A new, bi-national STATE of JERUSALEM, with the international City of Jerusalem as its capital.

    By colindalelondon on Wed, 09/08/2010 - 9:18am |

     

    If the current peace talks in Washington fail, (as seem inevitable after the position of Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’sForeign Minister, has now been made clear), then the United Nations should declare the establishment of a new, bi-national STATE of JERUSALEM, with the international City of Jerusalem as its capital.

     

    1. The new State of Jerusalem would encompass all of the present land of Israel , with its 7.5 million Jewish and Arab citizens plus the estimated four million Palestinians from the West Bank and the enclave of Gaza . To this figure should be added approximately ½ to 1 million refugees from Egypt / Jordan , who originally fled from Palestine in 1948.

    1. The area would encompass all that land between the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the Jordan River to the east, the Golan Heights to the north and Eilat - on the Red Sea - to the south.

    1. These demographics indicate a bi-national state of roughly 12-13 million citizens of whom about 50% would be Jewish and the other half, primarily Muslim.

    1. There would be free, democratic elections supervised by the UN, with all citizens having the rights to vote for their representatives to a National Assembly situated in the City of Jerusalem . The subsequent legislature would be representative of the electorate as a whole. 

    1. There would be a constitution that would guarantee freedom of worship, freedom of movement and freedom of speech.

    1. The new state would be granted membership of the United Nations as an independent, autonomous entity and would be allowed to be militarily equipped to fully defend itself from any attack. The existing nuclear weapons arsenal, however, would be dismantled under the supervision of the IAEA, in the interests of world peace.

    1. The City of Jerusalem would remain an international city, as per the resolution of the UN, and there would be free access, in perpetuity, to its holy sites to any bona fide pilgrim or visitor.

     

    It would be anticipated that virtually all neighbouring states would be in favour of such action, in the event that the Obama/ Netanyahu/ Mahmoud Abbas talks, break down. That would probably include Egypt , Lebanon , Syria , Jordan , Saudi Arabia and Iran .

    Comments

    Why are you even posting this? It's bad enough when some people, despairing of a two-state solution, start imagining that a one-state solution is somehow achievable. But this is a one-state solution with dancing unicorns.

    I'll grant you your premise that the talks are likely to fail. Not because of Lieberman, but because neither side has much leeway to accommodate the other. Any workable deal would require that Netanyahu dump his right-wing coalition partners and bring Kadima into the govt. I doubt he has the courage and vision for that, and in any case I doubt he'll offer enough to win agreement from Abbas, much less appeal to a majority of Palestinians.

    So, once the talks fail, you suggest the United Nations should decree a new bi-national state. You do understand, don't you, that the UN can recognize newly established states -- not create them by fiat? And precisely what process do you foresee -- a Security Council vote, a General Assembly motion? Which countries are going to draw up the resolution? How many votes do you think they'll get? I'll tell you: Not a single Arab state would propose this. Even Iran would want to save itself the embarrassment.

    In short, Colindale, you're talking absolute rubbish here. The UN can barely scrape up enough votes to condemn real-life outrages like the assault on Gaza or the flotilla attack. Yet you somehow think its members will vote Israel out of existence? And that Israel will meekly comply?

    Get real. And don't bold-face your copy. Genghis doesn't like that.


    by acanuck on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 4:25am

    You need to appreciate, acanuck, that whilst the US is the primary supplier of military and civil aid to Israel, the EU is its primary trading partner without which the state of Israel is not economically viable. (The EU is also, incidentally, a primary funder to the PA). It is therefore the EU that holds the key to the conflict. It needs to act to avoid the increasing likelihood of global war. When and if it takes the required action then the UNSC can take the appropriate next steps to establish a single bi-national state which would subsume the existing state of Israel. Only then will there be a solution that brings enfranchisement and freedom to all indigenous peoples of the region, and a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Obviously, there will be those, such as yourself, who will oppose such a solution but political necessity dictates an equitable solution now, not subsequent to further conflict that would be likely to end in widespread bloodshed throughout all the communities of the region both Arab and Jewish, plus a very possible escalation to encompass both Europe and parts of the US. That is why it is essential for the European Union to act, sooner rather than later.

    by colindalelondon on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 9:54am

    I'm all for an end to the occupation and an equitable solution. But a single bi-national state is not on the table, is not in the cards, and is not being explored. It wouldn't even matter if majorities on both sides within Israel-Palestine said they wanted one -- which is not the case. The issue is one of power and control, and that isn't changed by lumping everyone together. The settler vision of Eretz Israel and Arab aspirations for Greater Palestine are irreconcilable, and that conflict wouldn't disappear within a single political entity. It would probably get worse.

    A peace deal is in the whole world's interests. I'd like to see the E.U. (as well as individual European nations, the U.S. and the UN) exerting serious pressure to achieve one. But not even the United States could make Netanyahu freeze all West Bank settlement construction. So stop dreaming about some outside force imposing a single-state solution. It's not going to happen and wouldn't succeed if it did happen.


    by acanuck on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 5:26pm

    The EU is not some 'outside force', my young friend. It's the largest trading block in the world.

    It would appear that your assertions are apparently just that, personal beliefs based on ideology that bear little relation to political and economic reality.  However, many thanks for pointing out that, ''The settler vision of Eretz Israel and Arab aspirations for Greater Palestine are irreconcilable'. That's useful.

    As for your assertion that a single state solution 'is not going to happen' is perhaps a little on the dogmatic side ...     I suggest you watch this space..

     

     

     


    by colindalelondon on Fri, 09/10/2010 - 11:22am

    Latest Comments