created: both states will now have access to all of what was Mandate Palestine. This plan is the only plan that provides parity between the two states in terms of borders and power while treating individuals equally. Palestinians will gain world esteem by granting Jews the political power they need to provide a haven against anti-Semitism.

4. How can such a tiny area absorb the return of Palestinian refugees, especially considering the shortage of water and the Jews’ own need to have Israel be a haven for Jewish refugees?

As part of an overall settlement, other countries could offer citizenship to Palestinian refugees, reducing the number of refugees returning to Israel-Palestine. Israel is currently using workers from many different countries. With the end of the conflict, Palestinians could just as easily fill these positions and the foreign workers sent home. As stakeholders in Israel-Palestine, Palestinians might feel motivated to reduce the size of their families, as has happened with other families around the world when their economic and political conditions improve. Israel’s recruitment of Jews to Israel for demographic purposes would no longer be necessary, because Israel would have 50 percent of the power regardless of the size of its population. Israel could continue to be a haven for Jews who are persecuted, but perhaps only a temporary haven. The best course of action is to work for human rights for Jews and other minorities in every country of the world so that there is no need for a haven. Anti-Semitism arising as a response to Israel’s policies would be reduced if there were a fair settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute.

5. Why should power be shared 50-50 instead of on the basis of population?

Because Jews have experienced centuries of state-sponsored (or state-allowed) discrimination and persecution, culminating in the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews, they feel the need for a place where they have political control. Admittedly, sharing power 50-50 does not give them absolute control, but at the same time it does not allow them to be controlled. Were a true impasse to occur, and arbitration sought, the international community would favor human rights. Palestinians would gain international esteem for generously recognizing the Jews’ need for control of their destiny. The Palestinians, themselves having experienced powerlessness, also need a place where they can control their destiny. A 50-50 solution is the only one that will give each group the assurance it needs not to be dominated. Giving each state equal power has precedent in the setup of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Parity between Palestinians and Jews as nations was even suggested by some Zionists before the creation of Israel.

6. Aren’t we really talking about a binational state?

The concept of a binational state has changed since some Zionists first proposed it in the 1920s and early 1930s. Back then, when Jews were a minority, parity between the Jews and Palestinians was as an inherent aspect of the proposal for a binational state. More recently, any mention of a binational state assumes a one-person, one-vote arrangement within a single state. The Parity for Peace plan recognizes the psychological importance to Jews and Palestinians alike of each nation having a state of their own and does not call for the destruction of any state that already exists. Allowing each state separate representation in the United Nations gives each state legitimacy as a state.

One could argue that shared sovereignty belies the notion of a state, but sovereignty is shared in a federal system, and a federal system is a relatively new concept in statehood. When the thirteen colonies in America broke away from England and established themselves as states, they first tried working together as a confederation. They soon found that they needed a stronger union. Thus the federal system was born. All human institutions arise to meet a need. Just because there have never before been two states with the same borders and a shared government does not mean that this political framework cannot be instituted. The conflicting and legitimate demands posed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are unique and call for a unique response. Two people can maintain separate identities while owning a house and sharing in decision-making related to the house. As our world becomes more integrated, nations are already giving up some of their sovereignty for the sake of world order.

7. Doesn’t the cartoon controversy (the worldwide Muslim uprising over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed) show that nations with different value systems cannot live and work together?

Both nations will have to show sensitivity to issues that inflame the other. Some countries have laws against “hate crimes” or “incitement to violence.” Palestinians and Jews could do the same, specifically stating what actions will be considered unacceptable. Sensitivity must include a willingness to hear the other side’s grievances. The cartoon controversy became a worldwide uprising because Danish officials initially refused to meet with local Muslims who were upset about the publication of the cartoons.

Both the Jews and the Palestinians have qualities that bode well for living and working together in spite of diversity. The Jewish community in Israel includes people from many different cultures and with very different interpretations of what it means to be a Jew. Furthermore, 20 percent of the population of Israel is Muslim and there are, as well, a good many residents from other countries. Despite all this diversity, society functions. Historically, Muslims have been relatively tolerant and hospitable. Before the advent of Zionism, Jews were better treated in Muslim countries than in Christian ones, and in pre-Mandate Palestine, Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived harmoniously. Justice is an important value for all three religious groups as well as secularists and can be a unifying principle.

8. What if Palestinians and Jews simply don’t want to live together?

Palestinians and Jews have both experienced what it is like to live in ghettos. Under the Parity for Peace plan, forced segregation would not be allowed, but people may naturally choose to live with people of their own nationality. An active program to promote understanding and goodwill at all levels of society would help to break down psychological barriers. If such a program were publicly funded so that it could be done on a massive scale, Israel, together with Palestine, would indeed become “a light unto the nations.”

This plan is a work in progress. It was last updated on March 17, 2006. We welcome your suggestions and comments. Post them on the forum or Send feedback to the writer-editor of this site. We will not open attachments. The mailing address is Parity for Peace, P.O. Box 381, Fairfax, CA 94978, U.S.A. Please identify yourself as a Jew (J), Palestinian (P), or Other (O). Further identification would be helpful, such as whether you live in Israel, another country, Gaza, or the West Bank.

Parity for Peace

Palestine / Israel