The Middle East Problem

The State of Israel was established in 1948

60 years ago

In spite of the efforts of many world leaders,

in spite of many peace plans,

a permanent solution to the Middle East Problem

seems as far away as ever.

May 2008

THE MIDDLE EAST PROBLEM

by L. Berney


Map thanks to the Perry-Castañeda Library, University of Texas

There are, in fact, two separate problems;

• The Palestinian people and the loss of their homeland.
• The Israeli-Islam conflict.

THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THE LOSS OF THEIR HOMELAND Israel occupies the territory of what used to be Palestine. Living In that territory there are some 1.800,000 Palestinian Arabs. In the countries surrounding Israel there are some 4,500,000 Palestinians, mostly in Refugee Camps. A 2005 census showed the number of refugees by country as:

• Jordan - 1,827,000
• Gaza - 986,000
• Syria - 432,000
• Lebanon - 404,000
• Saudi Arabia - 240,000
  

All Palestinians, those living in Israel as well as those living in the surrounding countries, want their former homeland, the country of Palestine, to be reinstated and they want to be governed by a Palestinian government.

There are some 5,500,000 Jewish Israelis in Israel. Virtually all were born in Israel or arrived there as children. They regard the territory of Israel as their homeland.

THE ISRAELI-ISLAM CONFLICT

For many centuries, and until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Palestine had been the homeland of the Palestinian Arabs and part of the Nation of Islam. By 1947 some 630,000 Jewish survivors of the holocaust had arrived and were physically in Palestine. The British, who held a mandate to maintain law and order in Palestine, were under attack by Jewish militants and gave notice that they would no longer accept that responsibility, that they were handing over that responsibility to the newly formed United Nations “forthwith”.

The UN faced a difficult situation; the Jewish settlers demanded independence and the British were leaving. The UN declared a “Palestine Partition Plan”. There was to be an independent “State of Israel” with borders within the country of Palestine. Israel was to occupy about two-thirds of the territory of Palestine while an “Arab Palestine” occupied the remainder. The city of Jerusalem was to be under International control.

The partition of Palestine in this way was opposed by the Arab and Muslim leaders of the time. From then until now, the Islamic world has never recognized the State of Israel, nor it’s right to exist.

Under the ideology of Islam, a land once part of the Nation of Islam is always part of the Nation of Islam. If any land that is part of the Nation of Islam is occupied by non-Muslims, “infidels”, it MUST be recovered. Islam will NEVER accept the presence of the State of Israel on Islamic land – no compromise is possible. Islamic ideology demands that Israel has to be destroyed and the land of Palestine and its people have to be returned to the Nation of Islam.

As at 2007, in Israel and the “occupied territories” (areas of the original Palestine not specified as Israeli territory by the UN, plus the Golan Heights, a part of Syria) there were some 5,500,000 Israeli Jewish, ”infidels”. Accordingly, a state of holy war (jihad) exists between Islam and the Jewish infidels occupying Palestine. Islam’s front line soldiers (the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Hamas in Gaza, and others) are trying in every way open to them to destroy Israel, and presumably will fight to do so for the foreseeable future.

PEACE PLANS

Over the 60 years of Israel’s existence, there have been many peace plans. Here are some of them :

1971 Jarring Mission
1982 Reagan Plan
1991 Madrid Conference (The Quartet)
1993 Oslo Accords
1995 Oslo 2
1997 Hebron Agreement
1998 Wye River Memorandum
1999 Sham e Sheikh Memorandum
2000 Camp David
2000 Summit
2001 Taba Summit
2002 Arab Peace Initiative
2002 Israel Initiative (Elon Peace Plan)
2002 Road Map for Peace
2003 Geneva Accord
2004 Lieberman Plan
2006 Franco-Italian-Spanish Plan
2007 Annapolis Conference
1948 to 2007 13 United Nations Security Council Resolutions
1948 to 2007 Numerous Cease Fire arrangements

None of these plans has succeeded in bringing about a solution.

THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION

A “two-state solution” to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict envisions two separate states existing side by side in the historic region of Palestine, one Jewish and the other Arab. All the existing Arab inhabitants would be given citizenship by the new Palestinian state; Palestinian refugees would be offered such citizenship as well. Arab citizens of present-day Israel would have the choice of staying with Israel, or becoming citizens of the new Palestine.

The first “two-state solution” was the basis of the original UN Partition of Palestine Resolution of 1948 which established the State of Israel. This partition resolution was never implemented.

A "two-state solution" is currently under discussion by the key parties to the conflict, most recently at the Annapolis Conference in November 2007.

The stumbling block of a “two-state solution” always was, and still is, that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians can agree on the border line between the two states. There is also the problem of the city of Jerusalem that both sides demand as their own Capital City. In any case, Islamic leaders will not, under any circumstances, accept the presence of a Jewish state on any part of what they regard as the soil of Islam.

ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE PROBLEM

There are several issues that have a relevance to the Middle-East Problem. Here are three.

History shows us that military occupation and civilian settlement of a territory populated by an indigenous people (as has happened in Palestine) eventually fails. It is possible that the same fate will befall Israel.

• Spain. Occupied by the Moors and eventually reverted to the indigenous Spanish population.
• Ireland. England invaded Ireland and large number of English settlers occupied the country. Eventually England was forced to withdraw to a small area in the North of the country.
• Rhodesia. Invaded and populated by the British. Eventually ceded to the indigenous population.
• South Africa. Occupied and colonised by Europeans. Eventually the ruling white government gave way to a black government.
  

It is an acknowledged fact that, without the financial and military support of the USA and the financial support of the Jewish community of the USA, the State of Israel could (almost certainly) not exist. Moreover, back in 1948, without that support, the State of Israel would (probably) never have been established. At some time in the future, will that support be weakened or even removed?

The Middle East Conflict presents serious potential dangers to the rest of the world. The fact that the UN and its member countries recognize the State of Israel seemingly incites ‘militant’ Muslims to carry out murderous attacks world-wide. If Iran or Syria should ever develop a nuclear weapon facility, few doubt that they would use such weapons to destroy Israel. That could well result in the whole world being drawn into a catastrophic new world war.

THE FUTURE

In spite of the efforts of many world leaders, and in spite of many peace plans, a permanent solution to the Middle-East Problem seems as far away as ever.

The most likely scenario, at least in the short and medium term, is that there will be no ‘breakthrough’ and that the present confrontational situation will continue. Hopefully, the possibility of the conflict developing into an international war will be averted.

Another scenario is that, over the next two or three decades, the financial support from future USA governments will decline or be cut off. It is possible that the UN, which established the State of Israel originally, could “in the interests of world peace” decide to disestablish the state and to reinstate the country of Palestine under an Arab Palestinian government. In that event substantial numbers of Israeli Jews might lose their resolve to fight on and may choose to emigrate. Others will come to accept the reunification of Palestine and stay on as Palestinian citizens.

There are precedents. The Union of South Africa was occupied and governed by white Europeans until 1994 when white rule ended and a largely black government took power. Some white South Africans emigrated, some stayed on and accepted the new mostly black regime. There was a similar situation with British Hong Kong -- after 100 years of British control, Hong Kong was handed over to Chinese rule. Some Hong Kong citizens left the territory, the great majority stayed on.

THIS CAN’T BE THE BEST WAY TO RUN THE COUNTRY!

Prime Minister’s Questions
Absolutely outrageous behavior!

Party Political Leaders
Objective: personal Power and Wealth

Conduct of MPs in the House of Commons…
more like a zoo than a parliament…

An outline for a
True Democratic Government

Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865),
16th President of the United States

THIS CAN’T BE THE BEST WAY TO RUN THE COUNTRY!

by L. Berney June 2008

(Note – Throughout this paper read ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’ as ‘he/she’, ‘him/her’ and ‘his/hers’).

How the Prime Minister the other ministers and the MPs conduct themselves in the House of Commons is outrageous. To know that these are the people who make the laws and decide on the taxes for the population of the United Kingdom is horrific.

The UK is supposed to be governed by a Representative Democracy. Democracy was defined by Abraham Lincoln as ‘Government of the people, by the People, for the People’. The UK is not, in fact, governed by a Democracy. The form of government is Autocracy -- rule by a one-person ruler, the head of the Political Party in power, the Prime Minister.

Every four or five years, the electorate of the UK votes for which of several candidates is to represent them in parliament. But those candidates are beholden to one or other political party. Thus the population is not voting for the candidate – it is voting for the political party he belongs to. These representatives, once elected as Members of Parliament (MPs), become virtually redundant. The only function of an MP of the party in power is to ‘rubber stamp’ the laws his Party Ruler has decided to enact. An MP of a party in opposition votes as the Ruler of his own Party dictates. To ensure that MPs do not step out of line, each party employs ‘Party Whips’ – MPs who do not ‘toe the party line’ i.e. vote as they are told, run the risk of being ‘de-selected’ at the next election.

And what of the political parties and their leaders? A Political Party is a group of people who share the same ideas about the way the country should be governed -- a way that is to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the rest of the population. The aim of a Political Party is to win an election and to take control of the Parliament, the Legislation and the Government. Political Parties are run by Career Politicians. The objective of a Career Politician is the achievement of personal POWER and WEALTH. His objective has very little or nothing to do with those of the rank and file members of his party; even less with the welfare of the population of the country as a whole. It has everything to do with the Power and Wealth of the Career Politician himself.

We see the fight for personal Power shamelessly exposed at elections. Elections descend into individual politicians fighting each other; it is about ‘being in power’, ‘winning’ and ‘losing’, about ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’. Politicians` public speeches and statements are entirely hypocritical -- promises are made with impunity, many of which are forgotten as soon as the individual achieves power. The political ‘campaign’ is designed entirely and solely to get the concerned candidate and his Party elected and into a position of power.

In the parliament itself, there is a ‘Ruling Party’ and one or more ‘Opposition Parties’. In all parliaments, the party rulers and their lieutenants take every possible opportunity to score points off of and to belittle the other party’s rulers and lieutenants. We have ‘Punch and Judy’ debates (Cameron v Brown). The only objective of the Ruler and the party in power is to stay in power – the only objective of the parties in opposition and their Rulers is to oust the current ruling party and to take power themselves. The Democratic concept of the ‘welfare of the people’ and ‘the good of all’ is not even on the menu!

What is clearly apparent is this. The purpose of a Political Party is to pervert the concept of Democracy. Instead, the purpose is for the Party to take power and to rule the country. For this reason, and by definition, all Political Parties are anti-democratic.

The only democratic aspect of the present form of government is that, every few years, the electorate is asked to vote for which of the three main political parties to put into power. Typically, on a 60% turn-out, the winning party will receive perhaps 50% of all the votes cast. That means that the whole population will be ruled and taxed by the leader of a group which, in fact, received the votes of only 30% of the population!

Given the way the House of Commons conducts the nation’s business – the absurd spectacle of the point-scoring and school-boy slanging matches between the opposing parties – the animal howls and cat-calls more appropriate to a zoo than a parliament -- the Party Leaders’ very obvious obsession for personal Power -- important issues being debated with only a few MPs attending – the scandal of ‘loans’, ‘donations’ and ‘cash for honours’ – and the many other shortcomings – this can’t be the best way to run the country!

It is amazing how the nation’s tax-paying citizens continue to put up with the current Autocratic Political Party form of Government, and with the behavior of Politicians who earn their incomes from it.

It has been said that the UK’s form of government is NOT “Government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is, “Government of the people, by a Political Party, for the benefit of the Party’s Leaders!

Since the current Autocratic Party Political form of government is clearly undemocratic and incompetent, why does the British public allow it to continue? I have asked a number of UK residents:

• “Are you satisfied with the way the country is governed?” Most reply, “No.”
• “Do you think the system should be changed?”Most reply, “Yes, but I don’t know how.”
• “Do we still need Political Parties?”Most reply, “There have always been Political Parties so I suppose we do.
  

Perhaps, one day, tax-paying citizens will rebel against the current system and demand that the way they are governed is reformed to become non-partisan and truly democratic.

Following is a proposal for a True Democracy government.

A ‘TRUE DEMOCRACY’ GOVERNMENT

The form of government in United Kingdom is Democracy.

A Democratic government has three branches:

• Legislative: The Houses of Parliament, comprising the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which are responsible for enacting new laws (and amending old laws).
• Executive: Responsible for applying and enforcing the laws of the land. The Executive branch comprises 16 Government Departments (Ministries) and under them many central and local Government bodies. There is a Select Committee of about 12 MPs to scrutinize the working of each of the Departments.
• Judicial: Through ‘courts of law’ Judges and Magistrates are responsible to try persons accused of infringing the law and to settle disputes between citizens. The Judiciary is independent of both the Legislative and Executive branches.
  

Thus, every branch of a democratic government Is in place right now i.e. already exists. Legislation is the responsibility of the Houses of Parliament – new laws are debated and enacted or rejected by majority vote of the democratically elected MPs. The Executive branch applies the existing laws, frames new laws, and manages the day-to-day business of the country. Its work is monitored by several Select Committee of MPs. Justice is administered by the independent Judiciary.

I submit that, in this 21st Century, there is no longer any need for Political Parties. There is no longer any need for a Ruler or Leader, for a Prime Minister or for any other Ministers, or for Party Politics. There is no place for autocracy of any kind. The country’s laws and taxation should no longer be decided, as it now is, by a group of own-agenda self-seeking Party Politicians.

An outline of how a True Representative Democracy government might function is set out in the Appendix.

APPENDIX

TRUE DEMOCRACY GOVERNMENT – AN OUTLINE

The following is a proposal for how a True Representative Democracy non-partisan United Kingdom Government would be conducted. The objective and over-riding principle of a True Democracy Government must be “Government of the people by the people for the people”.

This proposal sets out the major changes that would be made to the existing UK Political Party form of government. The main changes:

• All Political Parties will be abolished There will be no Party in Power, no Prime Minister, and no Cabinet Ministers.
• New laws will be put before Parliament by the appropriate Select Committees.
• Members of Parliament (MPs) will enact or reject laws by ‘free’ majority vote.
• The Executive Branch, i.e. the appropriate Government Department, supervised by its Select Committee (not by a Minister), will ensure that the laws are applied and enforced.
• A written Constitution, including Citizens’ Rights, will be drawn up and enshrined in law.
  

Detailed requirements for a True Representative Democracy would include:

CANDIDATES

As at present -- any registered voter may put himself forward as a Candidate for a Constituency.

To receive recognition, a Candidate must obtain the endorsement of 20 voters of the constituency. Candidates will have no political or party loyalties other than to represent the wishes of the citizens of their constituencies to the best of their ability.

CANDIDATES’ ELECTION EXPENSES

The electioneering expenses of all recognized Candidates will be funded by the State up to a maximum of £5,000. Electioneering expenses e.g. for printed matter, hire of meeting halls, etc. will be paid by the Town Hall (not paid to the Candidates themselves). It will be illegal for a sum greater than £5,000 to be spent on any one Candidate’s behalf.

ELECTIONS

An MP’s term of membership of the House of Commons will be approximately two years. An Election will be held in each constituency every approximately two years. Retiring MPs will be able to stand for re-election.

Constituency election days will be spread approximately evenly over a two-year cycle. There will be no country-wide election day.

VOTING

The electorate will vote for the candidate who they consider will best represent the interests of the constituency. Candidates will not be members of or affiliated to any Political Party since all Political Parties will have been dissolved.

Voting will be obligatory (fines for those failing to vote). Votes will be cast by Postal Vote, or by Internet, or by personal attendance at a Polling Station.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

The House of Commons will, as now, have approximately 650 Members (MPs) each of whom will have been elected by his constituency.

MPs will be obliged to attend the House without absence for all the hours the House is in session. Permission for essential absence may be granted by the Speaker.

The House of Lords will have approximately 500 Members representing the Professional and Special Interest bodies of the nation, and will be appointed by those bodies themselves. E.g. Architects, Construction Industry, Nurses, Police, the Aged, Child welfare, Trade Unions, major Religions, the CBI, etc.

SELECT COMMITTEES

The executive government of the country will, as now, be managed by the various Departments of Government (there are currently some 16 Departments). As now, for each Department there will be a Select Committee to monitor the workings of that Department. The Select Committees will consist of about 12 MPs selected for their expertise in the remit of their respective Department.

The duties of the Select Committees will be enhanced to include, together, with their Government Departments, the formulation of new laws (and amendments to existing laws) on matters within the responsibility of their Department. The Chairman of each Select Committee will propose and introduce such new (or amended) laws to the House of Commons.

To coordinate the business of the House of Commons, the Chairmen of the Select Committees will form a Coordinating Committee, which will appoint its own “Chairman of the Chairmen’s Committee”.

LEGISLATION

Each proposed new law will be proposed by the chairman of the appropriate Select Committee, debated in parliament by the assembled MPs and then voted upon by a ‘Majority Free Vote’. (In a True Democracy Government, ALL votes will be ‘Free Votes’.) Laws approved by majority vote will be sent, as now, to the House of Lords for detailed scrutiny.

Parliamentary time will be set aside for “Select Committees’ Questions (now Prime Minister’s Questions), giving the opportunity for individual MPs to ask questions of the Chairman of any of the Select Committees on the workings of that Committee’s department.

Additionally, Private Member’s Bills (laws proposed by an individual MP) will be possible.

The House of Lords will, as now, debate each proposed new law and, if deemed necessary, refer it back to the House of Commons for amendment. The House of Commons will, as now, have the power to override the House of Lord’s rejection.

INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION

The Chairman of the Chairman’s Committee will represent the nation in place of a Prime Minister. The Chairmen of the Select Committees will act in place of Ministers e.g. the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee will replace the Foreign Secretary.

CONSTITUENCY OFFICES

To assist the MPs in their duties, each constituency will have a Constituency Office located within the constituency, with a small permanent ‘civil service’ staff. The cost of the office and the staff will be paid for by the state.

ACCOMMODATION and EXPENSES

MPs and members of the House of Lords will receive appropriate salaries but no expense allowances other than the refund of traveling expenses from their constituency to the Houses of Parliament for the period when Parliament is in session.

The State will own and operate an hotel-style facility near the Houses of Parliament for the use of Members (free of charge while the Houses are in session). Expense claims for a “London home” will not be eligible for payment.

PRIVATE FUNDING

In keeping with the principles of a True Democracy,

• Elections - Payment in cash or kind to, or any form of coercion of, a candidate by any individual or group, will be a criminal offence, both for the party making the payment or attempting coercion, and for the Candidate accepting same.
• Members of Parliament - Members of both the Houses of Commons and Lords will vote on bills put before them purely on their unbiased assessment of the ‘good of all’. Payment in cash or kind to, or any form of coercion of a Member by any individual or group, will be a criminal offence, both for the party making the payment or attempting coercion, and for the Member accepting same.
  

LOBBYING

Individuals or associations will be permitted to ‘lobby’ MPs – that is to present the case or a petition for a new or amended law – but strictly subject to the prohibition described in the previous paragraph.

COUNTY COUNCILS and LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The ‘True Democracy’ principles as outlined above – i.e. no political party affiliations, no funding and ‘free votes’ etc -- will apply to County Councils and Local Government.

THE MONARCHY

All remaining legislative and executive powers and duties of the Monarchy will be dissolved. E.g. the ‘royal assent’, ‘reserve powers’ ‘opening of parliament’ etc.

The Monarchy will continue as now to perform ceremonial and charity-sponsoring functions, both at home and overseas.

ARMED FORCES

The armed forces will swear allegiance to “The Constitution and Government of the UK”.