An innovative proposal for long-term Semitic harmony in the Middle East based on ideas from hundreds of ordinary people – 2,000 words (or less!)
Initiated: October 27, 2009
First iteration: November 5, 2009
2010 core text agreed: August 7, 2010
2010 print edition: December 13, 2010
2011 edits: February 11 — May 12, 2011
2012 edits finalised: December 22, 2012
Updated: May 2, 2013 — 22:44 JT
a peace of jerusalem
Preamble
THERE’S a celebrated tale that provides insight into the wisdom of Solomon (Shlomo/Suleiman), the son of David (Dovid/Dawoud), King of ancient Israel and builder of the Temple of Jerusalem:
A newborn was brought before the King during the course of judging a case between two women, each of whom claimed to be the mother of the infant.
Though a judge of the rarest quality—and despite having conducted a series of tests—Solomon could not determine who was telling the truth. Seeming to be stumped, he called for his swordsman to evenly divide the baby between the women, whereupon one of them tearfully begged the King to spare the child’s life and award it to the other.
By this mercy he discerned the identity of the true mother.
Despite its great antiquity, Jerusalem is easily imagined as the child. The whole world stands divided over it and (though some battle for sole custody and others argue for a split) all appear eager to receive their due. However, according to Solomon’s judgement, and as reflected in modern-day family case law, any such critical decisions must clearly favour the interests of the child.
Imagination, pragmatism, love and divine inspiration will surely be central to the creation of any successful plan for enduring peace, but who would have the authority (not to mention the right) to judge the merits of such a case? In the absence of Solomon and his legendary wisdom, it would have to be ‘the people’.
Every individual is a well of possibility and a reservoir of sacred sovereignty.
United in common purpose, even the impossible seems somehow less so.
Respectfully,
- the editors
Index
Word count: 1,931 (2K max.)
I. Land of the Covenant
Let us imagine: two states, conjoined in peace; and two peoples, bound by blood and by a shared love for Jerusalem (Yerushalayim/Ursalim al-Quds), the place so deeply revered by their common patriarch Abraham (Avraham/Ibrahim).
It was in Jerusalem, upon the Mount (Har haBayith/Haram al-Sharif), that the angel stayed Abraham’s hand, as G‑d dramatically (and forever) repudiated ritual human sacrifice — a torturous test of one man’s utter devotion to G‑d and a stirring, implied decree to guard against the senseless forfeiture of life.
The foundations of the Arab and Jewish peoples were both laid in Jerusalem, where Abraham circumcised his son Ishmael (Yishmael/Ismail) and his son Isaac (Yitzhak/Ishaq).
Isaac’s son Jacob (Ya’acov/Yacoub), also known as Israel, would father twelve tribes (B’nai Yisrael/Bani Israil) and become namesake to the modern Jewish state. The destiny of Ishmael (though a Jew by patrimony and rite) would carry him South, to sire the twelve tribes of Arabia.
II. States in the Balance
To mitigate problems arising from inevitable demographic shifts over time, a special permanent resident class (endowed with rights that are irrevocable but renounceable and non-inheritable) should be established in the State of Israel (Medinat Yisrael) and in the new Arab state, such that:
- any Arab citizen of Israel could…
• simply retain his/her Israeli citizenship; or
• claim citizenship in the Arab state, with…
– special permanent residency rights in Israel; and
– a future one-time right to reclaim individual Israeli citizenship
- any Israeli citizen currently residing in the West Bank could…
• retain his/her Israeli citizenship and become
a special permanent resident of the Arab state; or
• claim citizenship in the Arab state, with…
– a future one-time right to reclaim individual Israeli citizenship
along with special permanent residency rights in the Arab state
This arrangement should limit the need for physical population transfers upon execution of a final-status agreement whilst allowing Israel to democratically maintain its character as a uniquely Jewish state that guarantees religious freedom, equal protection under the law, and political participation for all its citizens and permanent residents.
The new Arab state, herein provisionally referred to as Dawlat Ismail (State of Ishmael), or simply as Ismail, would enshrine similar guarantees of religious and secular freedom in its founding charter.
A child born in Israel or Ismail to a special permanent resident of that state would inherit citizenship from his/her parent(s) and, upon attaining age of majority, might opt to become a citizen of the state in which s/he was born.
Each state would pledge to make every reasonable effort to accommodate the safe passage of pilgrims, tourists and other visitors between the two states.
Each state would vow to serve and protect the personal and collective interests of the people under its jurisdiction, regardless of religion, race, gender, political affiliation or citizenship.
Each state would aver to protect and to preserve, without prejudice, all the Holy Places under its mandate.
III. Mutually-Independent Rights of Return
Each state would be free to set its own policy for the return of its people from the diaspora, with all future “returnees” (Hebrew: olim; Arabic: waa’ilin) becoming resident citizens of whichever state repatriates them.
A “returned citizen” of either nation, once established in his/her new homeland for two years, could petition for residency in the other state, with the approval of both governments, and with priority being given to requests from waa’ilin who resided in present-day Israeli territory prior to 1948. Urgent humanitarian cases would be considered on an expedited basis.
A regime for the compensation of displaced persons should be agreed by all regional states under a comprehensive treaty on refugees and human rights.
IV. Representation and Taxation
Citizens would vote in the national elections of their respective homelands but municipal and district|governate voter rolls would be based on residency.
Revenues from income taxes paid by individuals who are citizens of one state, but who are special permanent residents of the other, would be divided equally between the two states. Tax would be calculated using the methods established by the state in which the income is earned.
Given the disparity between average incomes in Israel and those in the West Bank and Gaza, this revenue splitting arrangement should provide significant economic stimulus for Ismail and help to fund the settlement of those making the Arab “ruqia” (Hebrew: aliyah; English: ascent).
Property tax would be paid to the state, district|governate or municipality in which the property is located.
Sales tax, if applicable, would be paid to the state in which a purchase is made.
V. Basic Services, Education & Health Care
The enhanced tax base of Dawlat Ismail, along with an expected surge in foreign investment and donations, should contribute substantially to the development of critical infrastructure for the diffusion of services across Ismail’s numerous, fast-growing communities.
State-funded education programmes (on either side of a future border) would be required to openly publish their curricula in order to encourage fairness and accuracy of content.
National health insurance premiums, if applicable, would be paid based upon residency, but a citizen of either state would always be free to seek treatment in his/her national homeland.
VI. The Division of Estates
The delineation of a border between the West Bank and Israel is seen as generally agreeing with the path of the “Green Line”, with any deviations and associated land-swaps to be negotiated by the parties to a final-status agreement.
The Israel-Gaza border is well-defined, having effectively gained international recognition via the 1949 Egypt-Israel Armistice Agreement, but this proposal suggests a modest expansion of Gaza by gifts of territory from Israel and Egypt, as a gesture of goodwill, and to contribute to the security of these nations by distancing Gaza’s extensive tunnel network from its newly-enlarged borders.
A treaty on water and mineral resource cooperation should be concluded between Israel, Ismail and Jordan, building on the work of the Joint Water Committee and other regional resource management groups, and being respectful of traditional resource rights and existing treaties.
Maritime boundaries would be assessed according to international norms.
VII. Rights of Passage
Israel would apportion lands for the creation of road and light rail corridors (above- and/or below-ground) to facilitate travel, commerce and social links between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Security at both ends of each pathway would be jointly managed by Ismail and Israel, with security of the intervening distance (in-corridor) being managed by Ismail and remotely monitored by Israel. The efficacy of this regime should be reviewed periodically to improve system effectiveness and eventually obviate the need for Israeli inspection of rail and motor passengers at the termini.
Commercial goods passing through such conduits would be subject to on-going inspection by customs officials of both states.
Recognising the importance of these corridors to Ismail’s culture and economy, Israel would undertake to minimise delays or closures associated with imminent security threats, health or weather emergencies, natural disasters, etc.
Sovereignty over all such apportioned lands would remain with Israel.
A suitable air traffic regime should be agreed between the parties.
VIII. The Jerusalem Capital Region
Jerusalem is the national capital of the modern state of Israel and remains, as ever, the singular direction of prayer (mizrach/qibla) for all Jews worldwide.
Jerusalem and its many surrounding communities (on either side of an agreed border) would constitute the Jerusalem Capital Region and share in a common infrastructure network for meeting such basic needs as water, power and waste management.
This network would be directed by a proposed Jerusalem Stewardship Board dedicated to ensuring the highest quality of life for all Capital Region residents. The Board, half elected by the residents of the Capital Region, half appointed by the governments of Israel and Ismail, would shepherd the implementation of appropriate planning, building and environmental codes.
Ismail’s capital would be established in an eastward expansion of Jerusalem contiguous to the Old City along some measure of its easterly perimeter. The precise determination of this contiguity (and the basic configuration of the Capital Region) would be decided between the negotiating parties, taking into account matters of culture and faith, geography and demographics, concerns related to the land and its waters and to the preservation of peace upon them.
There would be a city council and mayoralty office for each side of the border.
The official work week in the Capital Region would be four days, Monday through Thursday, with government offices closed Friday through Sunday.
IX. The Old City (less than 1 km² of land)
Rising above Jerusalem’s Holy Basin, the Old City, with its hallowed steps and ancient quarters, serves as sacred platform to the stony font from which the spirit of Jerusalem flows.
As it can be considered neither “east” nor “west” of itself, Jerusalem’s Old City would constitute a separate legal entity managed by a Regency Council with an identical number of members appointed by Israel, Ismail, the Chief Rabbinate, the Islamic Waqf, and the Vatican.
Council activities would be officiated by a Civil Sheriff elected to a five-year term by the residents of the Capital Region from a slate of candidates, each approved by four of Council’s five primary seats, with unanimity preferred.
Religious and cultural groups could petition the offices of any of the primary members to represent their interests at Council. Those with current standing in the Old City (houses of worship, shrines, cemeteries and other properties) could petition the Council directly on a case-by-case basis.
Passage of routine measures in Council would require five primary-level votes, whether by consensus of its five primary members or with the support of four seats and the approval of the Sheriff.
Major issues, such as those pertaining to the status quo of the Old City, would require unanimous support in Council and, in crucial cases, popular confirmation by twin, national referenda in Medinat Yisrael and Dawlat Ismail.
Mundane civil disputes and crimes committed in the Old City (G‑d forbid) would devolve to a special Magistrate’s court operating independently of either state’s judiciary but affiliated to both. Appointments to the court would be made by Council with the assent of each state’s Chief Justice.
Basic services to the Old City should be freely provided by the Capital Region infrastructure network.
X. Security, Order & Defence
Command of security in West Bank Areas “B” & “C” would be assumed by Ismail on a flexible timetable based upon clear goals to be decided between the parties. The Palestinian Authority, whose mandate would be subsumed by the new state, presently administers security in Area “A”.
Responsibility for security in Gaza would pass to Dawlat Ismail within 90 days.
A permanent Canadian peacekeeping mission, reporting to the Sheriff, would cooperate with the security services of both states; provide general security within the Old City; render personal protection for the Regency Council; guide Ismail in its development of a robust, responsible and accountable police force; ensure reasonable freedom of access to designated Holy Places; and help to maintain order in the Capital Region.
Protection of Ismail from foreign attack or invasion would be undertaken by Israel in close coordination with Ismail’s security services and the peacekeeping team. Ismail’s defence would also be bolstered by Jordan in the East and by Egypt in the West.
The security of Israel would be greatly enhanced by a defence pact with Dawlat Ismail, a peace treaty with the League of Arab States, and the formal recognition of Israel by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
.
There’s a sort of existential futility–and no small irony–inherent in
man’s claiming of land, for in the end, it’s the land that claims us all.
This may nowhere be so true as it is in Jerusalem.
.
.
It is our fondest hope that the boundaries which separate us
will be overgrown in time with vines bearing fruit enriched
by the bloom of tolerance; that we might all derive sustenance
from such bounty; and that, years from now, it will be difficult
to remember why it seemed so incredibly hard to find peace
.
.
May this work be found pleasing
in the eyes of G‑d, Blessed be He,
to Whom all glory is due
.
.
XI. Suggest an edit (confidential)
If you prefer, you may email the editors directly: periji@apoji.ca
project hosting courtesy imahd.ca
Powered by WordPress
and people like you
header image by Shmuel Spiegelman
(Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 1.0 Generic License)
