A Peace of Jerusalem is an evolving mideast peace narrative based on ideas crowdsourced from everyday people worldwide – 2,000 words (or less!)
Latest Iteration: August 11, 2018 — 16:57 JT
m i l e s t o n e s . . .
2017 edits finalised: December 31, 2017
2014 text affirmed: June 7, 2015
10,000th download: March 8, 2015
2014 edits finalised: September 24, 2014
2013 edits finalised: December 30, 2013
2012 edits finalised: December 22, 2012
2011 edits finalised: May 12, 2011
Print edition: December 13, 2010
First consensus: August 7, 2010
First iteration: November 5, 2009
Initiated: October 27, 2009
Reference to permanent Israeli mil presence in Jordan Valley
Specific mention of Jordan Valley with regard to Israeli Mutual-Defence Forces
…and the recommended elimination of a minor prejudicial qualifier
Re: Section XII – “Security, Order & Defence” (para. 3)
Suggested addition, in black…
Suggested deletion, struck in black…
Protection of Ismail against hostile infiltration, foreign attack or invasion would be undertaken by Israel in
close coordination with Ismail’s security services and the peacekeeping team. This would necessitate a permanent Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley. Ismail’s defence would also be bolstered by Jordan in the East and by Egypt in the West.
These edits, if approved, would take our word count up to 1,993.
Comments? Qs? (Enter ’em here)
DONATE YOUR BRAIN TO PEACE
“NAKED PEACE” ON PAUSE
WORK ON WEB-BASED DIALOGUE TOOL SUSPENDED
Meanwhile, here’s the basic Configuration (PDF~1.8MB) of the system, as proposed and adopted in 2016. Comments always welcome.
NEW WORD COUNT: 1,982
Minor changes (as proposed below) were performed in paragraph 2 of Section III – “Assurances”; latest iteration of live text is now: March 20, 2018 – 17:55 JT.
A Simple Fix
THAT SAVES THREE WORDS
Re: Section III – “Assurances” (2nd para.)
Each state would vow to serve and defend the interests of the people under its jurisdiction, regardless of religion, race, gender, creed, or citizenship.
Each state would vow to serve and defend those under its jurisdiction, irrespective of religion, race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or creed.
This change, if approved, would shorten and simplify the sentence while removing an unnecessary reference to citizenship, the terms of which are addressed in another section of the text. Also saves 3 words worth of space.
By Four Words
NEW WORD COUNT: 1,985
Is it possible to make a difference in fifteen words or less?
Need a few more?
No worries. We always make room for great ideas. That’s our process.
By Two More Words
NEW WORD COUNT: 1,989
Is it even possible to make a difference in eleven words or less?
List of Sites Added
Add a List of Key Sites
…and a big shout-out to the variously devout
Re: Section X – “The Capital Region” <— to be added after 1st para.
The city is cherished by Christians, Muslims and Jews for its myriad holy sites, including the Western Wall, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Dome of the Rock, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Via Dolorosa, City of David, Mount of Olives, and Gethsemane.
This edit, if approved, would take our word count up to 1,991.
Any Thoughts? (Enter them here)
DONATE YOUR BRAIN TO PEACE
By Two More Words
Edit Reduces Text Length
NEW TALLY: 1,954 wds
Ahh, finally, some breathing room…
What can be said to advance the cause of peace in 46 words or less?
An Easy Way to Create Space
45 WORDS TO BE CLIPPED?
It was suggested that para. 3 of Section V. “Representation & Taxation” be removed and that any noteworthy info be reintroduced via “green text” (areas that display additional context when moused-over) thereby reducing document length to 1,954 words, and making room for one or more new ideas to be added.
2017 Editing Session Ends
ONLY MINOR CHANGES PERFORMED
Only minor changes were introduced, initially to resolve an ambiguity arising from language describing a specific right available to the children of some special permanent residents. Other minor edits were performed to allow room for the correction due to the text’s word limit.
Missed the deadline? No worries. There’s always next year; i.e., tomorrow.
Have a great one!
Document Open for Edits
FIRST TIME SINCE 2014
There’s still time to have your say. Editing of the text will end on Dec. 31st. We’re interested in new ideas that can be added to the existing proposal, but we welcome all suggestions on any related issue. Alternative phrasings for sensitive topics are always appreciated. Anything that enhances clarity is good.
You may have noticed that the text is very close to the 2000-word max. Not to worry; we’ve made room for great ideas before. 🙂
— the eds.
Minor Text Changes
NO NET CHANGE IN WORD COUNT
Minor text changes (as previously proposed below) were completed in Section II – “States in the Balance” and Section III – “Assurances”. These are the first word changes made to the document since September 2014. The latest iteration of the live document is now: December 21, 2017 – 05:27 JT.
Minor Text Changes
SHOULD WE UNLOCK THE DOC??
Re: Section II – “States in the Balance” (2nd last para.)
A child born to a special permanent resident of either state would inherit citizenship from his/her parent(s) and, upon attaining the age of legal majority, might opt instead to become a citizen of the state in which s/he was born.
A child born [in country] to a special permanent resident of [that] state would inherit citizenship from his/her parent(s) and, upon attaining the age of legal majority, might opt instead to become a citizen of the state in which s/he was born.
If we perform this minor text change (a clarifying edit that adds two words and replaces another) it will also require that we trim at least one word elsewhere in the text to remain at or below our 2,000 word maximum. Given this strict limit, it has been recommended that other concision edits also be considered in order to increase available space within the text, to make room for more great ideas.
On the other hand, we haven’t changed a letter in the document for over three years – and there have been only two minor, punctuation-related corrections during that time.
Update: Dec. 19, 2017 – There has been a concision edit suggested for the last paragraph of Section III – “Assurances” which would see us shave two words to make up for the extra two words introduced in adjusting Section II.
PEACE ENGINE ROLLOUT DELAYED UNTIL 2018
In the meantime, a question…
Why does this process differ from all other peace processes?
Well, this one began with a 5-year crowdsourcing effort to solicit, collect, distill, and integrate intriguing ideas contributed by concerned people everywhere, no matter their background or experience. We didn’t want a bunch of experts and politicians to overwhelm the common sense which we contend runs deeper than is appreciated in the general population. So, in our pending negotiation phase, we will once again take a contrarian approach.
Rather than have negotiators retreat into secrecy to discuss / argue / negotiate the core issues of mideast peace, we advocate doing it out in the open, in a public forum, where anyone can read what’s being discussed – and even carry on side discussions with other observers.
We aim to provide such an open forum, as well as secure back channels so that team members may communicate securely and effectively between themselves – and with a roster of up to 20 advisors. Back channel communications would be automatically released into the public domain after 5 years. Participants will be able to set their own desired level of privacy.
One of the toughest tasks when entering into negotiations is finding a viable starting point. We eliminate this obstacle by offering various well-known source texts that can serve as jumping-off points for dialogue.
2002 Arab Peace Initiative, re-endorsed 2007 and 2017 (518 wds);
A Peace of Jerusalem, our crowdsourced peace narrative (1,982 wds);
The Geneva Accord, Geneva Initiative summary (685 wds); and
JOCI Lite* (Review: Jerusalem Old City Initiative Discussion Document)
*Lite version (2000 words max) available early 2018.
Two Basic Rules: 1) Any change to a selected Source Text must be agreed by both teams; 2) New ideas acceptable to both sides may simply be added to the document, provided that this introduces no logical inconsistencies to the text.
Anyone could create or join an ad hoc negotiating team; and where such teams are local to the conflict, this would allow those most at risk to personally engage in the conversation.
All comments on the proposed FORMAT are welcome. (PDF~1.8MB)