Will there be peace if Palestinians lay down their arms?

[JDPriestly]

2. There are two sides.

I have watched the situation in Israel/Palestine since 1952. I was nine. My father collected aid for refugees of the war including Palestinians and that is why I knew of the situation when I was so young.

I remember that the Palestinian terror attacks began in the 1960s.

Here is a history of the conflict. There are many different versions. This is one of them.

http://www.infoplease.com/world/countries/israel-palestine-conflict/early-history.html

Here is a list of Palestinian terrorist attacks from 2001-2011.

http://archive.adl.org/israel/israel_attacks.html

As I have written before, wars end in three ways: stalemate, a negotiated peace settlement in which both parties have at least some say although one usually has more and total surrender of one party and total victory by the other.

Peace negotiations have been tried several times. Even when progress is made, the Palestinians have not been able to reign in their terrorists and keep the peace. The Palestinians have never managed to get behind a government that wants peace enough to abandon violence and terrorism. That is the reason I believe that the Palestinians hold the keys to peace. It isn't that I think the Israelis are right and the Palestinians wrong, but that the Palestinians have not yet shown the ability to keep a negotiated peace long enough to earn the Israelis' trust. This is to a great extent because of the lack of traditions of self-government, formal self-government among Palestinians. They were for centuries either under Turkish rule -- the Ottoman Empire -- or under the British Mandate. Many of the Israelis on the other hand came from countries that had autonomy even if they had dictators. Russia is an example.

I want to see a negotiated peace. But both sides have to be ready to a) compromise (especially on Israel's side) and b) enforce the peace and treaty promises (especially on Palestine's side).

I think that Palestine holds the key because past efforts toward peace have failed when some faction among the Palestinians becomes impatient and fails to keep the peace.

Israel on the other hand has demonstrated that it can destroy and walk away from settlements and that it can arrest its own citizens if they commit acts of terror that are not under the command of the military of Israel.

The Palestinians' grievances could be resolved through international efforts if Israel thought it could get peace. That is my sense of the situation after so many years.

I cannot blame either side for being suspicious of the other. But it will be much easier to give back land to Palestine if Israelis believe that they will be secure if they give it back. Israelis understandably do not want to agree to trade land for peace if they aren't going to get peace.

Much of the land that is disputed and is arguably beyond the original borders envisioned in the UN resolution for partition was acquired by Israel in the course of wars that the Palestinians and their various supporters began. The more Palestinians resist, the worse off they are.

I am taking a practical view of things. Revenge is not a practical solution. Righting perceived wrongs is just a form of revenge. Both sides need to negotiate peace.

I would propose an incremental, slow process. Palestine agrees to demonstrate that it can keep the peace for two years. Israel clears some of the contested land on the borders with Gaza and the West Bank. A No-Man's-Land is established in that area and for the first two or three years, a number of peacekeeping teams made up of one Israeli, one Palestinian and perhaps one American and one from some other country chosen by the Palestinians patrol the area using a lot of electronic gear to be sure they are safe. If the parties have established peace in that time, they move on to the next step which would involve more cultural and social exchanges, say among students from the two countries and, if peace was maintained during the first few years, more land is cleared, and either the No-Man's-Land is moved or enlarged depending on what the parties agree to at that time. Gradually, land can be made available to the Palestinians that is now under Israeli control. The person-to-person contacts should increase as time passes, and land exchanges, cultural exchanges, etc. should also increase. It seems to me that a 20- or 25-year incremental process should be planned.

I would like to add that any peace agreement should include a commission of Palestinians and Israelis with appointments to be renewed in a staggered manner every four years. That commission would meet frequently either in person or through other means (but not through just written reports) and consider any complaints about breaches in the peace and what should be done about them. Perhaps the commission could include representatives from other countries.

Palestinians not in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank should not be permitted to move back during the 20-year period, and similarly, immigration into Israel should be ended for that time. That's my proposal. If the two parties don't like it, they could permit immigration on both sides but not just on one side.

The issue of Jerusalem should be about the last thing the parties talk about because if both sides can establish trust with the other, Jerusalem will be easier to deal with.

I keep reminding people that Alsace-Lorraine was fought over by the Germans and French for something like 100 years. I have lived there, and even in the 1960s, it was peaceful. It is now a part of France, and I believe there is no longer any hatred or problem.

Palestinians and Israel can achieve the same kind of acceptance of each other. It just takes time.

The other alternative as far as I have been able to figure it out thus far is for one side or the other to completely conquer the other. That is a primitive solution but think of Russia and East Germany or even the US at the end of WWII.

Another possibility is a solution like that of the two Koreas. Also not very good for either side.

Disputes either continue or end. Both sides have to decide what they are willing to give up to get peace.

Ultimately religious and cultural tolerance in all areas would be very desirable. But I think it would take a long time to reach that point.