A Draft Treaty for Palesrael?

I am sick of all the secrets. Does this look familiar for 2008 through Iran's diplomacy in a tainted form after my six month truce in Palesrael? What do we need for peace? I guess...

Dear Writer's Café Community:

I am back after a long hiatus to try to bring magic and magic talk to the world.  I was unsuccessful.  Here, my work is accepted, and I have much information available.  I have brought some magic to the world, and more is coming.  But, I have had enough of secrets around the globe and am ready to publish what people know in the intelligence circles in which I live.

From the Mossad, we say, "Ship jumping and righteous vengeance eternal!"

The following is a collection of works of mine from classified documents, presumably, the intelligence community probably does not want you to have.  I have not confirmed this, but see if you think that Iran does not want you to know what they knew years ago, that my peace process that ended in Iran around 2008 when the President closed his website to English was as follows.

Sincerely,

The Archangel Gabriel

Attachments Follow...

I could not find a reference to an "international easement" anywhere, but it might be the best option. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_airlift#Berlin_airlift

 

That one is somewhat entertaining and somewhat on point - sharing land in difficult circumstances.

 

What else is like that possibility? 

 

1)  Hong Kong being rented for 99 (I believe) years to the British?  That is similar to some degree.

2)  Internal Use Only - How about the occupation of another nation such as Iraq at this time? 

3)  Panama Canal Zone - That was somewhat shared property rights in the international arena

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_airlift#Berlin_airlift

 

I don't want that third comparison circulated to the public.  I just meant that one of the "bundles of sticks" that is property, "the right to exclude others," was denied in cases like Vietnam and Iraq.  But, that makes this sound bad.  That is not the case.  Those were matters of occupying armies, and this is quite possibly a matter of a "contractual sharing of the land."  What about the Panama Canal?  Was that just rented as well, or was that an easement?

 

I looked around some more, and I just can't find easements in international law.  This could be a pioneering first in international law fitting of Palesrael.  It is not "This land is my land," but instead, "This land is a combination of contractual rights that has been strangely divided into what might be the oddball of international law: the international easement.  This land is our land, sort of."

 

If the concept of "international property law easements" appeals to you, you should be extremely careful with the drafting.  And, you might want to restrict it in time to perhaps 2-10 years in length, maybe 20.  For example, "If the parties do not bilaterally renew this easement in 10 years, both parties shall have their international interests voided leaving fee simple property rights without restrictions as detailed in figure 333."

 

With a 10 year contract, it is a great way to avoid the issues for another ten years and still have a good peace treaty.  Please be certain to look at the reversionary interests and try to be certain that you are "happy enough" with the possibility of a reversion in ten years when people are probably easier with which to have such discussions.

 

If there were a 20 year stall on Jerusalem with a pre-determined outcome such as the crescent moon approach, that might be so long that people would be fine just burning their houses and leaving.   That is a lot of time to sell off property or amortize losses and a long period of peace...  That is a creative way to advert possibly scrutiny.  "We agreed to share some land that looks pretty well divided for 20 years, and in 20 years, the new division looks pretty good as well if we can't renew this strange property arrangement."  You might luck out and have two nations become one in 10 years totally sidestepping the issues.

 

Well, that was the best that I could do so far for "creative ideas" to get this treaty closer to signed.  Often, I have found that the "problem" tended to be that people just were not being "weird enough."  It is an insane world, and that is not an insane solution.  It is just not what has been done as far as I can tell, and that is not because it is not feasible.  People just like definitive answers on such matters such as, "Ireland is now a part of Great Britain.  Period."

 

How about this for a contract, "Either party can renew this contract in 20 years, and either party can unilaterally rescind all of their rights to all of the land which is held in common."

 

That is kind of interesting - if you get sick and tired of sharing, you can just pull out.  Otherwise, you have to ask to be let out and have your terms agreed upon.  Maybe, you need to determine what land is in dispute and then just decide everything else.

 

I will keep an eye out and keep thinking about the issues.  I have to think that either of these might work as a strategy:

 

1) Decide everything that you can and put the rest in a 20 year sharing program that is unilaterally determinable to continue, or

2) Intelligently find land with particularly good reasons for sharing and share just that,

 

One of those could make Palestine and Israel both "pretty happy," and there are other options.  I think that "some communal property by easements" will be preferred.

 

 

Those religious sites whether they are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim are really part of all of our cultural and religious heritage.  In America, we sometimes have "historical zones," and there can't be that much fire inducing property.  With dual management and care, it should be just fine...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement

 

That was an informative piece.  It is a "environmental conservation easement."  That is sort of the gist of "international easement controversy," we would like to conserve the environment sort of how it is but with a peace treaty and peace.  You could also look at easements for "beach access" and "historical preservation."  I think that pretty much covers the applicable easements that you want in Palesrael - fewer tangles.  You need access to a few key locations and the preservation of ALL of our cultural and religious heritage.

 

If you get together with Washington, they could help you with some really dazzling and formal sounding words to describe you real estate and the applicable easements.  That is what covers the concerns, right?  Some easements and a "tentative border."  "That is where we think that we will put the border in ten years after we have had more time to analyze the underlying issues."  Really?  I doubt it!

 

I know that I said that I was favoring a "short, direct, and sweet" peace treaty, but the historical sites and property issues were exactly where you have the information and I don't.  That was considerably more complicated than I had anticipated, but you could create a complicated "solution" and wait ten years for further development!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_preservation

 

""Historic preservation or heritage conservation is a professional endeavor that seeks to preserve the ability of older (e.g., "historic") objects to communicate an intended meaning. This meaning is rooted in cultural and social processes that negotiate how the authenticity of the historical object should be expressed. More recently historic preservation has subsumed issues of healthy living, sustainability, and green building to justify the retention of the older built environment.""

 

That sounds fascinating!  You could create a historical district (and probably just a handful of other special interest locations) and break up the land and overlay it with some easements.  For example, you might want to declare some "cultural sites" such as mosques, and synagogues and place restictions on them such as limitations upon tearing them down and duties to maintain them at safe and attractive levels for the Palesrael and world public.

 

Then, you could get into "healthy living, sustainability, and green building" to pass another ten years in relative bliss.

 

I think that if you use your presumed "base maps," you could see that the sensitive areas could probably best be cared for by additional heritage requirements.  If you had a handful of "historical districts" that were presumed to continue every ten years to be renewed in the contract, you should be able to protect the sensitive matters.  And, you both should have a "good out" with a "backup plan."

 

"And, that is who will own what if this is not renewed in ten years.  Isn't that pretty good, too?"

 

'Assume Autorenewal'

anagrams to

'Unaware emulates so.'

 

If you don't know the final disposition of the land, you can't be upset with it.  However, if you go this route, please be "pretty darned happy" with who has what land in 2009 because it is likely to stay that way for a long, long, long time.  But, it would look to the public as if this is a "tentative determination," and it is.

 

'Culture and Heritage Board'

anagrams to

'Debaucher or adulterating.'

 

That's funny!  It looks like they will spend their time in debauchery and adultery with the governments and publics just trying to maintain order after a difficult peace treaty anyways.  "Don't bomb the mosques.  We don't want to backslide!"  "That's right!  At least, we have a board overlooking our historical districts.  It is a good thing that we hired Olmert and Imam Mahdi to watch over our already overguarded facilities so that they could brave corruption charges together."  Lol.

 

Here is a rough draft for a "two step process."  I think that you need "two plans" to compare and contrast to confuse the issues as if they were not fairly confused already.  "We are going with Plan A as soon as we can reach an agreement upon it.  But, we default into Plan B in ten years if we do not opt into Plan A once again.  I assume that you already have two "pretty decent" plans that could be modified with easements for mutual convenience and a shady, spy drama feel to the treaty:

 

2008 or 2009:

 

1)  Declare one or more historical districts with joint overseers in some kind of a historic and cultural board that looks into abuses if there are any- this will accelerate the groups working together for their common good - there have been a number of unfortunate incidents that could be replaced very easily with a "better vibe" - if people are conserving the historic sites together, that is a step in the right direction

 

2)  You should probably whack about 4 Jewish settlements so that the Palestinians feel "more at home" - you could probably find some settlers that just want to upgrade houses at discount prices in South Jerusalem and pocket some money in the deal to propel the peace plan and their pocketbooks forwards.  Or, Israel could list that as "Palestinian land subject to a 'convenience and mutual support easement.'"  In Plan B, you can suggest whacking 3 or 4 more, but that probably won't even be necessary.  I would tend towards the difficult to support settlements that are isolated and provide for the others with easements and highways that are not intrusive.

 

3)  Plan and construct "Western West Jerusalem" and "The Southern Tip."  This will give people some options for housing and further confuse the issues.  I think that you will need some new housing anyways.

 

4)  Add easements and small land transfers as reasonable to maintain high levels of happiness on both sides of the Palesrael equation.

 

2018 or 2019

 

1)  Essentially, this should be the same plan as too much proposed change will frighten people.  Subtle differences that seem to be a bit unsettling (pun included), probably for some Jewish settlers.  You could argue, "We are giving you ten years of grace period to deal with the unsettling effects of this treaty.  That is plenty of time to move to our posh, new settlement in South Jerusalem if you so choose, and we might just renew the contract on the easements and existing borders.

 

I believe that you should have lots of people available to discuss the underlying issues in greater detail that I can.  People wanted some changes and some peace, and that is some changes and peace.  I think that if people have ten years of peace, they will be less into change than they thought.  It was the "breaking in period" for some new residents that seemed to cause the majority of the unrest. 

 

One of the upsides of this possible treaty scenario is that you probably already are past most of the civil unrest and political instability due to changes.  If the "final treaty" is strongly angled towards peaceful cohabitiation with mutual dignity and respect, it should be pretty easy to swallow for Olmert's political party and Palestinians who are all pretty war weary at this time. 

 

I am just a sucker for love and peace (making me very happy as if this matters) and not even a party to the disputes, but I would be interested in moving to a DOC and having the best of both worlds.  I also am strangely drawn into the bold concept of a "new historical district" as I am a fan of historical preservation efforts. 

 

'New Historical District'

anagrams to

'Witch randiest clitoris.'

 

When the anagrams mention intercourse directly or indirectly, it has been deemed to be a "good thing" as the general ruling.  "I want to see the new historical district!  I wonder how it compares to the old one!"  "It is the SAME ONE, silly boy."

 

OF INTEREST IS THE WORD: "Reformer."  Well, that does appear to be different and QUITE POSSIBLY aggrevation free.  It is what you make of it.

 

Well, you toss the idea around.  You might need a couple of "right of ways" thrown in for new highways as well as some easements to further confuse the issues.  I might have to drop by in 10 years to try to straighten up the paperwork and make some determinations upon the facts.  "Both plans look pretty good to me.  That is a really difficult decision to make, guys.  I am glad that you have to do it as the leaders, and I get to spend my time on debauchery, entertaining people, and a whole lot of volunteer work." 

 

OF INTEREST IS ALSO THE WORD: "Reference library."  If I remix together some professional sounding reference materials that just go on and on and on, that should further confuse the underlying issues and make them more difficult to locate.

 

OF INTEREST IS THE WORD: "Realpolitik," "determined by expedience."  You could quite possibly have a "slightly less rough draft" this evening and "tentative agreement."  For example, what kind of raw, sex appeal does a "historic district" have?  That is really some great curb appeal.

 

OF INTEREST ARE THE WORDS: "Rebirth" and "rebound."  Maybe that is for Abbas who can probably see a light at the end of the tunnel.  That is not so far away or so difficult.

 

Oh, "randiest" means vulgar.  I really need to upgrade my word choice at times. 

 

OF INTEREST WAS THE WORD:  "Radiate."  That is what Palestine and Israel need to do with Jerusalem - radiate out in mutually agreeable directions and fashion and pave a beautiful and happy future together.

 

I have to admit that I kind of like the "alleged to be phased approach," and it is honest.  Plan B goes into effect in ten years if it is not stalled for another time period.  It is all very upfront and direct with some, arguably, complex legal interpretation, but this is a complex issue.

 

Sorry.  I had to take a little break to talk to Joseph who is also excited about the possibility of a peace treaty for Palestine and sending support towards Abbas.  He liked my new approach - why don't you kids consider stopping your incessant batting of your heads against a couple of walls and just "slack the rest and cover it up with ambiguous structure?"  With The Golan Heights in and 1967 borders and some good wording indicating peace, that is the substance of what people wanted in a peace treaty.  There are some stickler issues, but they could be scheduled for a "phase in" sort of chopping that horse in the middle.

 

If there is a wall in front of people, they could both build 1/2 of a ladder with the stated plan to build more later and finally get over that wall.  That is pretty close, and Abbas seems to be more dead to the world than I am these days.  One of the most important parts of this treaty is to get people off of each other's throats and working side by side to meet their joint goals together.  If both sides slack off "just a little bit" at the end, you could start working more together to draft statements that explain this beautiful and elegant piece of paper and freedom to the world.

 

BTW, I assume that there are competent lawyers over in Israel and Palestine, but you guys are probably pretty tired and can dump work onto Washington if you like.  At some point, when you have more energy, you might get work dumped back on you.  That is the way the world works at times.  Poor Abbas looked extremely tired and bitter, and that is when I am at my best, sending aid to those who could use a picker-upper.