The Movement for the Pledge for Peace.

The Pledge for Peace.
We accept the right of the Jewish People to establish ##
the Jewish national home in the Land of Israel ######
(the territory of the Palestine Mandate) #########
and
their right to live in peace within secure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! %
and recognized boundaries free from threats !!!!!!!!!!!! %
or acts of force. %
cf. # League of Nations' Palestine Mandate of 1922
cf. % the preamble Camp David Accords of September 17, 1978

Resolution of The Movement for the Pledge for Peace for a Basic Law of the State

Whereas the Arab league denies the right of the Jewish people to live in the land of Israel as part of its multipronged war; by boycott, by support of the terror network, and by diplomatic activity aimed against Israel,

and whereas the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate included in it's preamble "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; "
and
in Art 2. " the establishment of the Jewish national home,"
and
Article 4. " the establishment of the Jewish national home. "
and Article 60 of the UN charter carried this forward ,

and whereas the Camp David Accords of September 17, 1978 in it's preamble states in part, Israel's "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
therefore
we, the Movement for the Pledge for Peace, promote the Pledge for Peace and call upon the Kenneset to enact the Pledge for Peace into the Basic Laws of the State of Israel as a requirement for anyone to vote, hold office, or retain any job in the government of Israel.

Discussion.

The Pledge for Peace, its role for peace and security.

The Pledge for Peace as listed above comes from the major documents of Peace relating to Israel in the Twentieth Century. The pledge can be used as a tool to let us see who is friend or foe.

The first question seems to be: whom can we trust when they say they are for Peace? The question of War and Peace has been about the issue of whether the Jewish People would be allowed to live in the land of Israel. The European Community, functioning through the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations, created The Mandate for Palestine after the First World War.
Arabs made war against this settlement of the Land. Later they formed the Arab League to organize the efforts against the Jews.
After many unsuccessful wars, the Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat decided to make peace with Israel. His meeting with the Israeli leader Menachim Began and US President Jimmy Carter lead to the Camp David accords. The Pledge for Peace is a scalable solution. We can ask agreement at all levels; the citizen, the dweller on our Land, and foreign entities, friend or foe. We are not talking just about citizens living in Israel for this solution is scalable. That is it can be used at the lowest level of peace making in speaking to an Arab. And we can ask it at the highest diplomatic levels such as when speaking to Egyptian President Mubarak or US President Bush.
All countries set requirements for voting or holding office that are greater than the actual requirements of citizenship. Being at peace with the state and it's inhabitants is a legitimate requirement. Each citizen has the right to make their own personal decision if they will make this pledge.
Therefore the need is to create the Movement for the Pledge for Peace, to promote the Pledge for Peace and to call upon the Kenneset to enact the Pledge for Peace into the Basic Laws of the State of Israel as a requirement for anyone to vote, hold office, or retain any job in the government of Israel.
Not all Arabs are enemies of the Jewish people. We need to sort out enemy from just Arab resident. We would not want to bring an Arab into the conflict if he/she wanted to stay out of it and act peacefully. The first level of peace making is reducing and eliminating local violence.
But we should not be confused that this is a local issue. The whole system is defined and supported by the War of the Arab League against the Jewish settlement of the Land. It is this level that the Arab refugees have been told that there is no other solution to them but Palestine as their home and place of settlement.
After the military challenges to Israel have all lost, the choice of the Arab League has been to engage in low level warfare, using the refugees as proxies. The problem in this level of warfare is that it defies modern concepts of state, borders, and military forces. Each of these have normal definitions. But non-state groups using armed forces over an undefined domain ducking back into the civilian background are hard to deal with. Are they military attacks requiring a military response, or are they criminal actions to be dealt with by police and courts?

Historically there has been a number responses used to deal with these types of situations.

• kill them all. Used by Napoleon and others.
  easy response. Ineffective as those who identify with people in the insurgency. raises moral issues: who do we become when we do this? As Admiral Ernest J King said after he was appointed to lead the attack on Japan, "When war breaks out, they look for the (nasty people)". (my translation of Navy lingo).
• targeted killings from top down. The British used this effectively in Cypress and Northern Ireland.
• The hearts and minds policy involves improving the economic condition of the population. US policy in S. Vietnam. Worked effectively at the tactical level. But tactics are for nothing if you don't have the right strategy.
• use of local friendlies - This has been used successfully by the British in Malaya and by US in Philippines.

Where are their hearts and minds?

I break down the Arab population in Israel into 5 groups;

• those opposed to all peace for Israel, about 5%,
those who don't want to make peace but don't want to act themselves,
but will engage in mob actions, about 35%
those who want to know who will win, and wait to be on that side, about 22%
those who prefer to live in peace but are compromised by the PLO agents, about 28%
and
those who want to and do live in peace with Israel, about 10%.

The objective of Israeli policy should be isolating and destroying the die-hard militants, suppressing the will to violent action by the second group, causing the third middle group to side with us and join the fourth and fifth groups, and to expand the fourth and fifth groups. The pledge for peace will help us identify and move these groups.
Citizenship is not taken away. Rather the citizen has the right to declare himself for peace. It like asking players at the beginning of a game if they will abide by the rules. Certain elements in the right wing of Israeli politics would have all Arabs removed. It is clear that no Israeli Majority would support this. There have been too many personal contacts, labor dependencies, and human concerns. An Arab minority has provided aid and assistance to Israeli forces. If we can prevent harm to the peaceful Arab, then a program to pro-actively exclude the militants from our body politic and midst can gain majority support.

Many possibilities for Peace and Security come from policies that can be adopted when it is known who in a local population will accept the Pledge for Peace.