Interesting and uncomfortable. There are things on there that are difficult to accept but not impossible. But then, that applies to both sides. There are things there which Israel will find difficult to accept as much as the Palestinians so in the end you have to look beyond the uncomfortable.
Just a few points.
1) None of the points you've mentioned will be a pre-condition to negotiating the terms, i.e. none of these are expected on day one of negotiations to be in effect. It's not that I'm against them or support the opposing view, it's just that if you expect Hamas re-writing its charter before negotiations start it aint happening which means no negotiations are happening either.
2) Which leads onto the second point - that I expect the conditions you've listed would come into effect in stages, with the most uncomfortable for BOTH sides coming into effect later and the quick fixes sooner - and those coming sooner will also signal a sign of good faith by both sides. They will also help in the initial stages to build confidence and support within the Palestinian and Israeli populations towards peace.
3) I don't see a problem with much of what you've suggested but in response to what you posted to Pinkie, how the heck are you going to create a viable Palestinian State with borders inside the West Bank to account for Jewish Settlements when they aren't located in one area or on the outskirts but scattered throughout the region? You not only have individual Settlements but you have Settlement Blocks - places like Maale Adoumim and Shilo and Ariel.
You must log in or register to see images
Surely you're not proposing keeping all settlements? There will have to be some dismantling of settlements. Many of the settlements are Israeli government approved, but there are at least 100 unapproved settlements.
4) What about the Israeli settlements inside East Jerusalem? I take it they will have to be dismantled if East Jerusalem is to become the capital of a Palestinian State.
5) CK you know what this will come down to - a) Jerusalem and b) the right of return for Palestinian refugees. With regards to both, I'd agree with you suggestion about East and West Jerusalem being capital cities for each. Some international oversight on access to religious sites for an interim period until both sides are able to provide a united approach to supervising access impartially. On the point of Palestinian refugees returning, they can but without any claim to Israeli land. They can only do so on the basis of residency within the borders of the Palestinian State. I have a feeling if that were the case, the Palestinian Authority themselves will take a pragmatic approach and limit numbers as it will be them who will have to bear the financial and social cost of it.
6) One other thing I'd add is water. This is a precious commodity in both the Israel and Palestinian territories. Israel has a set of excellent clean water supply systems encompassing transport of water from north to south and other programmes based on desalination, and fair play to them. Working as an NGO you probably saw the problems encountered first hand - the problems of piping water to the West Bank, and the poor sanitation which makes much of the water in Gaza unfit for consumption. Of course any long-term solution would solve much of this as infrastructure is improved but any future Palestinian State must be allowed to develop its own clean water supply which is neither controlled directly or indirectly by Israel or dependent upon them.
7) Thoughts on the wall?
I found the process of jotting down my thoughts to be quite an interesting experience. I sat down and thought 'right, you've held these beliefs for years. Now jot them down, one at a time, and try to alternate between concessions on the Israeli side and then those on the Palestinian side. Remarkably, I ended up with 8 each. Not on purpose, that's just how the dice fell. While I appreciate that
qualitatively, the two lists cannot be compared, the
quantitative parity suggests that there is actually a balance to be struck on this whole issue, and that balance might not be as unrealistic as many believe.
Thanks for your response. My two cents...
1) I'm really not sure. The overwhelming majority of peace talks since Oslo have begun with several (at least unspoken) preconditions. I think it is important to recognise that there are certain red lines without which neither side will sit around a table. This is far trickier for Israel which is a democracy as the public can and will bring governments down (one such example were the huge protests and vote of no confidence Ehud Barak faced in 2000 that forced him to leave Camp David early to smooth things over; ultimately talks over handing the Golan back to Syria were abandoned. In 2000, the Golan was a red line for too many Israelis) before they have a chance to bring their plans to full fruition. That said, I would imagine at least a portion of my points would definitely be preconditions for negotiations. e.g. for Israel it would be Hamas rewriting their charter and disarming during a transition period. For the Palestinians it would be something recognising the right of return, plus guaratees of a capital in East Jlem.
2) I'm actually inclined to believe the opposite. I think your point is a reason why so many summits and talks have collapsed. There is often an attitude (which tbh is prevalent across middle eastern culture in general) of 'let's just sign it, we'll deal with those things later'. The issue is, 'those things' are usually the things people feel most passionately about. It is immensely difficult for even the most gifted politician to explain to the Palestinian people that it is worth accepting zero sovereignty over East Jlem because 'for now' we have increased authority in Zone A and B areas. Yasser Arafat was one of the few people in history who had the charisma, force of will and gravitas to push such an idea over the line. Similarly Ariel Sharon pushing the Gaza disengagement over the line - and that decision wrecked his political career, his health and all of his political allies. Over the decades, the big issues have been repeatedly brushed under the carpet so that they have only grown in complication and complexity. Why was there such a forceful response to 6 families being evicted from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah? Because that incident is viewed in the context of a lack of a capital for decades? Why is there a broad rise in right-wing extremists in Israel? Because the repeated promises of 'land for peace' - stretching back over decades - have failed to yield peace and in many cases have actually brought more conflict (cf. disengagement from Gaza, which radicalised a generation of young Israelis who 15 years later are now entering politics and positions of power).
As hard as it is, better to tackle the tough issues head on. The smaller points will iron themselves out automatically.
3) Yup, the settlement bloc issue is a complicated one. It is important to point out that pretty much every US administration, the Arab League plus every Palestinian delegation since Oslo in 1994 has recognised and conceded that any permanent peace deal is contingent on a 'land swap' arrangement. IIRC, the blocs of Maaleh Adumin (pop. 40,000), Beitar (pop. 60,000), Ariel (20,000) and the Modiin bloc (80,000) have been on the 'annexation list' for 25+ years. The biggest blocs (Modiin and Beitar) are on the cusp of the Armistice Line. Others are not. I'm not 100% what workarounds were proposed at Wye River, Camp David, Sharm el Sheikh etc. but whatever they proposed seemed to work. The problem is - and this brings be back to point 2 - because the issue of settlements has been left to fester for so many years, previously small towns have grown exponentially in the interim and their permanent status has therefore become much more complicated. The hard reality is that Israel and the Palestinians will have to agree to a 'population cap', anything below which will either be dismantled or given the choice to live as Jews in a Palestinian state as Pinkie said. But where do you draw that line? 5000 people? 10,000? 20,000?
4) Dismantled or given the choice to live as Jews in Palestine. Here my point to Pinkie is less of an issue as we are talking about people living in walking distance of the most culturally Jewish city on Earth.
5) Very interesting proposal. Not one that will go down well with Palestinian expats but an interesting one nonetheless. As it happens, Israel has committed on multiple occasions to address the right of return question via financial compensation. Perhaps a combination of that plus a right to settle in newly-formed Palestine will lead to a breakthrough.
6) Agreed. If I had my way, Israel would be doing this already. Increased investment = increased opportunity = increased affluence = more to lose by firing thousands of rockets = peace.
7) Totally necessary when it was built, but the aspiration should definitely be to one day dismantle it and replace it with something more like a regular border.
can't even log out of my own account cos I'll never get back in
