Reading I-P discussions confirms James Carroll's observation that "no question is more polarized than" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Accordingly, it may be worth taking note that two active I=P discussants -- Heathlander and I -- despite opposite primary sympathies, agree on (what Heathlander recently called) the essential embodiment of a peace settlement, namely, the Geneva-Accord, a joint Israeli-Palestinian model peace treaty, agreed in October 2003 by senior Israeli and Palestinian figures.
Please read on
There is a partner. There is a plan.
Recognizing that comment is free, I nonetheless hope that people may agree voluntarily to limit discussion to the model treaty’s merits, flaws, if any, and ways and means of promoting its adoption (or that of a peace treaty like it in essentials). Those who oppose such a peace treaty, either because they are against the creation of a State of Palestine or because they do not want the State of Israel to continue to exist, will, I respectfully request, make their points elsewhere.
Accord Principles
* End of conflict. End of all claims.
* Mutual recognition of Israeli and Palestinian right to two separate states.
* A final, agreed upon border [based on the 1967 lines (or Green Line) with minor, mutual modifications].
* A comprehensive solution to the refugee problem [giving each Palestinian refugee options from 5 permanent places residence – the Palestinian State with its new swapped lands will be open to all, other options, Israel included, are at the sovereign discretion of the State concerned. Refugees will receive compensation and an international body established to oversee this entire process].
* Large settlement blocks and most of the settlers are annexed to Israel, as part of a 1:1 land swap.
* Recognition of the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and recognition of the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital [with each side’s holy places fully under its sovereignty].
* A demilitarized Palestinian state.
* A comprehensive and complete Palestinian commitment to fighting terrorism and incitement.
* An international verification group to oversee implementation.
(All insertions within [brackets] are taken from the FAQ.)
Facts on the Ground: the Maps.
A primary concern for each side is how these principles translate into facts on the ground. For example, will Palestine be merely a series of loosely, or entire disconnected, Bantustans? The agreed maps show that the Geneva Accord creates a territorially viable Palestinian state, with only minor border modifications, and geographic contiguity within the West Bank portion of the state. In particular, the treaty satisfies the Palestinian demand that territorial negotiations start from the June 4, 1967, lines, that is, just before the Six-Day War. Recognizing the practical need for modifications, it also recognizes a principle of equality: first, modifications will be reciprocal; second, the territory exchange will be on a 1:1 basis. To promote functional contiguity between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in addition to geographic contiguity within each part of Palestine, the treaty provides for a corridor -- not shown on the maps -- between the two regions.
Here are the details for Greater Jerusalem:
Here are maps showing the enlargement of the southern West Bank and Gaza:
and
Selected provisions and commentary
The pictures may be pretty, but what about the details? The treaty text is much too long to reproduce here. But let's focus on a few points of great concern to the parties.
First, in the preamble, the parties recognize that
peace requires the transition from the logic of war and confrontation to the logic of peace and cooperation, and that acts and words characteristic of the state of war are neither appropriate nor acceptable in the era of peace; and that
the logic of peace requires compromise, and that the only viable solution is a two-state solution based on UNSC Resolution 242 and 338.
Significantly, I think, the treaty signifies mutual recognition of each side's national rights:
this agreement marks the recognition of the right of the Jewish people to statehood and the recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to statehood, without prejudice to the equal rights of the Parties’ respective citizens.
Second, the treaty is a definitive, final settlement. Article 1(2) declares:
The implementation of this Agreement will settle all the claims of the Parties arising from events occurring prior to its signature. No further claims related to events prior to this Agreement may be raised by either Party.
Third, Article 7 of the treaty provides for a comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem, beginning with a mutual recognition of the problem's significance:
The Parties recognize that, in the context of two independent states, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace, an agreed resolution of the refugee problem is necessary for achieving a just, comprehensive and lasting peace between them.
The starting points are UNGA Resolution 194 and UNSC 242. The parties "agree that these rights are fulfilled according to Article 7 of this Agreement." The refugee settlement has three primary aspects:
* Compensation, both for "refugeehood and for loss of property," without being prejudiced by "the refugee’s permanent place of residence; and
* A choice of "Permanent Place of Residence (PPR)" from among five options:
* A "permanent and complete resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. No claims may be raised except for those related to the implementation of this agreement."
i. The state of Palestine, in accordance with clause a below.
ii. Areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap, following assumption of Palestinian sovereignty, in accordance with clause a below.
iii. Third Countries, in accordance with clause b below.
iv. The state of Israel, in accordance with clause c below.
v. Present Host countries, in accordance with clause d below.
Under clause a, "PPR options i and ii shall be the right of all Palestinian refugees and shall be in accordance with the laws of the State of Palestine."
Under clauses b, c, and d, options iii and iv are in "the sovereign discretion" of the countries involved. For its part, Israel agrees that, "as a basis," it will "consider the average of the total numbers submitted by the different third countries to the International Commission."
As an individual refugee's PPR realized, "Palestinian refugee status shall be terminated[.]"
Fourth, security provisions are set forth in Article 5 of the treaty. They are difficult, not only because of the violent history between the parties, but also because of a basic asymmetry in their relationship: A Palestine strong enough to defend itself against Israel will leave Israel too weak to defend itself against a potential coalition of hostile states; an Israel strong enough to defend itself against such a coalition, easily would be able to reconquer Palestine. The agreed solution is a non-militarized Palestine protected by a strong Multilateral Force (MF).
So long as relations between Israel and Palestine are good, the MF, in effect, will help defend both states against potential external threats and will help Palestine fulfill its obligations regarding terrorism. At the same time, the MF will constitute a strong deterrent against Israel invading Palestine, first, by preventing any excuse from arising and, second, by vastly increasing the price Israel would have to pay for doing so. As much as creating a non-militarized state may be seen as a concession by Palestine, acceptance of the MF is a concession by Israel, which always has feared that such forces are ineffective in maintaining the peace and only create problems when Israel seeks to defend itself. Palestine also will benefit from not having to pay for a strong military and at least reducing the endemic risk of military, or militarized, rule.
Fifth, settlements are dealt with in Article 4 of the treaty, concerning territory. Israel "shall be responsible for resettling the Israelis residing in Palestinian sovereign territory outside this territory." In turn, Palestine "shall have exclusive title to all land and any buildings, facilities, infrastructure or other property remaining in any of the settlements on the date prescribed in the timetable for the completion of the evacuation of this settlement."
Sixth, Jerusalem gets its own section, Article 6. The parties
recognize the universal historic, religious, spiritual, and cultural significance of Jerusalem and its holiness enshrined in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In recognition of this status, the Parties reaffirm their commitment to safeguard the character, holiness, and freedom of worship in the city and to respect the existing division of administrative functions and traditional practices between different denominations
The treaty treats Jerusalem as a single city, with areas under two different sovereignties:
The Parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.
Nearly thirty years ago, addressing an international conference on Israeli-Palestinian relations, I said:
I think that the burden lies especially heavy on those of us who are committed to the security and well being of Israel to work to persuade our leaders that one can be pro-Israel without being anti-Palestinian, that friendship for Israel implies a responsibility for candor. Our government should state forcefully America's consistent opposition to deportation, settlements, and annexation. And, it should make clear its view that continuing the conflict will be disastrous for Israel in the long run. These will be hard messages for some Israelis to hear. However, friendship will make them bearable and, we hope, effective.
We would like to hear words in a similar spirit from those whose primary sympathy or commitment is to the Palestinians. At a minimum, it would be a constructive step to give more attention to what unites us than to what divides us. When one side or the other produces what seems like a drum-beat of diaries and comments that stigmatize the other side, our divisions are emphasized, and we are pushed apart. You have criticisms of Israel, so do I. Perhaps mine are not the same as yours, but they are no less heartfelt. I have criticisms of the Palestinian side. I wonder, do you? I wonder further, can we move beyond recrimination to constructive dialogue about ways forward to "two states for two peoples."
If you've made it this far, thank you for your attention.