My 15-point compromise peace proposal to end the destructive and deadly war in Gaza contains realistic provisions designed to be acceptable to both sides since a two-state solution is not possible
Always appreciate your insight and direction on world affairs Mr. Pyne! One of a very few select individuals on-line who actually provide a roadmap for peace and not just another empty echo of doom and gloomers.
Great interview with Brannon Howse as well by the way.
Thanks! I could get published a lot more widely if my articles were 750 words each but I find it hard to say anything of consequence using less than 1500 words. And I hate when pundits talk about problems but never offer workable solutions so I make sure I focus on providing my own.
No accountability for IDF war crimes, really? How could that be acceptable to Palestinians, to anyone watching the genocide day after day or feasible under international law?
Unfortunately, its not possible to hold them accountable as part of a peace agreement. Israel is a nuclear superpower in relation to Gaza which is 57 times smaller with 11 times less troops. We have to stop the killing of tens of thousands of Gaza civilians by whatever means possible. The accountability will be when Israel holds elections Netanyahu is sure to lose.
Israel wants to annex the land. This would be clear to you if you had read any histories of the region or the SA prosecution case. What happens to Hammas is neither here nor there to them. In fact their lasting longer gives Israel more time to starve Palestinians. It is led by a radical ultrareligious messianic cabinet that believes Greater Israel was given to them by God. Therefore without US pressure this plan will fail. If the US would apply pressure, it would simply say 'this is a genocidal state, we will abide by the ICJ ruling, and facilitate a BDS movement. Every country including perhaps Germany would comply (China has expressed a desire to use greater leverage so between the two of them Israel would have little choice). It would not use nuclear weapons if it were told a pre-emptive strike would lead to a loss of nuclear umbrella protection. Fear of going from a prosperous ally to an impoverished pariah would bring 2 states very quickly precisely under the terms of international law. As far as Israelis refusing to live next to people who'd done them so much violence, Palestinians have repeatedly expressed willingness to do so (1988, 1914 Charter) and the harm theyve experienced has been an order of magnitude higher. Peacekeepers would need to be sent in for the first decade but not very many if the threat of global sanctions were on the table for a small state and Palestinians would simply be grateful to be free. A brutal occupation is of course what radicalised them in the first place. I would place 2 further stipulations: money that used to go to aid Israel would now be sent to rebuild Gaza, and economic penalties would be suffered by either state which did not subjugate itself to the ICC's rulings. The only way the US' interests in the ME can be restored in the face of China (a sense of justice rather than colonialism, and a rules based order one could count on, is if the rules are suddenly seen to be enforced on an equal basis. The US' interests are to dominate the oil in the Persian Gulf (suffocating Chinese ambitions should it want to), and anti-US rage in the region could right now hardly be overstated. Lastly, the source of this catastrophe must be addressed: the power of the Israeli Lobby in the US (AIPAC, ZOI, JEC, ADL, WINEP, and the hundred others need to be neutered. This could be done by passing a law that places caps on campaign finance contributions and by rigorously enforcing the 1st amendment so that opposition to Zionism cannot be crminalised.
What you are basically saying is that the government of israel, which has slaughtered many civilians mercilessly will ”Oversee the national security, borders over land, sea and air. I cannot believe you are serious.
Your whole premise for this article is that this is a can of worms being opened, that there is another party to deal with, and that appeasement works.
Appeasement works if there is a middle ground. If the other party is specifically trying to displace you, appeasement merely allows the other party to build bigger.
The real answer is aggressive force posture without getting dragged into positions which are untenable.
The reality in the Middle East is that there are tens of millions of other refugees besides for the gazans. Israel has MULTIPLE day after plans, but none that are finalized.
The challenge in the Middle East is that Muslims can't really rule well democratically. There is too much dogma and sectanariasm. Hence why the US took years to understand the local feel on the ground, and why when they evacuate it falls apart again. Israel is simply saying what's obvious. The PA are a bunch of corrupt, old, inept terrorists thugs turned 'heroic rulers'. There is no effective leadership or opposition with a balanced viewpoint that can be brought. Whoever has leadership skills is also radical or corrupt. So why being a failed state rule to Gaza. There's a reason the PA lost Gaza to Hamas in a democratic election, and why Abbas hasn't elections in like a decade.
Israel is doing a PHENOMENAL job at redefining integrated warfare to minimize civilian casualties. It will be studied in war colleges for decades. (And their integrated F35 technology will be a big addon arms sale.)
This has the potential to be the new model in the Middle East.
Other countries are NOT protesting - just the fake Iranian backed ones.
You would see massive demonstrations across the Middle East otherwise. Instead, it's only happening in the clueless West where self-hating academia have brainwashed a generation of children with Daddy issues are protesting against people who despise them.
Shut up, let Israel show the whole Arab world and Iran what peace and strength look like.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are eagerly waiting to create deeper relationships - if Israel shows it's stronger.
I agree that the PA has proven hopelessly corrupt which is why new leadership couldn't be much worse providing Hamas is banned from a new Gaza provisional government. The biggest reason why my plan won't be accepted is because Israel doesn't want to be constrained by any international agreement. They want a free hand to crush Gaza, kill thousands more Hamas terrorists and kill tens of thousands more civilians in the process and hopefully expel a million Palestinians to make their ideal plan of de facto annexation of the Gaza strip work out better. By all accounts Israel is doing nothing whatsoever to minimize casualties given the fact the average daily death rate of Gaza civilians is 9.4 times higher than for Ukrainian civilians thus far. In any case, the way I have written this agreement is to give Israel as much leeway as possible as they get to hand-pick Gaza's new executive leadership and have no set timetable for military withdrawal. That should make it acceptable to them if the US government is willing to increase pressure on them to agree to it.
For #1 - I am a bit ambivalent about your claims. I don't think Israel as a whole 'wants' to have any impact on Gaza civilians. They are fighting a terrorist organization who has built tunnels under EVERYTHING in Gaza, funded by international money. Israel has repeatedly said that if Hamas gave up their weapons, returns the hostages and leaves, that the war would be over.
Saying that rhetoric of a far right settler is far right politics and is reflective of the whole government seems to be a bit of a leap.
As you mentioned, much of your proposal already overlaps with something Israel would agree to.
I just highly doubt Hamas has any interest or incentive to do any of the above.
In terms of leadership, realistically it would take a decade to build real leaders who could lead in Gaza or the West bank. It's a myth to think that leaders can be built in a vacuum. The US spent two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan, and neither had real success in building leadership. It always defaulted back to sectarianism.
Hence a proposal to remove Sharia law seems offensive, to be honest. There aren't (m)any Christians and zero Jews there, so it's a moot point.
I think Israel learnt a lot from their time in Lebanon. They already tried to disengage in Gaza, that didn't work. It has been so bad that the left parties in Israel went from being dominant through the 90's and early 2000's to becoming extinct because of ongoing terrorism. No one can view any Palestinian group as a peace partner.
Iran is an arch opponent, and merely cooks up excuses. It doesn't seem to want to stop now. Despite losing so much from this war.
Sadly, I find it hard to think having conversations about stopping the war now are useful until Hamas is eradicated. They are thugs and will undermine any ability for peace until they are gone.
Yes I disagree with John Spencer. What I mean is Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition government want to crush Gaza and encourage as many Palestinians to leave Gaza as possible thereby severely depleting Hamas' potential manpower base. The Israeli government is not trying to kill civilians per se but rather to destroy Gaza's critical infrastructure to encourage as many civilians as possible to self-deport which is problematic because Israel has Gaza blockaded and Egypt won't accept any of them. This is in furtherance of Netanyahu's proposal for the establishment of a Greater Israel in 2007 when he proposed to the Egyptian President to resettle all Gazans in the Sinai. so Israel could annex the entire Gaza Strip. I am a nationalist like Netanyahu so I understand where he is coming from but my focus is on the protection of civilians. I agree that the chances of decent leaders being elected in Gaza are dim but Israel would get to handpick their executive PA leaders so that should help. Also, I never said that Netanyahu endorsed the far right proposals only that he has refused to condemn them with the notable exception of the proposal of a couple of them to consider nuking Gaza of course.
Always appreciate your insight and direction on world affairs Mr. Pyne! One of a very few select individuals on-line who actually provide a roadmap for peace and not just another empty echo of doom and gloomers.
Great interview with Brannon Howse as well by the way.
Praying sanity prevails.
Thanks! I could get published a lot more widely if my articles were 750 words each but I find it hard to say anything of consequence using less than 1500 words. And I hate when pundits talk about problems but never offer workable solutions so I make sure I focus on providing my own.
No accountability for IDF war crimes, really? How could that be acceptable to Palestinians, to anyone watching the genocide day after day or feasible under international law?
Unfortunately, its not possible to hold them accountable as part of a peace agreement. Israel is a nuclear superpower in relation to Gaza which is 57 times smaller with 11 times less troops. We have to stop the killing of tens of thousands of Gaza civilians by whatever means possible. The accountability will be when Israel holds elections Netanyahu is sure to lose.
Israel wants to annex the land. This would be clear to you if you had read any histories of the region or the SA prosecution case. What happens to Hammas is neither here nor there to them. In fact their lasting longer gives Israel more time to starve Palestinians. It is led by a radical ultrareligious messianic cabinet that believes Greater Israel was given to them by God. Therefore without US pressure this plan will fail. If the US would apply pressure, it would simply say 'this is a genocidal state, we will abide by the ICJ ruling, and facilitate a BDS movement. Every country including perhaps Germany would comply (China has expressed a desire to use greater leverage so between the two of them Israel would have little choice). It would not use nuclear weapons if it were told a pre-emptive strike would lead to a loss of nuclear umbrella protection. Fear of going from a prosperous ally to an impoverished pariah would bring 2 states very quickly precisely under the terms of international law. As far as Israelis refusing to live next to people who'd done them so much violence, Palestinians have repeatedly expressed willingness to do so (1988, 1914 Charter) and the harm theyve experienced has been an order of magnitude higher. Peacekeepers would need to be sent in for the first decade but not very many if the threat of global sanctions were on the table for a small state and Palestinians would simply be grateful to be free. A brutal occupation is of course what radicalised them in the first place. I would place 2 further stipulations: money that used to go to aid Israel would now be sent to rebuild Gaza, and economic penalties would be suffered by either state which did not subjugate itself to the ICC's rulings. The only way the US' interests in the ME can be restored in the face of China (a sense of justice rather than colonialism, and a rules based order one could count on, is if the rules are suddenly seen to be enforced on an equal basis. The US' interests are to dominate the oil in the Persian Gulf (suffocating Chinese ambitions should it want to), and anti-US rage in the region could right now hardly be overstated. Lastly, the source of this catastrophe must be addressed: the power of the Israeli Lobby in the US (AIPAC, ZOI, JEC, ADL, WINEP, and the hundred others need to be neutered. This could be done by passing a law that places caps on campaign finance contributions and by rigorously enforcing the 1st amendment so that opposition to Zionism cannot be crminalised.
What you are basically saying is that the government of israel, which has slaughtered many civilians mercilessly will ”Oversee the national security, borders over land, sea and air. I cannot believe you are serious.
Your whole premise for this article is that this is a can of worms being opened, that there is another party to deal with, and that appeasement works.
Appeasement works if there is a middle ground. If the other party is specifically trying to displace you, appeasement merely allows the other party to build bigger.
The real answer is aggressive force posture without getting dragged into positions which are untenable.
The reality in the Middle East is that there are tens of millions of other refugees besides for the gazans. Israel has MULTIPLE day after plans, but none that are finalized.
The challenge in the Middle East is that Muslims can't really rule well democratically. There is too much dogma and sectanariasm. Hence why the US took years to understand the local feel on the ground, and why when they evacuate it falls apart again. Israel is simply saying what's obvious. The PA are a bunch of corrupt, old, inept terrorists thugs turned 'heroic rulers'. There is no effective leadership or opposition with a balanced viewpoint that can be brought. Whoever has leadership skills is also radical or corrupt. So why being a failed state rule to Gaza. There's a reason the PA lost Gaza to Hamas in a democratic election, and why Abbas hasn't elections in like a decade.
Israel is doing a PHENOMENAL job at redefining integrated warfare to minimize civilian casualties. It will be studied in war colleges for decades. (And their integrated F35 technology will be a big addon arms sale.)
This has the potential to be the new model in the Middle East.
Other countries are NOT protesting - just the fake Iranian backed ones.
You would see massive demonstrations across the Middle East otherwise. Instead, it's only happening in the clueless West where self-hating academia have brainwashed a generation of children with Daddy issues are protesting against people who despise them.
Shut up, let Israel show the whole Arab world and Iran what peace and strength look like.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are eagerly waiting to create deeper relationships - if Israel shows it's stronger.
I agree that the PA has proven hopelessly corrupt which is why new leadership couldn't be much worse providing Hamas is banned from a new Gaza provisional government. The biggest reason why my plan won't be accepted is because Israel doesn't want to be constrained by any international agreement. They want a free hand to crush Gaza, kill thousands more Hamas terrorists and kill tens of thousands more civilians in the process and hopefully expel a million Palestinians to make their ideal plan of de facto annexation of the Gaza strip work out better. By all accounts Israel is doing nothing whatsoever to minimize casualties given the fact the average daily death rate of Gaza civilians is 9.4 times higher than for Ukrainian civilians thus far. In any case, the way I have written this agreement is to give Israel as much leeway as possible as they get to hand-pick Gaza's new executive leadership and have no set timetable for military withdrawal. That should make it acceptable to them if the US government is willing to increase pressure on them to agree to it.
I'm going to apologize for my tone. I think I got triggered by some of your assertions, 😂.
As an Orthodox Jew with family all over Israel - and a more 'right wing ' viewpoint, I am a bit biased.
I'm still not sure I understand your assertions.
1) You claim that Israel ONLY wants to crush Gaza and expel asamy of them as possible
2) That Israel's assault on Gaza is having a terrible toll on civilians, and getting close to the claim that 'its against the international laws'.
For #2 - I take it you disagree with John Spencer?: https://www.newsweek.com/israel-implemented-more-measures-prevent-civilian-casualties-any-other-nation-history-opinion-1865613
For #1 - I am a bit ambivalent about your claims. I don't think Israel as a whole 'wants' to have any impact on Gaza civilians. They are fighting a terrorist organization who has built tunnels under EVERYTHING in Gaza, funded by international money. Israel has repeatedly said that if Hamas gave up their weapons, returns the hostages and leaves, that the war would be over.
Saying that rhetoric of a far right settler is far right politics and is reflective of the whole government seems to be a bit of a leap.
As you mentioned, much of your proposal already overlaps with something Israel would agree to.
I just highly doubt Hamas has any interest or incentive to do any of the above.
In terms of leadership, realistically it would take a decade to build real leaders who could lead in Gaza or the West bank. It's a myth to think that leaders can be built in a vacuum. The US spent two decades in Iraq and Afghanistan, and neither had real success in building leadership. It always defaulted back to sectarianism.
Hence a proposal to remove Sharia law seems offensive, to be honest. There aren't (m)any Christians and zero Jews there, so it's a moot point.
I think Israel learnt a lot from their time in Lebanon. They already tried to disengage in Gaza, that didn't work. It has been so bad that the left parties in Israel went from being dominant through the 90's and early 2000's to becoming extinct because of ongoing terrorism. No one can view any Palestinian group as a peace partner.
Iran is an arch opponent, and merely cooks up excuses. It doesn't seem to want to stop now. Despite losing so much from this war.
Sadly, I find it hard to think having conversations about stopping the war now are useful until Hamas is eradicated. They are thugs and will undermine any ability for peace until they are gone.
Yes I disagree with John Spencer. What I mean is Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition government want to crush Gaza and encourage as many Palestinians to leave Gaza as possible thereby severely depleting Hamas' potential manpower base. The Israeli government is not trying to kill civilians per se but rather to destroy Gaza's critical infrastructure to encourage as many civilians as possible to self-deport which is problematic because Israel has Gaza blockaded and Egypt won't accept any of them. This is in furtherance of Netanyahu's proposal for the establishment of a Greater Israel in 2007 when he proposed to the Egyptian President to resettle all Gazans in the Sinai. so Israel could annex the entire Gaza Strip. I am a nationalist like Netanyahu so I understand where he is coming from but my focus is on the protection of civilians. I agree that the chances of decent leaders being elected in Gaza are dim but Israel would get to handpick their executive PA leaders so that should help. Also, I never said that Netanyahu endorsed the far right proposals only that he has refused to condemn them with the notable exception of the proposal of a couple of them to consider nuking Gaza of course.