A NEW PLAN FOR POSSIBLE PEACE INSIDE ISRAEL

…The 1947 map of Israel drawn by the United Nations

 

Two Americans have come up with what appears to be a workable “Plan B” for Israel.

 

OK, I’m going to take on a subject that I have been interested in since as a teenage I first saw the movie Exodus.  Then, over the years, I continued to read many more historical books and even more novels by Leon Uris, as well as other authors about the forming of the state of Israel and the ongoing divisions and conflicts between the Israelis and the Palestinians. 

 

What I have learned about what most non-Jewish Americans know; about Israel; the Jews; and the Palestinians....is the following:  When the United Nation’s agreed to the forming of the nation of Israel, this immediately started a conflict between the Jews in Israel and the local Muslims.  The original idea was to have a 2 state solution with areas designated by the UN as either Jewish areas or Palestinian areas.  Jerusalem was to be shared by all three religions for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

 

For years, American leaders have worked to promote a better and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  These individual American leaders, regardless of party affiliation, have believed that the only realistic answer is for two separate states for these two peoples.

 

Unfortunately, as of today, the two-state objective has never been less possible.  Personally, I and many others believe it is time for coming up with a new plan.  And as much as it disturbs me, perhaps an approach that even the incoming president Donald J. Trump could actually broker.

 

Stuart Eizenstat is a former ambassador to the European Union who also headed the Middle East peace process in the Clinton administration.  Dennis Ross, is a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who was also a special assistant to President Obama.  These two men have come up with what appears to be a workable: “Plan B” for Israel.

 

What has demanded a new plan for Israel is that the latest, ill-conceived and deeply flawed UN Security Council resolution that condemned Israeli settlement building activity in the West Bank.  This has made a Plan B even more than necessary, it is now a basic requirement.

 

The aforementioned UN resolution actually declared all settlements “a flagrant violation under international law”.  The resolution undercut the only formula that stands a chance at some point of reconciling Israeli and Palestinian needs on their final borders.  Today, the accepting of settlement blocs and then engaging in territorial swaps, this has hardened the positions on both sides.

 

Because of this condemning UN resolution, the political and psychological canyons between Israelis and Palestinians make a two-state peace agreement totally a “pie-in-the-sky” alternative as of today.

 

The issue today is that if the circumstance that are occurring continue, due to the growing local demographics, it would mean that Israel over time would become a bi-national state, but it would no longer be a majority-Jewish state and probably no-longer the only democratic nation in the middle-east

 

The Plan B being disgusted would promote a peaceful coexistence that would restore a shattered trust on both sides, while protecting Israel’s security and it would offer a more prosperous and less violent Palestinian population.

 

Plan B can help resolve the current dilemma facing Israel, which is today a high-tech wonder that is integrated into the global economy.  But today, it is more politically isolated than ever.

 

Meanwhile, Plan B could provide Palestinians more living space for development, reduce the incentives for Palestinian violence and help preserve counterterrorism cooperation between Israeli and the Palestinian security forces.

 

So, sounds great, right?  But how would this actually work?

 

First, there needs to be a new vision for the West Bank settlements of Israel.  They need to formally recognizing that not all settlements are the same when it comes to preserving a two-state outcome.

 

The Jewish settlements would continue to be protected by the Israeli military and there would be no unilateral withdrawals, as had previously and disastrously occurred in the Gaza Strip.  In addition, the three needed major sections of the incomplete national security fence would be need to be built to block settlement infiltration by terrorists.

 

In addition, in order to reduce tensions between the Palestinians and Israel, the Jewish building would continue unabated within the three major settlement blocs near the pre-1967 Green Line.  This is where over 8 of 10 of all settlers live on less than 5% of the West Bank.

 

These territorial blocs are consistent with a two-state outcome, and if a final settlement would become part of Israel, other land within Israel could be swapped and become part of the Palestinian state.

 

Settlement expansion would be expected to cease in those areas outside the blocs in what could eventually become a demilitarized Palestinian state.

 

No hilltop or other outposts, now illegal under Israeli law, would be legalized retroactively.  Strict rule of law would be observed to prevent Israeli construction on Palestinian private land, and to preserve the option of a Palestinian state with contiguous territory.

 

Unfortunately, all of this today would be politically difficult for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, based on his current “hard-line” defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman.  Lieberman has come out in favor of reaching an agreement with the Trump administration that would allow Israel to build within the blocs, but not outside them.

 

(Fortunately, under Netanyahu, only a small percentage of settlement expansion has occurred in these isolated settlements during the Obama years.)

 

The real centerpiece of Plan B would be the empowering of the Palestinian economy through a kind of private-sector development that the Trump administration has said they support.  This would be in lieu of sending more US financial aid to the Palestinian Authority.  (Most Americans are not aware that even though the US has always been the largest supporting country of Israel, the US is also one of the largest supporters of the peaceful Palestinians living within the state of Israel.)

 

In the 1995 Oslo Interim Agreement, it divided the West Bank into three areas (A,B,C), two of which is where the majority of the 2.7 million Palestinians live with no Israeli settlements.  The largest portion of Area C, is the one in which the Israelis have complete control.

 

Today, Area C is 60% of the whole West Bank and contains almost all of the West Bank’s natural resources and agricultural land.

 

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, the key to economic advancement lies in their residential, commercial, agricultural and industrial development.  But none of this is now allowed without Israeli permits, and these are almost never granted.  That has to stop.

 

Palestinian’s access to land, water, electricity, education, health services, bank branches and even ATMs today is extremely limited, while the Israeli settlers benefit from all of these items and they have even built their own private roads.

 

At a time when the Israeli economy continues to grow healthily, small wonder the Palestinian economy is in total shambles and has extremely high rates of unemployment.

 

Under Plan B, there should be broad Israeli political support for taking major steps to improve these dire Palestinian conditions.  This would be done by increasing the number of Palestinians working in day jobs in Israel, thereby reducing the 50,000 illegal Palestinian workers and increasing investments that could be invested in the West Bank.

 

Building permits in Area C could be vastly expanded, along with greater access to water, electricity and other essential services for Palestinians throughout the West Bank, spurring their development. Israeli and Palestinian banks could be inter-connected through the SWIFT interbank system.

 

The World Bank now estimates that these steps of Plan B could add 35% to the Palestinian gross domestic product (GDP) and it would increase Palestinian jobs by an equivalent amount.

 

In addition, US-supported the Qualifying Industrial Zones which allows products with at least 10% Israeli content to come to the US duty-free.  These programs already exist in Jordan and Egypt, and could be established in the West Bank to foster Israeli-Palestinian business cooperation and create employment.

 

But the reality is that as positive as a Plan B would be for Israel, the fact is that many Palestinians still believe that Israel shouldn’t even exist, and other Muslim countries such as Iran and even the terrorist ISIL group have continued to say they would “blow Israel away from the face of the earth”.  This fact alone is causing a lot of problems for any possible “Plan B’”.

 

Plan B is not a substitute for a positive political outcome.  Any new plan is designed to change the current conditions so that meaningful negotiations are possible.  But those are not feasible as of today.  They might become possible over time, which would also reduce all the many tensions in Israel.

 

But by starting with something like the parts of Plan B, the next US president “could potentially pave the way later on for the ultimate final deal”.  But is Donald J. Trump that US President?

 

The reality is that as it has been for decades, many things within and without Israel must change before any of this is possible.

 

Copyright G.Ater  2017