A nation-state is not a person or a living being.  It is an agreement among leaders about rules and boundaries.  It is whatever can be agreed on and written into a constitution.  This is good news and may allow democracy to evolve.  It may also allow a solution to Israel’s dilemma.  With this dynamic form of democracy, PM Netanyahu can declare victory.  He could say “The war is over.  We have extracted an eye for an eye, ten times over.  Israel has won and now it is time for peace.”  Such a declared victory would be more Biblical than a war without end.   *(Ecclesiastes 3:3 – A time to kill and a time to heal.) 

Israel-Palestine will remain a single state, but because of external threats, the military will remain under Jewish control, even if the Jewish population becomes a minority.  That can be written into the constitution.  Regional leaders within Israel-Palestine will maintain peace in their areas, but they can be removed by a referendum of 80% vote of any minority within that region, or by a 60% of the general population vote within that region. This can also be written into a constitution and allows political leverage by minorities to allow some control over their own lives.  This dynamic democracy is somewhere between one-person-one-vote and one-group-one-vote.  It can work if leaders agree.  

Let the food aid into Gaza.   Palestinians can leave Gaza (with help and transportation) and establish many enclaves around the whole of the state of Israel-Palestine.  Enclaves on both sides can have their own small arms but only to be used defensively.  Any attempt to use them offensively will result in the small arms being taken from that enclave. Declare that the war has been won, but do not go back to the status quo.  The walls of Gaza must come down.  Anyone can live anywhere in Israel-Palestine.   

It may be that PM Netanyahu is the only one who can carry this out.  The role of religious leaders will be key in helping to guide The Story toward a positive future for all involved.  Third party peacekeepers and communicators may be required for some years and will be allowed to carry arms to defend themselves.  This plan is not simply a way of keeping enemies close but gives people a chance to heal.  Claims on geography are important but not in the same way as in the past, and there is no current court of justice that parties will listen to.  The healing must come from within.  

Can we get beyond the one-state vs. the two-state solution?   Fear and confusion are not leading toward any agreement.  We must find other pathways.  

Can Israel be a “Jewish State” even if they only have a minority of the population?  Yes.  We seem unable to think beyond the words “majority” and “minority”.  The concept of majority comes from a time when actual fighting could be avoided when one side had an obvious advantage in numbers.   Yet many democracies have leaders chosen by a plurality, not a majority.  Leaders may become afraid of a majority, yet in reality, it is the leaders of various groups who decide what constitutes a government.  They decide what is written into a constitution. 

Even if Jews constitute a minority, the responsibility for the military could be given to Jewish secular leaders.  This might make sense in light of the number of wars that Israel has had with its Arab neighbors.   Other groups might take responsibility for other parts of the government.  

Grassroots citizens generally want public administrators who are fair and constructive.  They want an environment that is stable and predictable so that they can do their work and get on with their lives.  Toward that end, there should be referenda that allow for removal of any public administrator or politician by 80% of a minority of people who live in a region, or 60% of the general population of that region. Such an arrangement would benefit greatly from third party observers who can travel anywhere, talk to anyone, and help set up referenda if necessary.   Third party observers might come from the United Nations or other individual states. 

The modern nation-state came into being at the end of the Thirty Years War when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed by 109 signatories.  Negotiations took place over six years and in two separate locations.  It was the structure that allowed the various warring parties to come to an agreement. 

Political scientist Hans Morgenthau stressed the need for balance rather than domination.  Creating balance can be done with feedback and accountability mechanisms written into the structure by leaders at the start, or created by other groups at a later date.  This concept can be further developed to include voting on specific issues by groups that are “naturally balanced”.   E.g. Everyone who has a birthday in March can use their extra and special vote for Issue X.  

Church (religion) v. State power battles have gone on for centuries.  The role of the State is to set boundaries and rules of what people cannot do.  The role of religion, on the other hand, is to prescribe what people should do, to help find purpose and center for their lives.  Mixing these roles leads to corruption. 

From the Jewish perspective, it all started on October 7.  From a Palestinian perspective however, they (Palestinians) have been brutalized for decades,  and yet  there are many Jews and Palestinians who do not hate each other.  They look for ways to get along.  This could be a starting point in forming mixed enclaves around the country and provide some extra measure of security with hybrid communities.   Diaspora Jews, scattered around in a world that is now aligning against Israel, will also likely be safer from retribution.  

It is possible then to create one state with multiple minorities including Jews, Palestinians, Non-Palestinian Arabs, and Christians.  

Summary

1. Secular Jews head up the military.  This can be written into the constitution. 
2. Referenda can be done to remove any politician by 80% of a minority or 60% general vote in any region.  
3. Third party observers must be allowed to talk to anyone and help to set up referenda.  These observers might come from the UN or individual states. 
4. Tear down the walls around Gaza and allow anyone to live anywhere.  

Jo Suter

March 2024                                                                                       

A Different and Dynamic Democracy for Israel-Palestine (DDIP)

 ABSTRACT:  4 Main points

  1.    Minority (Jews) can still control military and for now, police. 

2.   60% General vote and 80% Minority vote can remove a politician or change a policy with a referendum in any region. 

3.   Third party observers can go anywhere, talk too anyone, and help set up referenda if needed.   

4.   Settlements must accept equal numbers of “outsiders” or dismantle. 

The power of democracy is related to feedback and accountability from the voters on a regular basis. This feedback can be more dynamic however, allowing for a variety of responsibilities by different groups.  Israel fears being in a minority, especially when surrounded by Arab states.  One-person-one-vote may not work well in this situation since non-Jews could take control of top seats in government.

This requires a change in the structure of democracy to allow all minority groups to have a specific function.  Israel can keep control of the military and police, though the police function could change later. The key part is that other minorities in any region can call for referendum or removal from office any politician or any decision-maker by 80% of minority or 60% of a general vote of that region.  This will induce politicians to think more about the fairness and feasibility of their decisions. 

A dynamic democracy will depend on active participation by an outside third party, at least to start.  Third parties, whether they be from the United Nations or neighboring states, can help communication and formulation of feedback referenda.  Feedback from leaders to the voters can also evolve.  Third party participants must have access to any and all areas and be able to talk to anyone.

Settlements must change and may be safer from attack if they accept “outsiders”.

Since the march last week to support a ceasefire, the war is widening.  The governments of Israel and the US are ignoring the International Court of Justice and ignoring the will of the majority of the people.  On Democracy Now, Ha’aretz journalist Gideon Levy reports that Israeli media are mostly not covering the suffering of Palestinians, despite the fact that there is no censorship.  Media editors must simply believe that their readers do not want to hear the other side of the conflict and so their readers will never see and understand what people in Gaza are suffering.   

Here in the US too, people do not want to think or talk about Gaza.  It may be because they lack the tools for talking and have no way to discuss difficult issues without getting into verbal battles with their neighbors.  This could be one of our tasks – to create places and ways to talk, think, and maybe act.  Start at the local restaurants, including the more expensive ones.  Call or write to the restaurant owner and ask them to close their restaurant one day a week and post a sign that they will remain closed on that day until there is a Ceasefire in Gaza.  They might add on the sign that they support both Israel and Palestine.  But in any case, the fighting must cease.  

The response from the owner might be agreement, disagreement, or simply ignoring the request.  A follow-up request can be more to the point, indicating that we may arrive and hand out pamphlets to their patrons, though not supporting any one side but simply indicating where they might get better information than they will get on mainstream media.  As uncomfortable as this might be, it is the start of a wider conversation.  It moves beyond preaching to the choir and creates places for people to meet and talk on many issues.  There is a possibility that the community may still support that restaurant and make up for lost business.  

If God is present with us, then we are contributing to The Story with our daily decisions and actions. 

To sit and hear the reading of the Torah is both humbling and exciting, realizing that this is what our ancestors nearly 2.500 years ago were doing in almost exactly the same way and using the same words.  It fills one with awe.  Yet, we are a different people in many ways.

With the War in Gaza, Israel has lost its innocence.  No longer can Jews be the perpetual victim.  The Holocaust really happened, but that was during the time of our parents and grandparents.  That was their challenge.  We cannot be expected to fight the same fights that they did.  Our enemies are not even the same. 

Jews must not carry the burden of fears and hatreds of their fathers nor want to pass on these same fears and hatreds to our children.  To throw off the burdens of our fathers, we must forgive them for expecting us carry their burdens.  The cycle of life and death must allow each generation to start anew in some way or another, while still carrying the culture forward.  We cannot do to others what was done to us.  Otherwise we become the thing that we hate.

  December 15, 2023

   By Josuter 

It seems that people the world over have struggled for centuries to be heard.  A new form of government was hammered out over those centuries with many battles, but it proved to be a better form of government in most situations.  The basis of this new government structure was one-person-one-vote.  Sounds simple enough, and it sounds fair.  Whoever gets a majority wins.  

This is unsettling for Israel.  If they allow Palestinians a vote, then in the places where the Palestinians outnumber the Jews, the Palestinians might take top positions in government.  That could be fatal for the vision of Israel as a Jewish state.

The concept of majority is about the feeling of fairness, primarily the feeling of fairness in the people with pitchforks and weapons ready to fight.  If the opponent has more people than we do, maybe we should just go home and call it a day.  

That was Democracy 101.  A type of one-state solution may be better than a two-state solution in the short run, allowing Palestinians to live freely in Israel but not allow Palestinians to carry any arms.  They could not form a military.  They might have their own police in some areas, but not in all areas.  What do the Palestinians get in return?  An 80% vote by Palestinians can remove any politician from office at any time.  (or by 60% of the general public).  The goal here is to get politicians to be real leaders of all the people – or they are out.  This could be written into the constitution in the same way that 2/3 majority is written in for specific situations.  

The Right of Return by Palestinians to their homes that are now occupied by settlers is a difficult issue, but it too can be handled with a new structure.  Half of the settlers could remain in half the houses of any one settlement.  The other half would be Palestinians, Christians, or other outsiders.  If there is any significant level of fighting then all will be removed, and the homes given to someone else. Democracy 202 pushes people to talk and solve problems together.  

Democracy 202 is an establishment of better feedback and better structures to govern all people.  People generally have a good sense of leadership if they have good information.  First amendment rights will be essential.  A change in structure of this kind would require help from outside countries or maybe the UN to enforce it in an efficient and effective way.  But it is time to take democracy to a new level. 

  Taiwan the Bride   –   A Case for Interlocking Squares ( ISQ )    –    November 2023            

       by josuter                     

With all the attention that the US and China are giving Taiwan, one might think that Taiwan is a bride with two suitors.  This metaphor can be useful, reflecting real power in Taiwan’s position to open up new and creative options in the geopolitical sphere. 

The Taiwanese are very close ethnically and linguistically to the Chinese.  If Taiwan voted to join China – for whatever reason – would the US allow them to make such a move?  Whatever benefits there might be to joining China must be weighed against what happened to Hong Kong.  Taiwan still has a choice but it cannot wait too long to start the process.   

One option is ISQ or Interlocking Squares, in which Taiwan would pick 3 or more countries to each have a small military base at least a square mile within Taiwan but along the coast where access to that base from the ocean side is unrestricted.  This square is much smaller than Guantanamo which is 45 square miles.  This is Taiwan’s choice and by invitation only.

This type of structure could allow the Taiwanese to invite China to help with administrative and cultural events but not allow them to take over the police or military.

Significant differences between the Guantanamo and ISQ structures keep Taiwan in the driver’s seat. Taiwan would have significant protection from those 3 or more countries.  Besides the difference in size there are more nations involved and personnel might interact with the locals in a way that is impossible at Gitmo.  An ISQ might participate in the local economy as a way to offset the cost.  And of course each Square must have a soccer team.

What is the alternative?  If Taiwan takes no initiative in creating a new security structure, they run the risk of being crushed in a war between China and the US.  Millions of Taiwanese may die and destruction of the country could follow.

Priorities and Problems of an ISQ structure

Communication must be a high priority, not simply between the foreign military Squares but among the Taiwanese themselves if they are to resist single-minded bureaucrats.  We may not be able to make all countries into democracies, but we can make them listen to each other.  Each ISQ can facilitate this communication with radio and internet communications throughout the whole of Taiwan, or by face-to-face meetings.

When important decisions are made the question will arise “Who’s the boss?”  Is it Taiwan or the total ISQ?   Disciplinary problems of foreign personnel might be made by the collective ISQ.   Other decisions might be made by a mix of Taiwan and one or several ISQ’s.   If there are bureaucrats who seem to be engaged in a mission-creep of slowly taking over the government or police, as the Chinese did in Hong Kong, they might be identified by either Taiwan or any of the Squares.  Other questions that arise could be made into a referendum and put to a vote by local or larger groups. 

Questions or comments welcome.

jsuter@sbcglobal.net