http://moremedianonsense.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-on-ramallah-stadium-looks-like.html

Basically the nearby settlement want the stadium stopped from security fears.

Proclaiming that Israel has some sort of right to the West Bank because of this or that ignores the fact that the Palestinian majority does not recognize Israel’s right to do so. The Palestinians will no more become Israelis if Israel were to annex the West Bank than the Act of Union in 1800 making Ireland a part of the United Kingdom made the Irish Catholic majority into loyal subjects of the British crown or the French proclamation that Algeria was as much a part of France as Normandy made the Muslim majority there into Frenchmen.

Lbnaz: Hanania’s proposals are very sensible. It is a pity that they are unlikely to be adopated any time soon.

Some political realities: the refugees won’t return, the Israeli state is a permanent fixture in the Middle East, no-one has a divine right over anyone else’s land, Jerusalem will remain a city for people of different faiths and ethnicities, the temple won’t be rebuilt and the Palestinian Arabs will not move away or give up their aspirations for a sovereign state. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, that’s the reality. A peace settlement needs to be based on politically feasible solutions. I just don’t think there are enough people on either side who accept these realities to make the situation move forward and the involvement of states that have no reason to be involved – in particular, Iran, which has no business to be dabbling in the Lebanon and the Palestinian territories (or Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and other places) – just creates more mistrust. I can’t see why a peace settlement cannot be reached within a year if there was a genuine interest in it.

That’s OK Dan, I have no faith whatsoever given your comments on this thread that you have the foggiest notion of what you’re talking about.

First allow me to disabuse you of your erroneous assumption MMN, it wasn’t me, but rather Dan who was calling for non-negotiated unilateral Israeli withdrawals.

And allow me again, if you will to disabuse you of some of your other assumptions as indicated by your comment that “The continued settlement of the West Bank is indefensible, I don’t how many of the Israel defenders above support it…”:

1. The dreaded Binyamin Netanyahu is clearly following Israeli policy initiated during Ariel Sharon’s administration and which has continued throughout Olmert’s administration that no new settlements will be built or authorized by the State of Israel.

2. The settlements and Jerusalem suburbs located over the 1949 armistice lines in which construction is taking place are those that are most likely to remain under Israeli sovereignty following a negotiated peace settlement and compensation of a dunam for dunam exchange of land of similar quality.

3. The most intractable issues which have so far proscribed a negotiated bilateral comprehensive final and equitable peace settlement between the two parties aren’t the issues regarding equitable land swaps and the future jurisdictional status of large Jewish settlements or Jerusalem suburbs over the 1949 Armistice lines, for which Palestinian and Israeli negotiators have already been able to attain consensus, but rather the refugees issue and the status of the so-called Holy Basin in Jerusalem.

Dan: How extraordinary that you appear to blame the I/P conflict for diverting precious energy and attention to these other conflicts. Right, but for the selfish protagonists of the I/P conflict greedily soaking up the world’s energy, the world would have solved the other conflicts long ago!

The world focuses disproportionate attention on I/P because that is what is chooses to focus on, driven by all kinds of considerations, Arab oil, singling out of Israel for all the ancient reasons, etc etc. And for all kinds of other considerations, the world is not moved, with some exceptions, to bring to account the perpetrators of African atrocities. None of which has to do with the bizarre kind of energy rationing you depict.

“3. I can support some settlements remaining – given the reality of 42 years of time passing – in a dunam-for-dunam land exchange. If Ariel is 500 dunams with a lifeline from Israel, then Israel gives Palestine 500 dunams in exchange.”

I assume the land Israel would give Palestine would be of a similar quality from inside Israel ?

If so fine – most settlements will go, the ones that remain will be only with agreement with the PA in exchange for Israeli land. I agree.

Is this a solution you think most settlers would agree to ?

This is not an extremist plan and was not what I am criticising. You need to calm down.

Ray Hanania is a compassionate and, in fact, delightful person, with rare insight into the aspirations and failings of Palestinians and Israelis. In the eyes of many, that alone ought to disqualify him from consideration as a leader in the Holy Land.

Add to that, the fact that the acclaimed journalist also happens to be a first-generation Palestinian-American married to a Jewish woman, as well as a stand-up comedian who has appeared alongside Jewish comics, and the self-destructively polarized electorate of the Holy Land will need to expend not a whiff of thought in dismissing him out of hand.

Which all makes his candidacy for the president of Palestine, and the Mideast peace proposal that is his platform, all the more compelling. He is realistic about his chances (“No, I don’t expect to win”). But the Hanania plan embodies the radicalism of the truly moderate, and deserves much more than cursory consideration.

Consider his proposal for one of the thorniest municipal quandaries in the West Bank. Jews who wish to live in Hebron in a future state of Palestine, should be allowed to do so, he writes, “and should be protected, just as non-Jews. In fact, for every Jewish individual seeking to live in Palestine, a Palestinian should be permitted to live in Israel.”

What Hanania is proposing is a two state solution that addresses not only quantifiable issues, but underlying emotional grievances, and the anguish in the histories of both sides. Cynics, and, in particular, the extremists among them, will reject it out of hand as simplistic and artificially balanced. But if peace is ever to be made in the Holy Land, it will be made despite extremists and not by them.

The following is the text of Hanania’s outline. I have taken the liberty of numbering the clauses, with an eye toward facilitating discussion:

1. I support two-states, one Israel and one Palestine. As far as I am concerned, I can recognize Israel’s “Jewish” character and Israelis should recognize Palestine’s “non-Jewish” character.

2. I oppose violence of any kind from and by anyone. I reject Hamas’ participation in any Palestinian government without first agreeing to surrender all arms and to accept two-states as a “final” peace agreement. But I also reject allowing Israeli settlers to carry any weapons and believe Israelis must impose the same restrictions on them.

3. I can support some settlements remaining – given the reality of 42 years of time passing – in a dunam-for-dunam land exchange. If Ariel is 500 dunams with a lifeline from Israel, then Israel gives Palestine 500 dunams in exchange.

4. Jerusalem should be a shared city and Palestinians should have an official presence in East Jerusalem. The Old City should be shared by both permitting open access to the city to all with a joint Palestinian-Israeli police presence.

5. Palestinian refugees would give up their demand to return to pre-1948 homes and lands lost during the conflict with Israel. Instead, some could apply for family reunification through Israel and the remainder would be compensated through a fund created and maintained by the United States, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations.

6. I also think Israelis should find it in their hearts to show compassion and offer their apologies to Palestinians for the conflict.

7. I support creation of a similar fund to compensate those Jews from Arab lands who lost their homes and lands, too, when they fled.

8. I think the Wall should be torn down, or relocated to the new borders. I have no problem separating the two nations for a short duration to help rebuild confidence between our two people.

9. All political parties, Palestinian and Israelis, should eliminate languages denying each other’s existence, and all maps should be reprinted so that Israeli maps finally show Palestine and Palestinian maps finally show Israel.

10. A subway system should be built linking the West Bank portion of the Palestine state to the Gaza Strip portion of the Palestine State. Palestine should be permitted to build a seaport access to strengthen its industry, and an airport to permit flights and too and from the Arab and Israeli world.

11. I would urge the Arab World to renew their offer to normalize relations with Israel if Israel agrees to support the creation of a Palestinian State.

12. And I would ask both countries to establish embassies in each other’s country to address other problems.

13. While non-Jewish Palestinians would continue to live in Israel as citizens, Jews who wish to live in settlements surrendered by Israel could become Palestinian citizens and they should be recognized and treated equally.

14. If Jews want to live in Hebron, they should be allowed to live in Hebron and should be protected, just as non-Jews. In fact, for every Jewish individual seeking to live in Palestine, a Palestinian should be permitted to live in Israel. In fact, major Palestinian populations in Israel could be annexed into Palestine (like settlements).

15. Another concept is to have non-Jews living in Israel continue to live there but only vote in Palestinian elections, while Jews living in Palestine would only vote in Israeli elections. A special citizenship protection committee could be created to explore how to protect the rights of minorities in each state.

16. Israel and Palestine should create joint-governing and security agencies working with the United States to monitor the peace, and establish an agency to pursue criminal acts of violence.

As in every potentially workable peace proposal, Hanania’s plan has something in it to upset and disappoint everyone. But its underlying principle of compromise based on mutual respect and compassion, its openness to the needs and wounds of two victimized peoples, and its suggestion that grassroots sentiment for peace can succeed where leaders have so consistently failed, are surely as worthy of serious consideration, as anything currently on the table.