Nadav,

I really appreciate you humoring the westerner here. Thank you!

I think there are two key differences with the Oslo accords:

First, among those Palestinians who were given autonomy in 2005 there were many who still promised to wipe Israel from the map, they never rescinded that promise. No surprise, when given the chance they try to fulfill it! I propose an Enclave where membership requires and oath to proactively protect everyone including Israel from terrorism. Some will certainly lie but I think many who willing to agree to the crazy terms of this enclave will not be lying.

Second, I am not proposing that Israel needs to reduce its surveillance in this Enclave. Indeed the prosperity of this area is tied to its ability to keep terrorism out. To join this area one must be friends with Israel, one must accept the need for the very invasive surveillance needed to keep terrorism out of this area. Thus careful surveillance of this area will be easier than the rest of Gaza since it is done with the blessing and active support of its members. Importantly I want to put ultimate responsibility on this enclave for ensuring it is terrorism free. This makes the surveillance more an action impose from within rather than action taken from outside.

It would be at Israel's discretion how the sharing of this security verification occurred. But no matter what, it would be entirely different given a whole population swore an oath for proactive support, and openly acknowledged they were trading need to support Israel's security for their own personal prosperity. If you are not ready to make that trade don't swear the oath. And if you don't follow along, you get kicked out.

You may ask, so what is in it for the Palestinian? Why would any join such an invasive Enclave?? One word: Prosperity. The west and Israel both need to reward those few willing to sign up for Israel's security. We reward proof in action, with JOBS! Initially as this community is tiny, the costs to support it are also tiny. As the community grows the cost of supporting its economy will also grow, but the benefits in reduced security will also grow. And I think the ability for businesses to operate in this region could be greatly enhanced. Part of the prosperity of this area could come from its ability to be more open since it is so heavily and collaboratively scrutinized. Presently Israel must restrict things a simple a concrete into Gaza as they are actively used for attack. Since this community is so much better monitored (by Israel in tight cooperation with Enclave authorities) it is more possible to allow business operations knowing that monitoring is so much tighter.

You may say that no Palestinians will sign up. Perhaps few will initially. But that is fine. This still provides Israel a tiny Enclave where it can prove just how friendly it could be to Palestinians if only Israel's security was assured. And demonstrating this for the west would raise Israel's standing a lot. Israel could point to this Enclave and say: "see, if our security is assured, then we can be quite friendly indeed."

And I think this would be very instructive for Palestinian's too. You tell me as a Westerner I cannot really understand Israeli context---and you may well be right about that. Still I would say it might also be hard for you to wrap your head around the Palestinian mind who explains away Israel's prior offers of peace as not "real". Such a Palestinian has concluded that Israel can never be a friend to Palestinian people. This enclave---invasively monitored---would be proof that Palestinians could prosper as friends of Israel, more would come.

This enclave is not proof that Israel will ever relinquish security control over Gaza. Instead it is proof that Gazan's could have a prosperous life if they were friends with Israel---at the price of having invasive monitoring. That is probably a new thought for many Palestinians, who have bought into the propaganda that Israel intrinsically hates them and hopes to keep them down no matter what.

Whatever this idea is, it is quite different than the Oslo accords. Your thoughts?