Land Of, Countries, Nation, States & People || Modern Government || Israel & Palestine

For too long the Israeli and Palestinian conflict has seemed a one off. An unprecedented unique paradigm with many unique factors. But is this so?

The answer is simply NO. The situation is a very stark example of what is happening worldwide. The solution can be found by looking beyond the warring peoples. In fact we must look at the world as it is today.

We are living in a world composed of Land of, Countries, States, and People.
They are often almost synonymous. And that is where the confusion lies. They are not. Land is simply a geographical entity. Nothing more or less. It has no functional role other than to provide a back drop. When a people have a distinct affinity to a land it is often called ‘Land Of—-‘. Land Of Scotland, Land Of Wales. Here we see the first inkling of the Israeli – Palestinian conflict. The ‘Land of’ is equally known as the ‘Land Of Israel’ and the ‘Land Of Palestine’.

Countries are within defined areas. They have sovereignty. The country’s value is its intrinsic value when viewed externally. It makes very little difference what is the composition of a country to another country. Countries regard other countries as monolithic. Their relevance to one another is based on the relationships between countries. This being trade and influence- be it financial, cultural or military. Countries are well defined, with well known, acceptable and workable norms of behavior. One has only to look at the IS, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to see what happens when a country fails to exist. Gaza and the West bank are different examples. Their existence is a virtual one devoid of context and affective meaning. The US is for this purpose is a Country within it are many States.  A model that works well.

In the modern world the State and Country have become synonymous. They are not. The US is a successful example of a State –Country synergy. Countries are virtually defined by fellow countries. The nature and governance of the individuals in the country is run by the State. There may well be a devolution of power from the Country to individual States. The loci of functioning shared between the Governing ‘Country’ and its constituent States is never well defined. There is a constant state of flux between the ‘central government’ and the ‘peripheral government’. This is well illustrated in modern Europe. The EEC wishes itself a strong ‘Country’ with now rebelling constituent States. Generally speaking the Country deals with external matters between countries, defense, foreign policy and trade. Each Country ascribe internal uniformity in fiscal, legal and the political system in which its constituent States will function. When the Country and State are not synonymous the State will be responsible for the governing of the State. I will return to this later.

A Nation are peoples that feel they have a commonality in history. They are peoples who feel that they can share the same Country or State’s agenda and body politique. They are prepared to be governed as one.   They ascribe their individuality within the sovereignty of the Country or State. People are defined by their commonality in history, heritage, values and beliefs. They may seek to be autonomous or sovereign. They may choose to be constituents in a State or Country which allows them to express defining values.

What is modern government?  The government consists of government who provide to the inhabitants services and preserves the institutions of the Country and or State. The government oversees the functioning of State institutions. The government define the scope of the services, define the mode of service, define the locus of service, prioritize the service, budget the service and oversee the services—regulating and auditing. The State or Country does not necessarily give the service. The Country decides on the mode of government be it military, religious or democratic.
There has been a major change in Government. Particularly in democracies, but not only, has there been a shift between the loci of decision making, funding, auditing and service providing.  Decision about services providing to a lesser extent funding have devolved. In Israel the Local Councils are providing much of the services which will dictate quality of life. Services at a ‘local level’ evolve into functional economic units. The Central Government decides, funds, regulates and oversees National institutions. The local government executes and audits.

There is a spectrum of functionality and loci from the level of Country, State and Local Authorities.

Applying this to Israel and Palestine. Within the Land of Israel- Palestine there are two people. They have no intention of becoming one Nation. Is it not possible that we have two States in one Country?
The land and the country is indivisible.
The defense and economy of the Country de facto are inadvisable.
To those who say ‘Two State Solution I say ‘Yes, but in one indivisible Country’. To those who say ‘One State Solution’, I say’ No. One Country solution. Within it two States’.
A ‘weak’ Country Government who devolves most of its powers and symbols to the two constituent State. The symbols that are maintained are the autonomy and functioning of all religious artifacts especially the Jerusalem basin. There must be trade of interests. If the Jews wish to be allowed to prioritize Defense then the Palestinians must be allowed to prioritize economic development and foreign policy. These and only those will be dictated at the Country Government level. In the fullness of time the artificiality will be removed. As the States and their peoples learn to live together it will dissipate.
The two sister States are dedicated to serve the people therein. Israel for the Jews. Palestine for the Palestinians and their incoming exiles. Both States will provide infrastructure for natural growth of its present minorities. Both people maintain to live anywhere in the Land of Israel-Palestine. Both people will forgo that right for the foreseeable future. If there are ‘out of State’ marriages the new couple will live in their people’s State.  To preserve the ethnic consistency all Palestinians will be given an amnesty by the State of Palestine. All Palestinian ‘refugees’, without exception, will return to Palestine.
East Jerusalem Arabs will become Palestinians.
All Jews wishing to leave the future Palestine will be aided and encouraged to do so.
All Arabs wishing to leave Israel will be afforded the same rights.
All minorities in both States may not choose to be a member of the Sister State.
All minorities be it Jew or Arab must swear an oath of allegiance to its new chosen State in which they will then live as a loyal minority.
The contiguous sister States border will be open. Their placement will be decided by local plebiscites held at a municipal level. All municipalities within a distance of eight kilometers on either side of the green line will vote where there town or village will exist. Be it in Palestine or Israel. With appropriate compensation, as envisioned in the Bush letter of intent, the new open borders will be drawn. The wall will be totally removed.
The City of Jerusalem will never be divided. But it will be shared fairly and equitably. There will be no visible border. There will be five seats of administration in Jerusalem. The Country’s governing body with its devalued but central powers. Both Governing State bodies, that of Israel and Palestine. Both Municipal bodies of the undivided East & West Jerusalem and finally the administrative body running the basin under the aegis of the Countries governing body.

Could it work? Looking at Jerusalem we are in fact recognizing a de facto situation. Does it matter who removes the rubbish or services the schools in East Jerusalem? The basin de facto is divided. This must stop.
Our fathers prayed to live in the Land Of Israel, not the State Of Israel. In 1947 with partition we agreed to not only share the Land. We also implied that State funded Zionism will be done within the State Of Israel. We have to honor that commitment.
Presently we are like Siamese Twins. The twins are not indivisible. But they are deeply linked and these ties cannot and should not be severed. No one side can dictate. Certainly not the weaker to the stronger.
In the present climate this plan would win both huge internal and external support. The initiative would again be in our hands. The solution would be seen not only in the context of IS, which is appropriate locally. It would be seen and associated with solutions to similar problems from Scotland, Catalonia and some extent Hong Kong. There are difficulties with ‘one country two systems’. They are surmountable. They are imminently acceptable and marketable.
Our experience with well-intended concepts has been dashed by our experience in Oslo, Southern Lebanon and Gaza. We have learned a lesson. The lesson is about naivety.
No thoughts are naïve. Was JFK naïve to go to the moon? Was Bill Gates naïve to think that he could do what he did? Was Steve Jobs naive?
No, none of them were. Naivety is not a defining factor of a thought. Naivety is an expression of execution. JFK, Gates and Jobs did not execute their plans naively. The conception does not define naivety. Only inception and execution define if a project is to be deemed naïve. The inception and execution of all Israel’s initiatives have damned them to becoming exercises in naivety. Not the conception. Conception is naïve free.