An Open Letter - To Palestinians, Israelis, and the peoples of the Levant
(Revision 95.2 as of: 24.11.28 @ 3.57.28 UTC)

.

Here are some clips from that speech: https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Israeli-ambassadors-Bible-speech-at-UN-goes-viral-589986

It is also found here: https://www.pressreader.com/israel/jerusalem-post/20190501/281595241953073

Ambassador Danon's Presentation Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you Under-Secretary Dicarlo I'd like to thank EcoPeace for their statements, thank you. We come together at a painful time for the Jewish people. On Saturday, as Jews everywhere were concluding the holiday of Passover, a gunman ran into the Chabad of Poway, California and opened fire. Over 100 people, in the middle of prayer, were forced to duck for cover as the bullets flew across the room. Lori Kaye was shot and killed as she jumped in the line of fire to protect Rabbi Yisrael Goldstein, who founded the synagogue and sustained injuries. Despite having been shot, Rabbi Goldstein continued his sermon. Thirty-four-year-old Almog Peretz and eight-year-old Noya Dahan were also shot and injured. This is the second synagogue shooting in six months. It is unacceptable that we live in a time in which worshippers must be on guard, or look behind their backs while praying, out of fear of being shot. We pray for Chabad of Poway and stand with the families affected during this painful time. Distinguished colleagues, When we last gathered in this chamber, the President of the Council, the Ambassador of Germany, asked me to explain how Israel implements international law, specifically with regard to the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria. Today, I will provide the answers. But before we discuss international law, we must understand the context and facts. Today, I will present to you the four pillars that prove the case for Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel. (* Point One) The first pillar is the Bible. The Jewish people's rightful ownership of Eretz Yisrael the Land of Israel is well documented throughout the Old Testament and beyond. (* Point Two) The second pillar is history. The Jewish claim to the Land of Israel is confirmed, time and again, not just through Jewish history, but through the history of the world. (* Point Three) The third pillar is the legal claim. Our rights to the land are codified in international law, including in the documents that founded this very body. (* Point Four) And the fourth pillar is the pursuit of international peace and security. A stronger and safer Israel means a stronger and safer world It is through these four pillars, Mr. President, that I will provide you with the answers to your questions Let us discuss our first pillar of proof: the Bible The Jewish people's right to the Land of Israel is mentioned over a dozen times in the Tanakh the Hebrew bible which includes the Torah (the Old Testament) the Prophets and the Writings. In the book of Genesis, the very first book of the Old Testament, God says to Abraham... the translation in English: "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant. And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, all the land of Cana'an, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." "This is the deed to our land" (* Response to The First Pillar) The Old Testament is a religious tome. It cannot be considered a support for the Israeli claim to the Levant. It is subjective, parochial, and prejudiced; it offers no defensible rationale, and so has no validity. If this were to be accepted as a basis for a claim, one thereby allows other peoples to make similar historically based claims. For this reason its consideration must be put aside. More importantly those documents are not deeds. They were inspired writings, made under the influence of a profound prophetic state of mind or spirit, as such they have no standing. or foundation in demonstrable fact, in fact, they are a fiction, a dream, a wish, the descriptions of visions that prophetic writing is. On the other hand, a deed is a legal document, an official record of an agreement, essential proof, that someone, or some legal entity owns land or property because the prior owner had assigned it to them, with all due considerations - nothing like that is spelled out in in the text Mr. Danon cited. Also, and I could repeat this as needed in subsequent responses, there are some billions of individuals who do not accept the First Pillar, or a rationale based on such biblical writings, as a legitimate basis for a claim, just as there billions who do not accept any religious text's assertions when it comes to deciding any issue much less one as important as this is. From the book of Genesis; to the Jewish exodus from Egypt; to receiving the Torah on Mount Sinai; and to the realization of God's covenant in the Holy Land of Israel; the Bible paints a consistent picture. The entire history of our people, and our connection to Eretz Yisrael, begins right here. It is not just the Hebrew Bible or the fifteen million Jews worldwide that accepts this right. It is accepted across all three monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Quran itself accepts the divine deed of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. (In response) A memorable set of passages and I'll grant they have widespread currency, however these still do not constitute a valid claim - religious texts, however important or widely accepted, are not contracts, deeds, nor to they have standing in reason, law, or be considered just. Therefore this pillar falls of its own weight. Again, some billions of individuals would not accept biblical writings as a rational basis for a claim to the Levant. It would be interesting to conduct a global poll, perhaps via iVote to determine what the voice of the people of the world would have to say on this topic. Mr. President, The second pillar is the history of the Land of Israel and the Jewish people over the past two millennia. The Jewish kingdom in Eretz Yisrael comprised twelve tribes. The largest of those tribes, the tribe of Judah, lived in the area now known as Judea. We all know the words "Jew" and "Jewish." "Jew" and "Jewish" come from "Judea." This was the kingdom over which King David and King Solomon ruled. It was the kingdom, with Jerusalem as its capital. It was home to the first Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians in the year 587 BCE, and the second Temple, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 CE. When the Romans destroyed the Jewish kingdom, they sent our people into the 2000-year exile that kept us from our land. Even the Romans themselves admitted the land was ours. Those of you have visited Rome may have seen, that Emperor Titus famously commemorated his victory and the Jewish expulsion by building an enormous arch on the Via Sacra in Rome. If you look at the Arch, it includes an illustration of his men carrying away the menorah from the Jewish Temple. But even though the Romans knew that the Land was ours and we belonged in it, they attempted to erase our age-old connection to the land by renaming it "Syria-Palestina." Why Palestina? They attributed it as a southern province of the Syrian empire. This is how the narrow strip of land in Eretz Yisrael, nestled between Egypt in the south and Lebanon in the north, came to be called "Palestine." For the next 2000 years, the Land of Yisrael was conquered by the Crusaders, followed by the Ottoman Empire. But despite centuries of wars and conquests, the Jewish people never left. (* Response to The Second Pillar) The Levant, as a whole, has been claimed by many. Granted there was a time Israel existed with Jerusalem as its capital and this is part of the Israeli claim to the land. That said, many nations preceded it just as many others came afterward. Many of those endured for longer periods of time than did Israel. Are we to accept any people's claim to any portion of the Earth's surface if their ancestors dwelt there? How long must a nation exist in order to give their descendants a claim? And wouldn't it be right to also consider how a people came to take possession of any portion of land to establish ownership? One must also consider he fact that the ancestors of the Gazans, Palestinians, and others also never left. Besides, no matter what the Romans did, said, or believed, it is the Israeli contention, or Mr. Danon's, that those who remained in the territory provide a rationale for the claim of their descendants. If that is so then then Mr. Danon's logic supports the Palestinian claim as well as those by many other peoples whose historical claims to the Levant are just as valid. A Jewish community remained in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, throughout this entire time. (A response) To this particular point: Gaza, the city, existed throughout that entire time as did many cities and settlements with diverse peoples whose descendants have dispersed all over the world. Although most of our community was forced into exile by the Roman Empire, we knew that someday we would return to our ancient homeland. For two millennia, Jews across the world continued to pray three times every day for our long-awaited return home to Zion, to Jerusalem. As we just said on Passover last week, as we do every year, "Next year in Jerusalem!" (In response) All of this is heartfelt, one can sense that. While historical notes such as this can be accepted as true, they are still irrelevant. It all goes back to the same errors of pride or willfulness. Just because your faith tells you a piece of land is yours does not mean it is. Just because you have cultural and ancestral connections to a place does not mean you have an exclusive basis for a claim to ii. Again, and similar to a prior response, to accept such a claim opens the gate for others with equally valid claims. Mr. President, If the Jewish people's deep and ancient roots in the Land of Israel are not sufficient proof, let us consider international law the third pillar. In 1917, Lord Balfour, Britain's Foreign Secretary, issued a statement of British support for the establishment of, and I quote, "a national home for the Jewish people." The Balfour Declaration designated this national homeland in Eretz Yisrael The Balfour Declaration also, in its own words, specifically endorsed the Zionist cause. As Lord Balfour wrote, and I quote, "I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet." After the Ottoman Empire surrendered in World War One, the British took legal ownership over the Land of Israel. With that legal ownership, they were able to issue the Balfour declaration and commit to helping establish a national home for the Jewish people in our historic homeland. In 1922, the mandate of the League of Nations not only states its support for the establishment of a Jewish national home, it encouraged and facilitated the return of Jews in the Diaspora to our homeland. It confirms, and I quote, "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." (In response: While the foregoing is a set of historical facts, inconveniently enough, the will of the Palestinian people seems to be missing. The English conquered a territory, occupied it, and made choices for the inhabitants without their due consideration, this was and is a grave error. These documents are Zionist documents. By definition, Zionism is the realization of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and sovereignty in the land of Israel. That is what Zionism means no more, no less. It appears in international law, in essence and word-for-word. In 1945, the UN charter was adopted. Drafted in the wake of the Holocaust, it guarantees the right of peoples to exercise self-determination. It also refers to, and I quote, "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the UN." (* Response to The Third Pillar) This is a referral to the Balfour agreement that had England commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Only because England conquered the territory during World War One was it able to exercise that capacity to fulfill the agreement. Problem was, or is, the people of he region had little or no say in what was done to them or their lands. In consequence Danon's assertion is, at best, controversial and so it too must be set aside. My point being, in sum. by what right did England have to assign Palestinian territory to anyone - without the permission of the people already living there? The same criticism may be levied at the world bodies involved who supported the effort. * Interesting note -- a point of agreement: One would assume that Palestinians also have a right to self determination and sovereignty in the Levant, as well as to the rights of collective self-defense and a return to their ancestral villages and landscape. One people's pursuit of self-determination should not undermine the safety and security of another nation. * Interesting note -- a point of agreement: I am sure the Palestinians, as well as the other claimants, would agree with this. Two years later, the UN Partition Plan called for the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the Land of Israel. (In response) As was mentioned earlier, the Balfour Declaration was a decision regarding Palestine that had been conquered during a war. Then decisions were made without consent of the peoples living there. They had no real say in the incredibly important, far reaching, changes made by the British Empire, which profoundly affected their lives, livelihoods, rights, children, and all of their descendants. While I hesitate to venture the following, it is horrifically ironic to point out that might does not make right. What did we do? We accepted it. But the Palestinians did not. (In response) I am forced to reprise the following, England's actions changed Palestinian lives forever in many a profound way yet the Palestinians had little say in those changes. This is a fundamental factor which has led to the current difficulties. War is always the symptom of profound errors made by the parties who engage in it. In this case there were also neighboring nations, those involved with the cold war, and others, all who had a hand in making matters worse, so there is plenty of blame to go around. Instead of peace, they chose war and opened fire on the Jews. Our small, tiny, newly declared nation was suddenly under attack. In 1948, on the last day of the British Mandate, Israel declared independence and immediately was attacked by five Arab armies that joined the Palestinians, hoping to destroy it. Israel won that war, and the hope and future of the Jewish people was saved. But the war of 1948 did not end with peace. It ended with armistice agreements between Israel and its neighbors. The armistice lines between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon were never considered international borders. They were simply lines designating the end of the first battle in the Arab war against Israel. Jordan maintained control of Judea and Samaria, and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. These agreements were formed in the absence of permanent peace treaties, which would only be signed decades later. Mr. President, It was the Arabs who insisted that the armistice lines would not be permanent borders. As stated in the Jordanian-Israeli agreement of 1949, these lines, and I quote, "are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines." (In response) None of that alters the initial errors made by the English when forcing the Palestinians to accept something that changed their lives forever in profound ways. Why should they abandon the hope of returning to their homelands and agree to borders that would lock them out? Interesting note -- a point of agreement: The Zionists must understand a people's heartfelt desire to return to their homeland! Because these lines are not borders, the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, to this day, do not cross any international borders. They are built on strategic land for Israel's security and, as agreed by the parties in the Oslo Accords, would be classified as final status issues. (In response) It is hard to unpack the interlaced errata here. The Oslo Accords did not recognize the many inalienable rights of the Palestinians whose long-standing claims are as as valid as those of the Israelis. Mr. President, To support the right of Israel to exist in our homeland is, therefore, essential to international peace and security the final pillar. (* Response to The Fourth Pillar) It would be difficult to assert that during the past 70 plus years, a stronger and safer Israel has always made for peace as well as safer world. The conflict has only spread, worsened, and now encompasses the world with Jewish and Israeli people facing fearful political trends, murderous danger, as well as the threat of a widening, ongoing war - in some places it resembles a globally spread civil war - such is the fruit of the original errors of pride, prejudice, and or willfulness. A rationale observer could not possibly see Israel being secure, enjoying a widespread peace in the region, complete religious freedom, people happily exercising their inalienable rights, and everyone being respected. Does everyone have access to life, liberty, fraternity, and the pursuit of happiness Does everyone have way forward? Is education universal, along with health care, and social support? For decades, many Arab leaders have chosen the sword over the olive branch long before even one of these "so-called" settlements was established. (In response) One wonders what he means by "so called." There were settlements, there have been sanctions on Israel by the UN in part because of them and, in fact, Israel stands in violation of an impressive number UN resolutions. You know when the PLO was established? The Palestinian Liberation Organization? In 1964, three years before 1967. What did they need to liberate before 1967? And in 1964, not a single settlement existed in Judea and Samaria, and our right to exist was still rejected. (In response) Mr. Danon believes what he says, as do many other Israelis, and so there comes quite the mystery. If between 1964 and 1967 not a single settlement existed in Judea or Samaria, a region that had been settled for over ten thousand years, how was it that it became emptied? What happened? Did everyone who had lived there suddenly vanish? It is clear that he is wrong: see Historical Maps But let's consider what the Palestinian wanted: a return their original homeland, which was taken from them by many, but most recently the Ottomans, the English, and then Zionists. There is also one more point to make: just because a territory is unused, is no reason for the owner let someone take it. To blame the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria for the lack of peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be a deliberate oversight of history at best. (In response) At this point, the ambassador is simply doubling down providing evidence of his ignorance of historical facts. The Arabs rejected opportunities for peace time and again: The 1937 Peel Commission Report? The Arabs rejected it. The 1947 UN Partition Plan? Rejected. The 1948 Israeli offer for truce? Rejected. The 2000 Camp David Summit? Rejected. The 2001 Taba Summit? Rejected. The 2007 Annapolis Conference? Rejected. The 2008 offer of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert? We are still waiting for an answer on that. The 2014 Secretary of State Kerry's Peace Initiative? Abbas chose Hamas. And today, in the upcoming US peace plan? The Palestinians say it is "dead on arrival." (In response) Again I respond to those notes by saying the Palestinians had their lives changed in many profound ways without having a say. The English, the nations of the region, and those involved with the cold war all had roles to play and so are authors of the war we have today. The world shares the responsibility for that and so they must commit to creating peace. Mr. President, It weakens the mandate of this body, which is tasked with making our world more peaceful and secure, to continue blaming the side that offers solutions, and reward the side that rejects them. It is dangerous to praise the side that encourages hatred and bankrolls terrorism. (In response) I might counter that it is certainly dangerous to recreate a nation known for its warring, aggression, and conquering ways throughout its history. Palestinian rejectionism is chronic. * Interesting note -- a point of agreement: The Israeli's also chronically reject the legitimate claims of the Palestinians and others. Palestinian leaders refuse to acknowledge the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the Land of Israel and insist on returning to the land in droves. This behavior directly contradicts all four pillars of the past and keeps us locked from forging peace in the future. There should be no reward for rejectionism * Interesting note -- a point of agreement: Israeli leaders refuse to acknowledge the fact that Palestinians, and others, have equal and or prior claim to the lands of Israel, this keeps them locked from forging peace, as was said, there should be no reward for rejectionism. There should be no prize for aggression. * Interesting note: a point of parallel agreement: I think the Palestinians, and others, would agree to this as well. Mr. President, Real peace will be possible when the four pillars of the past are accepted and realized. But real peace will come when the four pillars of the future are put into action. These are the four pillars of the future: First: the Palestinians must accept and recognize the Jewish State of Israel. No Palestinian leader has ever said those words. (In response) In deciding to respond point by point I have had to repeat that the issue is that Palestinians had their lives changed without much of a say in those changes. Second: the Palestinians must end their campaign of incitement. Enough is enough. How can the international community expect us to make any concessions to a leader who pays his people to kill ours? (In response) Turn that statement around and say this: how can the international community expect Palestinians to make concessions when the Israeli's will not end an occupation, allow them to return, and have their full human rights returned to them? Also, If the Jewish people can come back after nearly 2000 years. cannot the Palestinians come back after less than a hundred? Third: regional cooperation. We are already working together with many of our neighbors on security, on common goals and on building relations. We want these relationships to flourish and present themselves in the open. (In response) I cannot say that Israel has the approval or support of the peoples in the nations that border them, or the world in general at this point. One wonders what percentage of the Middle East peoples have a strongly positive view of Israel. And fourth: we will never do or agree to anything that compromises our security. We want a peaceful future with our neighbors. But our security is nonnegotiable, and we will decide where to draw the line. * Interesting note: a point of parallel agreement: It seems to me that the Palestinians, and others would want to do the same thing, decide where to draw the line. Mr. President,We are ready to work together. We are ready to talk. And we are ready to create a better future for our children (In response) As long as the Israeli's believe they will be the ones to draw the line, and do nothing to address the English, Israeli or the UN's original sins of pride and willfulness - it is unlikely such hopes will come to pass. It is only when the four pillars of the past and the four pillars of the future are accepted that peace will come. Thank you. (In response) Indeed, the final sentence needs no rebuttal, it's evidence the pride before which goes a fall. Top

2 - Consider the Goal The objective is simple: peace in the Holy Land for Israelis, Gazans, and Palestinians. To do that we must understanding the profound, long-term nature of each party's interest in the territory, called homeland by so many, as well as the basis, or rationales, for those claims. The next section, Basis for Claims, does that and, by doing so, there comes to light a new approach, a way to resolve the essentials of this complex of issues - to the benefit of everyone involved. It is because this approach holds such promise, more than any prior or effort, it is a way for the world to help make that land home to an inclusive, harmonious, prosperous, and generously peaceful people. Imagine, the day when the peoples of the Levant will enjoy the pride of having created peace and begin to show the peoples of the world how to resolve the deepest kinds of divides! Imagine, the peoples of the Levant as a global resource for social reconciliation efforts - a precious resource, something vital to export to be sure!

3 - Basis for Claims The Israeli and Palestinians Claims: When either Palestinians or Israelis hear any of the following terms: Peace in the Holy Land, Peace for Israel, Peace for Gaza, Peace for Palestinians, land rights to the Levant, Israeli Land Rights, Palestinian Land Rights, Middle East Solutions, and Middle East Peace; or if they are asked either of these two questions: Who owns the Holy Land? or What could a new Middle East be like? - they each see very different things and so their problems seem intractable. Just so, when we look at the claims and counter claims of Palestinian or Israeli to the Levant, we also find no agreement, and yet, it is by considering those very claims, and the rationale for them, the logic, that a profound road to peace and safety comes into view. The Israeli claim is based upon their conquests in the territory and the subsequent establishment of a kingdom, or kingdoms, some of which endured for a few centuries. Ironically, this basis only serves to illuminate a very inconvenient truth, for them, which is to say, that, in the holy books, known history, and archeological proofs, the Israelites had to have been preceded by others, as those they conquered, perhaps many others, were already settled in the Levant; with the Palestinians amongst that long list. Now, please follow on - inconveniently enough - for the Palestinians - their habitation, or the presence of their name, dates back to the period near to when Philistine settlements were established along the coast; Gaza existed at that time. However, they too were preceded by others, perhaps many others. The current claimants, Palestinians and Israelis alike, assert their ancestors inhabited the region some few thousands of years ago and that this is a basis for their claims. Certainly there is ample evidence that each of them had forebears who settled in the Levant and I will not contest those facts nor the reasoning they both then use to regard the contested territory as their homeland because, ironically enough, it is their stated basis for their claims, and their reasoning, which create the pathway to resolving their profound differences, albeit not in a manner either of them, or others, might expect - or be happy with - at least at first! Using their reasoning: By accepting their basis and reasoning for a claim to the Levant, the world is free to do the same on behalf of certain other peoples whose ancestors also settled in that same region - for long periods of time - preceding both Israelis and Palestinians. These others, had names, built cities, and were, in sum, nation states and, therefore, also have legitimate claims to the territory, having, as they do, an identical basis to those of Israelis and Palestinians. It is of no consequence that these other claimants have not been, to my knowledge, acknowledged, nor were they ever given any consideration over the millennia - and so it is that, in this document, I start a conversation to present the ignored, and very inconvenient truth, that there are peoples with claims to the Levant which are as valid as those of the Israelis or Palestinians. More and more claimants: In sum, both current claimants were preceded by settled peoples, nation states, all of which are well documented. One need only note the longtime existence of places such as Jericho, Damascus, and Ain Ghazal, to name but a very few; all places in existence near to 10k BCE mark, providing salient proof that civilized states existed several thousand years before either of current clamoring claimants. In addition, there's ample archeological evidence of widespread agriculture and settled communities in the region dating from about 8k BCE to as far back as 23k BCE, see Historical Maps, Without clear guidelines as to what kind of ancestor provides a descendent with a claim to the Levant we would certainly open the door very wide. For example, if we were to consider the genetic evidence alone, many people have ancestors that settled in or along the migration routes through the Levant during the millennia preceding the them when of the current claimants say they established a claim via ancestral habitation. This is not at all surprising. The Levant was quite welcoming, being as it was so well provisioned, with long growing seasons, a temperate climate, lush lowlands, ample fresh water, fish, and game - so a wandering people would have reason to pause and settle in for a few generations or more. In sum the Levant was the super highway of human migratory routes leading out of Africa, into all of Eurasia, the islands of the Pacific, and the Americas. In terms of a personal connection, while my Irish and Italian ancestry can be traced back a few centuries, my genetic connections trace back to that same migration route through the Levant - some tens of thousands of years ago - perhaps just as with some billions of others. Perhaps genetic analysis would provide the people of the world with a new and profound insight as to who may have a basis for a claim in the Levant, perhaps this would then revise the perspective of the world regarding this region and its conflicts. Summing up: If, as both Israelis and Palestinians believe, laying claim to a territory may be based upon one's long ago ancestors having settled in it, even if at some distant time in the past, then anyone living in Europe, North and South America, Asia, and the Pacific Islands also have a claim on the Levant. Simply put, most of the peoples in the world have ancestral claims to the Levant, which are as valid as anyone's - for a quick historical glimpse of a few possible candidates see Historical Maps, do some of your own investigations, and check your DNA history to see what comes up. The consequences of that summation: Now, if we amble on back to the thrilling modern day and ignore its doubly debilitating debacles of pride and prejudice, there is The People's Claim to be heard. I assert this claim for myself and the people of the world our wishes must be considered on the basis of common ancestry in the same manner that Palestinians and Israeli claims are. Top

4 - The Peoples' Claim The claim for the world's people: The People's Claim precedes both that of the Israeli and Palestinians by some thousands of years. To wit: In those long millennia prior to historical times the ancestors of many of the world's peoples settled in the Levant. While they may well have been entangled in its continual contestations and were, as with so many, sorely abused, hard pressed to survive, subsumed by the subsequent series conquerors, forced to flee for want of their lives, or victims of attempted genocide - still they provide their descendants with a claim. To wit: It is of no account how far and wide their diaspora dispersed, or that their hard scrabble transcontinental and multigenerational migrations made a mystery of their history, occluding their very existence, so that their legitimate claims to the Levant have been ignored or buried with them - still they provide their descendants with a claim- and so it is for their sake, our sake, and humanity's sake, that, we, the people of the world, now give them voice and act to assert their legitimate claims on our common homeland, the Levant. To wit, Genetic analysis provides proof that billions of the worlds people have an ancestral claim to the Levant, so it is that we, the descendants of those earliest of inhabitants, have a right to a redress of grievances, compensation for damages - as well as the right to return and resettlement - if only to secure the general safety and well-being of our homeland and the world community. Whereas: The foregoing being true and proven, I submit The Peoples' Claim, which must needs be adjudicated, for that reason, and more, intervention is necessary. Top   The Intervention - supportive argumentation Both current contestants have engaged in warfare; and so are little different from the many others who have also waged war the world over, and in that region specifically, writing human history in blood ink, and, yes, there is quite the list! They cannot seem to help themselves out of the mire. Whereas: The struggles in the Levant are, no doubt, very similar to the difficulties other peoples faced the world over, however, this region harbors an especially difficult situation, exemplifying, as it does, the complex consequences to the rise and fall of multitudinous nation states, which engendered chaos as each of them buried their predecessors; there is also a rich variety of religious differences, which exacerbated the severity of that chaotic historical process. All together, these factors created many a deep division between oh so many in oh so many ways. Then, during the past century or two, many players, local and global, complicated all those matters and so gave rise to the current difficulties and the violence, which has seriously impacted the world community for the negative. That said, the peoples currently living in the Levant have only made matters worse as they each assert they have the most worthy of claims to the Levant - which they do not; however, this does not stop them from being irreconcilable; thus, to this day, do they fall to in contest. Whereas: The people of the world have long been impacted by their intransigence, violence, war-waging, and inability to find a way to a peaceful coexistence - a state of affairs that has continued on for as long as I've been alive - and now that the conflict has gone global, threatening to ignite a new war, adjudication of The Peoples' Claim is necessary - as is intervention. Whereas: Neither of the current contestants can provide their publics with peace and safety so that all of us in the world can enjoy "… inalienable rights…  to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... " it is clear that the way forward, to secure such boons, is a global intervention of a kind that will be transgenerational in duration. Whereas: We, the peoples of the world, have a moral obligation to secure peace for our homeland, the Levant, and restore to it the commons of amity, harmony, and prosperity, global intervention of the kind I describe in later sections can provide all inhabitants with safety and security. Whereas: We, the people of the world, having a claim to the Levant, also have a right to determine what is done with, to, and in our homeland. Therefore: The way forward is a settlement made by the world at large. Top    A Great Peace - a visionary settlement The process to provide full redress of grievances, compensation for damages done over the millennia, and reparations consequent to the long time destruction of the region, will be undertaken. What follows are the considerations for creating The Great Peace. Therefore: The peoples of the world, on behalf of their common homeland, ancestors, and future descendants, will honor the original peoples of that beautiful paradise, in part by exercising their rightful claim for residence, and, once there, dedicating their lives to enhancing common good securing the peaceful establishment of a profoundly purposeful commons. Therefore: Because the Levant has become so profoundly troubled and in such deep disorder, and because this disorder has effected the world, there will be a communal effort enabling the world's people to understand the claims to the territory, the issues involved, and to participate in a global conversation regarding solutions. Free and open public discussions will be encouraged, whether they are in meeting halls, places of worship, a neighbor's home, or community center regarding the restoration of the inalienable rights of everyone who has an interest in the Levant. This communal effort will create set of possible solutions. This great discussion will be facilitated by all manner of organizations, media outlets, and the relevant departments of governments. The world's judicial institutions and the United Nations will support and organize this discussion process so as to build global consensus regarding a set of viable solutions for the world's consideration. Through this great conversation a set of possible solutions for the Levant will come to light. The inhabitants of the troubled region will be expected to participate in this discussion and consider the possible solutions for the political remapping of the territory in order to inform the world's consensus. This will allow humanity, together, to find a way forward. There would then be a global plebiscite so, together, the peoples of the world will all find a means to resolve the historical differences of the Levant. The Peace Service: Along with the great conversation, there will be global cooperation to organize a Peace Service; ideally, volunteers would be called for, I would think three million in number, would be a low estimate of what may, in fact, be needed. The Peace Service will serve as reconciliators, counselors, and problem solvers. These will, in concert with the citizens and security organizations of the Levant, be an international presence fostering the peaceful transition from what was to what will be. They will be integrated with the law enforcement and security services of the Levant and the surrounding nations; all of them together will be trained to provide citizens with access to their inalienable rights and help every citizen of this new nation to have their voices heard, so as to hold their governmental bodies to account. Security: With the the completion of the following tasks: 1) a global agreement on territorial mapping 2) the arrival of the Peace Service 3) the establishment of an interim government 4) the institutionalizing of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the use of iVote to support a peaceful society, and 5) The Peace Service being integrated with all military and security organizations to support their retraining for operations in support of the new nation - all military equipment will either returned to base or repurposed for the common good. Top   Social Engineering and the establishment of trust Social Engineering is the conscientious and purposeful redesign of a society's structural components to generate healthful results, ensure stability, and its evolutionary continuance. The Name is the Thing: We begin with the essential, the very first idea we need to consider is creating a name for this new nation, something as simple as it is profound. It will frame the deepest and most important considerations in proposing this idea to the peoples of the region and the world. While the world and the people there may voice many options, I suggest Levant. This has many advantages for the people there and the world as a whole. It is an ancient name, one understood by everyone involved, indeed, one with world renown. As such its use would only help forward the causes of peace, harmony, prosperity, and freedom. That all said, I would expect the names Palestine, Israel, and others, will be well represented in this new nation. Goodwill Embassies: The nations of the world will establish good will embassies in Levant; these will be fully dedicated to implementing societal programs so as to make a success of this nation building effort. The citizens of Levant will be expected to do their level best to make all such efforts win-win. Citizens will be supplied with a universal supportive income and, through their many efforts local, national, or international, they will act to provide for themselves as well as many, many others. The Peace Service: This organization will provide direct person to person assistance. They could work out of households, businesses, religious buildings, theaters, arenas, as well any governmental office or social resource center; on the whole they'll be designed to be accessible to any and everyone. They'll provide a means to resolve disagreements and differences and establish safety, protection and peace. Also, the service will facilitate cooperative local networking via live-person-to-person meetings so that people can access communal support via the resources of their neighbors including professionals, friends, family, neighbors, and more. The service will support interpersonal trade or barter, banking, and the day to day exchanges of goods, services, and currencies, both real and virtual. The organization will be designed to continue on for some few generations to come. The Peace Service, being interested in a long term solution, with idealism being essential to the entire effort, will be instrumental in making The Universal Declaration of Human Rights the foundation for the laws and regulations of Levant, guide its legal framework, and be foundational to its societal design. This is a first necessary step to secure the promises of freedom, equity, security, health, well-being, and prosperity for all. Keeping the People's Voice: Via the Peace Service people will have a multilayered and universally accessible identification system encompassing the use of cell phones, ID cards, government or credit cards, websites, emails, affidavits, written notes, phone calls, and personal interviews. This will be a means, in part, to register the people's input on social issues, the approval of candidates, polling on people of note and influence, weighing in on proposed governmental actions, and more. In sum it will be a system depending, ultimately, upon simple handshakes which will allow anyone to participate in the ongoing polling that will be used to help them make their will known via iVote, iVote, or a variant of it, will be the means by which the people will weigh in on societal decisions. Instant polling will allow the people to be heard in a manner never before possible. Imagine citizens, able to manage their own governments, because they'll be able to voice approval or disapproval of policies, programs, laws, office holders, regulations, and any who may have extensive societal influence, to a degree never before seen on this planet. As a result, the will of those who've been impacted by the long and trying conflicts of the Middle will finally have the means to influence policies of their governments, even as they receive assistance from the world community - the result: the future will be bright. Generations to Come: The Peace Service will be a new generation's bona causa - much, much larger in scope than the antiwar movent of the 60's. In time, the Levant will create and model a means to resolve one of the most profound societal divides in the world and the world's people will have a common homeland to take joy in, a place of peace and harmony for anyone, and a promised land for us all. The world will see a cooperative bartering system promoting ready access to goods and services, health care, and more - no one will be on their own; assistance will be as close as a roommate, neighbor, phone, or community center. There will be rapid economic growth as cooperative groups take hold in businesses and in living arrangements yielding a generous prosperity because the cost of living will be reduced. Economic progress: The people will have access to the sea, a duty free international zone and an offshore porting facility, be allowed to travel to and from the territory, and control their borders along with others from around the world. Every citizen will be allowed unencumbered access to global markets for their goods or services. Within a generation the region will be profoundly transformed, prosperous, free, and restfully peaceful. Top

5 - Mapping Solutions

If the peoples of Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank trusted one another it would be possible to create Palestine as a single nation using the borders drawn up in 1922 or, in a similar fashion, with complete trust, it would also be possible for the mapping made in 1947 to work. The point is, assuming trust, there may be many mappings that could work - some better than others. While I expect a global effort could create a variety of mapping models, which, assuming trust, would allow us all to proceed into the future in good form, the following four suggestions provide a starting point for deliberations. Please note, all of these assume trust has been established via the prerequisite, and Herculean, global intervention by The Peace Service, an action very different from all prior UN interventions as the presentation made clear. With that understood, I offer these simple compare and contrast sets of possible mappings each of which have my take on their advantages and disadvantages.