Encountering Peace: Israeli-Palestinian peace is achievable
Israel-Palestine Peace Agreement REVEALED for Obama visit;Israel Ice Scu...: http://youtu.be/wMwW6wq0AgM via @youtube
02/20/2013 22:49
US President Obama with Prime Minister Netanyahu and PA President Abbas, September 1, 2010. Photo: REUTERS/Jason Reed
Many of those who claim that a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty
putting an end to the conflict is not possible are the very people who do not
want it to happen. This includes those who say it’s too late, there are too many
Israelis living beyond the green line, or too many new settlement houses have
been built, and those who say there is no Palestinian partner.
Until now there has been no partner for peace because the negotiations, even after 20 years of negotiating have not yet produced an agreement that is acceptable to both parties and ends the claims on all of the eight core issues of the conflict. But agreement is conceivable and after each side makes the concessions which must be made they will be able to stand up proudly before their people and declare “we got the best agreement possible and it is a victory for us!” Here it is in short: 1. Palestinian statehood – this is already a fait accompli, clearly in the interests of both sides – the territorial expression of our national identity sealed by agreement, recognized by the international community, accepted by the United Nations and fulfilling the principle laid down in UN Resolution 181 from November 29, 1947 – the formal birth certificate of the two states – the establishment of two states – one Jewish and one Arab on the land known as Palestine/Israel.
2. The delineation of borders between the two states – not based on the map of 1947 but on the armistice agreement of 1949, the border line between the two states will divide the land with Palestine on 22 percent and Israel on 78%. The line will allow Israel to annex about 4% of the West Bank enabling about 80% of the Israeli citizens in settlement blocs to remain where there are.
Palestinians will get in exchange equal territory from inside of Israel proper. They will be able to use those areas as development zones and as compensation for land taken by Israeli settlements.
3. Jerusalem – Israel will have full sovereignty over all of the parts of Jerusalem where Israelis live. Jewish Jerusalem will be united and recognized by the whole world as Israel’s capital. Palestine will have full sovereignty over all of the parts of Jerusalem where Palestinians live. Palestinian Jerusalem will be united and recognized by the whole word as Palestine’s capital.
Jerusalem will be like Siamese twins – connected at the most sensitive points and therefore will remain an open city with free movement throughout.
Both parts of Jerusalem will share many aspects of infrastructure and most importantly, both sides will be responsible to work together to provide real security throughout the city. The Old City and holy places will either work on the same demographic principles or will be managed by agreement by others on behalf of both peoples. The Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif compound will see the transformation of current realities into agreements with the Muslim authorities in control on top of the Mount over the mosques there and Jewish authorities in control of the Western Wall.
This arrangement can hold at least until the Messiah comes, who can make changes then if the reality allows for it. Hundreds of millions of Muslim pilgrims will be allowed to come to complete their Haj pilgrimage which brings them to Mecca and Medina and concludes in Al-Quds, Jerusalem.
4. Refugees – All Palestinians, always, wherever they are will be able to become citizens of their independent sovereign state.
Lands added to Palestine within the territorial swaps can be used for resettlement purposes enabling Palestine to say that there is a partial return to lands from before 1948.
Israel, Palestine and the international community all have an interest to give refugees a new beginning and therefore an international donor effort will be made with generous Israeli participation that will grant all refugees in need a chance for decent modern housing, education and work. New cities like Modi’in can be constructed in the West Bank. Palestinians with land deeds and businesses that were lost will be able to apply for compensation for their losses to an international commission and Israel will also generously participate in this fund.
An agreed-to symbolic number of Palestinians will be able to apply for return to Israel proper (somewhere around 50,000 people) noting that they will be then living in the State of Israel, under Israeli laws and sovereignty. Israel can call this a humanitarian gesture of family reunification and Palestine can call it the implementation of the right of return. Palestinian refugees will also have the possibility to apply for citizenship in other countries that may offer such a possibility always holding onto to the option of becoming a citizen of Palestine also and holding dual citizenship.
5. The physical crossing between West Bank and Gaza – a stretch of about 40 kilometers going through the sovereign State of Israel. The best option, I believe, is the rail link offering services to carry passengers, cars and cargo with one stop in Gaza and one in the West Bank. Other possibilities include a bridge, road, tunnel, sunken road or combinations of the above. I propose beginning to build it now, as soon as possible from the West Bank towards Gaza and ending one kilometer short of Gaza. Gaza will be part of the full agreement, but it will only be implemented when the regime in Gaza agrees to all of the terms of the agreement.
6. Economic relations – I believe the best option for Palestine will be an improved customs union which ends all of the leakages in the Paris protocol and enables Palestine to collect their own customs because their state will have clear and defined borders.
If they would like a different trade regime they should be able to propose whatever they want because the economic consequences for Israel are inconsequential.
Israel should do everything possible to allow for a prosperous Palestine.
7. Water – with double the amount of water available today because of desalination and reuse of waste water there is no real water conflict any more. Palestine will have to have an equitable share of all of the water available in the territory between the Jordan and the Sea and water has a wonderful characteristic enabling this – it moves. The two states will probably arrive at a reallocation agreement, but I would propose, in the interest of real peace, a joint management model which states that all of the water is a shared resource, not only the water underneath the West Bank. Gaza will need a desalination plant of its own and should already be working on that today.
8. Security arrangements – without security there is no agreement on any of the above. Security arrangements need to provide real security for both peoples. Primary security responsibility is in the hands of each side within its own territory. Security cooperation between the two must be robust. A multi-national force (similar to Sinai) led by the US or by NATO with Israeli and Palestinian participation will hold longterm responsibilities along the Jordan. International monitors will be on the ground to ensure full compliance of security arrangements.
More – there will be a Jewish minority in Palestine. The rights of the Jews in Palestine will be linked to the rights of the Arabs citizens of Israel. The borders between the two states should be as open as possible. Cooperation between the two states should be the goal of both sides in every field possible.
An agreement is meant to enable a new relationship taking both sides beyond conflict toward truly peaceful relations.
Our physical space is so small; we are both required to cooperate on all aspects concerning the environment and on many other issues that are cross-boundary concerns.
The agreement must build bridges of cooperation and not walls of separation.
Implementation of the agreement will be incremental, over time based on performance and upholding obligations within the agreements. A third party monitor/judge (likely the US) will be necessary for this purpose.
This agreement is possible. The concessions within are not losses but gains and both sides will be able to stand tall and declare peace and victory.
Gershon Baskin is the co-chairman of IPCRI, the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post and the initiator and negotiator of the secret back channel for the release of Gilad Schalit.
Until now there has been no partner for peace because the negotiations, even after 20 years of negotiating have not yet produced an agreement that is acceptable to both parties and ends the claims on all of the eight core issues of the conflict. But agreement is conceivable and after each side makes the concessions which must be made they will be able to stand up proudly before their people and declare “we got the best agreement possible and it is a victory for us!” Here it is in short: 1. Palestinian statehood – this is already a fait accompli, clearly in the interests of both sides – the territorial expression of our national identity sealed by agreement, recognized by the international community, accepted by the United Nations and fulfilling the principle laid down in UN Resolution 181 from November 29, 1947 – the formal birth certificate of the two states – the establishment of two states – one Jewish and one Arab on the land known as Palestine/Israel.
2. The delineation of borders between the two states – not based on the map of 1947 but on the armistice agreement of 1949, the border line between the two states will divide the land with Palestine on 22 percent and Israel on 78%. The line will allow Israel to annex about 4% of the West Bank enabling about 80% of the Israeli citizens in settlement blocs to remain where there are.
Palestinians will get in exchange equal territory from inside of Israel proper. They will be able to use those areas as development zones and as compensation for land taken by Israeli settlements.
3. Jerusalem – Israel will have full sovereignty over all of the parts of Jerusalem where Israelis live. Jewish Jerusalem will be united and recognized by the whole world as Israel’s capital. Palestine will have full sovereignty over all of the parts of Jerusalem where Palestinians live. Palestinian Jerusalem will be united and recognized by the whole word as Palestine’s capital.
Jerusalem will be like Siamese twins – connected at the most sensitive points and therefore will remain an open city with free movement throughout.
Both parts of Jerusalem will share many aspects of infrastructure and most importantly, both sides will be responsible to work together to provide real security throughout the city. The Old City and holy places will either work on the same demographic principles or will be managed by agreement by others on behalf of both peoples. The Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif compound will see the transformation of current realities into agreements with the Muslim authorities in control on top of the Mount over the mosques there and Jewish authorities in control of the Western Wall.
This arrangement can hold at least until the Messiah comes, who can make changes then if the reality allows for it. Hundreds of millions of Muslim pilgrims will be allowed to come to complete their Haj pilgrimage which brings them to Mecca and Medina and concludes in Al-Quds, Jerusalem.
4. Refugees – All Palestinians, always, wherever they are will be able to become citizens of their independent sovereign state.
Lands added to Palestine within the territorial swaps can be used for resettlement purposes enabling Palestine to say that there is a partial return to lands from before 1948.
Israel, Palestine and the international community all have an interest to give refugees a new beginning and therefore an international donor effort will be made with generous Israeli participation that will grant all refugees in need a chance for decent modern housing, education and work. New cities like Modi’in can be constructed in the West Bank. Palestinians with land deeds and businesses that were lost will be able to apply for compensation for their losses to an international commission and Israel will also generously participate in this fund.
An agreed-to symbolic number of Palestinians will be able to apply for return to Israel proper (somewhere around 50,000 people) noting that they will be then living in the State of Israel, under Israeli laws and sovereignty. Israel can call this a humanitarian gesture of family reunification and Palestine can call it the implementation of the right of return. Palestinian refugees will also have the possibility to apply for citizenship in other countries that may offer such a possibility always holding onto to the option of becoming a citizen of Palestine also and holding dual citizenship.
5. The physical crossing between West Bank and Gaza – a stretch of about 40 kilometers going through the sovereign State of Israel. The best option, I believe, is the rail link offering services to carry passengers, cars and cargo with one stop in Gaza and one in the West Bank. Other possibilities include a bridge, road, tunnel, sunken road or combinations of the above. I propose beginning to build it now, as soon as possible from the West Bank towards Gaza and ending one kilometer short of Gaza. Gaza will be part of the full agreement, but it will only be implemented when the regime in Gaza agrees to all of the terms of the agreement.
6. Economic relations – I believe the best option for Palestine will be an improved customs union which ends all of the leakages in the Paris protocol and enables Palestine to collect their own customs because their state will have clear and defined borders.
If they would like a different trade regime they should be able to propose whatever they want because the economic consequences for Israel are inconsequential.
Israel should do everything possible to allow for a prosperous Palestine.
7. Water – with double the amount of water available today because of desalination and reuse of waste water there is no real water conflict any more. Palestine will have to have an equitable share of all of the water available in the territory between the Jordan and the Sea and water has a wonderful characteristic enabling this – it moves. The two states will probably arrive at a reallocation agreement, but I would propose, in the interest of real peace, a joint management model which states that all of the water is a shared resource, not only the water underneath the West Bank. Gaza will need a desalination plant of its own and should already be working on that today.
8. Security arrangements – without security there is no agreement on any of the above. Security arrangements need to provide real security for both peoples. Primary security responsibility is in the hands of each side within its own territory. Security cooperation between the two must be robust. A multi-national force (similar to Sinai) led by the US or by NATO with Israeli and Palestinian participation will hold longterm responsibilities along the Jordan. International monitors will be on the ground to ensure full compliance of security arrangements.
More – there will be a Jewish minority in Palestine. The rights of the Jews in Palestine will be linked to the rights of the Arabs citizens of Israel. The borders between the two states should be as open as possible. Cooperation between the two states should be the goal of both sides in every field possible.
An agreement is meant to enable a new relationship taking both sides beyond conflict toward truly peaceful relations.
Our physical space is so small; we are both required to cooperate on all aspects concerning the environment and on many other issues that are cross-boundary concerns.
The agreement must build bridges of cooperation and not walls of separation.
Implementation of the agreement will be incremental, over time based on performance and upholding obligations within the agreements. A third party monitor/judge (likely the US) will be necessary for this purpose.
This agreement is possible. The concessions within are not losses but gains and both sides will be able to stand tall and declare peace and victory.
Gershon Baskin is the co-chairman of IPCRI, the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post and the initiator and negotiator of the secret back channel for the release of Gilad Schalit.
Obama said to mull Israel-Palestinian peace plan
8 April 2010
WASHINGTON (IPS)
- Amid still-unresolved tensions over Jewish settlement expansion in
East Jerusalem, two major publications reported Wednesday that US President Barack Obama is seriously considering proposing later this year a US peace plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported on a 24 March meeting between Obama and former national security advisers who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and who expressed support for launching a US initiative designed to break the longstanding deadlock and achieve a two-state solution.
The meeting, which was organized by Obama’s national security adviser, retired General James Jones, reportedly reached a consensus that the failure so far to make tangible progress toward a peace agreement was harming US security interests throughout the region, including efforts to isolate Iran and other anti-Western forces, and that the Israelis and Palestinians were unlikely to reach a comprehensive agreement by themselves.
Putting forward a US proposal, presumably based largely on understandings reached between the two sides at negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba, Egypt, in early 2001, would mark a major departure in US policy, which has long insisted that final peace terms can only be arrived at by the parties themselves.
Such an initiative would likely be strongly opposed by the right-wing government of President Benajmin Netanyahu and its supporters here. Indeed, the latter wasted little time in denouncing the idea of advancing a US plan as “dangerous.”
“Palestinians will conclude that they have no reason to negotiate seriously, or to make concessions, when Obama may deliver what they want on a nice platter while Israelis will conclude that Washington no longer takes their security seriously, so they must toughen their stance,” wrote Elliott Abrams, former President George W. Bush’s top Middle East adviser on the neo-conservative Weekly Standard website.
The two reports come amid continuing tensions between the Obama administration and Netanyahu that were set off last month when the Israelis announced the approval of a new construction project in occupied Arab East Jerusalem during the visit of US Vice President Joseph Biden.
In unusually harsh language, Biden publicly “condemned” the Israeli action. His remarks were then followed by a call to Netanyahu by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who reportedly demanded not only that Israel freeze Jewish construction in occupied East Jerusalem, but also that it immediately agree to discuss with the Palestinians so-called “final status” issues, including final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees and East Jerusalem.
Netanyahu, who visited Washington for the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the following week, remained publicly defiant, although, during subsequent meetings with Obama himself and Clinton, he reportedly tried to appease the administration’s concerns.
His efforts, however, have failed to satisfy the White House, which indicated this week that Netanyahu, one of 46 foreign heads of state scheduled to attend a summit on safeguarding nuclear materials here next week, had not yet been cleared for a much-sought-after bilateral meeting with Obama.
The harder line taken by the administration is attributed by analysts here not only to the anger provoked by Israel’s actions in occupied East Jerusalem, but also by the growing conviction, particularly in the Pentagon, that the failure to make tangible progress in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was jeopardizing US security interests — and the lives of US servicemen and women — throughout the region, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to Israeli media reports, Biden made precisely that point with Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials behind closed doors during his visit.
In Congressional testimony a week later, the chief of the US Central Command (Centcom), General David Petraeus, echoed that message, noting that “The [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.”
He added that the Arab-Israeli conflict had an “enormous effect” on “the strategic context in which we operate,” and that “[a] credible US effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant ‘resistance,’ which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit.”
A similar message was conveyed as well during Obama’s 24 March meeting with the former national security advisers, who agreed that the “incremental” approach taken by Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell was unlikely to bear fruit, according to The New York Times and Washington Post accounts.
Brent Scowcroft, who served under presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, was the first to urge Obama to launch a peace initiative. He was followed by Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Both men have long called publicly for Washington to put forward its own plan for a comprehensive peace based largely on the Camp David and Taba parameters.
According to The Washington Post account, which was written by columnist David Ignatius, they were joined by Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and by Colin Powell, who served in the same position under Ronald Reagan and as secretary of state under George W. Bush. Frank Carlucci and Robert McFarlane, who also served under Reagan, reportedly went along with the consensus view.
The New York Times’ account, written by White House correspondent Helene Cooper, quoted a senior administration official as saying that a US plan was “absolutely not on the table right now,” and that Washington remained committed for now to the “proximity talks” that are to be mediated by Mitchell. But, he said, when those bogged down, “then you can expect that we would go in with something.”
Ignatius, who wrote a book with Brzezinski and Scowcroft, quoted one official as saying the White House is considering an inter-agency review process similar to the one carried out last year on Afghanistan and Pakistan, to “frame the strategy and form a political consensus for it.” The same official said it could be launched in the fall.
“It means they’re questioning some of the assumptions they inherited,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and co-director of the Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation.
“It seems they’ve realized that some of those assumptions — that the Israelis and Palestinians could do this on their own; that they could gradually, incrementally build confidence between the parties without addressing the big questions — may have been wrong,” he said.
“What’s remarkable is that it was what the neo-conservatives did to the US under Bush and what Bibi Netanyahu did for Israel in the last year that has produced this moment of clarity,” Levy noted.
“The neo-cons helped clarify what so much of the national-security establishment, including Centcom and the former national security advisers, has been saying — that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to US security interests throughout the region, while Netanyahu helped clarify how entrenched Israel’s addiction to settlements and occupation is and that incrementalism has no chance in the face of that addiction. You therefore need an assertive intervention.”
Jim Lobe’s blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
All rights reserved, IPS — Inter Press Service (2010). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden.
Both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported on a 24 March meeting between Obama and former national security advisers who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations and who expressed support for launching a US initiative designed to break the longstanding deadlock and achieve a two-state solution.
The meeting, which was organized by Obama’s national security adviser, retired General James Jones, reportedly reached a consensus that the failure so far to make tangible progress toward a peace agreement was harming US security interests throughout the region, including efforts to isolate Iran and other anti-Western forces, and that the Israelis and Palestinians were unlikely to reach a comprehensive agreement by themselves.
Putting forward a US proposal, presumably based largely on understandings reached between the two sides at negotiations at Camp David in 2000 and at Taba, Egypt, in early 2001, would mark a major departure in US policy, which has long insisted that final peace terms can only be arrived at by the parties themselves.
Such an initiative would likely be strongly opposed by the right-wing government of President Benajmin Netanyahu and its supporters here. Indeed, the latter wasted little time in denouncing the idea of advancing a US plan as “dangerous.”
“Palestinians will conclude that they have no reason to negotiate seriously, or to make concessions, when Obama may deliver what they want on a nice platter while Israelis will conclude that Washington no longer takes their security seriously, so they must toughen their stance,” wrote Elliott Abrams, former President George W. Bush’s top Middle East adviser on the neo-conservative Weekly Standard website.
The two reports come amid continuing tensions between the Obama administration and Netanyahu that were set off last month when the Israelis announced the approval of a new construction project in occupied Arab East Jerusalem during the visit of US Vice President Joseph Biden.
In unusually harsh language, Biden publicly “condemned” the Israeli action. His remarks were then followed by a call to Netanyahu by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who reportedly demanded not only that Israel freeze Jewish construction in occupied East Jerusalem, but also that it immediately agree to discuss with the Palestinians so-called “final status” issues, including final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees and East Jerusalem.
Netanyahu, who visited Washington for the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the following week, remained publicly defiant, although, during subsequent meetings with Obama himself and Clinton, he reportedly tried to appease the administration’s concerns.
His efforts, however, have failed to satisfy the White House, which indicated this week that Netanyahu, one of 46 foreign heads of state scheduled to attend a summit on safeguarding nuclear materials here next week, had not yet been cleared for a much-sought-after bilateral meeting with Obama.
The harder line taken by the administration is attributed by analysts here not only to the anger provoked by Israel’s actions in occupied East Jerusalem, but also by the growing conviction, particularly in the Pentagon, that the failure to make tangible progress in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was jeopardizing US security interests — and the lives of US servicemen and women — throughout the region, including in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to Israeli media reports, Biden made precisely that point with Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials behind closed doors during his visit.
In Congressional testimony a week later, the chief of the US Central Command (Centcom), General David Petraeus, echoed that message, noting that “The [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.”
He added that the Arab-Israeli conflict had an “enormous effect” on “the strategic context in which we operate,” and that “[a] credible US effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant ‘resistance,’ which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit.”
A similar message was conveyed as well during Obama’s 24 March meeting with the former national security advisers, who agreed that the “incremental” approach taken by Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell was unlikely to bear fruit, according to The New York Times and Washington Post accounts.
Brent Scowcroft, who served under presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, was the first to urge Obama to launch a peace initiative. He was followed by Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Both men have long called publicly for Washington to put forward its own plan for a comprehensive peace based largely on the Camp David and Taba parameters.
According to The Washington Post account, which was written by columnist David Ignatius, they were joined by Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, and by Colin Powell, who served in the same position under Ronald Reagan and as secretary of state under George W. Bush. Frank Carlucci and Robert McFarlane, who also served under Reagan, reportedly went along with the consensus view.
The New York Times’ account, written by White House correspondent Helene Cooper, quoted a senior administration official as saying that a US plan was “absolutely not on the table right now,” and that Washington remained committed for now to the “proximity talks” that are to be mediated by Mitchell. But, he said, when those bogged down, “then you can expect that we would go in with something.”
Ignatius, who wrote a book with Brzezinski and Scowcroft, quoted one official as saying the White House is considering an inter-agency review process similar to the one carried out last year on Afghanistan and Pakistan, to “frame the strategy and form a political consensus for it.” The same official said it could be launched in the fall.
“It means they’re questioning some of the assumptions they inherited,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and co-director of the Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation.
“It seems they’ve realized that some of those assumptions — that the Israelis and Palestinians could do this on their own; that they could gradually, incrementally build confidence between the parties without addressing the big questions — may have been wrong,” he said.
“What’s remarkable is that it was what the neo-conservatives did to the US under Bush and what Bibi Netanyahu did for Israel in the last year that has produced this moment of clarity,” Levy noted.
“The neo-cons helped clarify what so much of the national-security establishment, including Centcom and the former national security advisers, has been saying — that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to US security interests throughout the region, while Netanyahu helped clarify how entrenched Israel’s addiction to settlements and occupation is and that incrementalism has no chance in the face of that addiction. You therefore need an assertive intervention.”
Jim Lobe’s blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.
All rights reserved, IPS — Inter Press Service (2010). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden.
wow! This is great!! I thought that the Bible mentioned somewhere of a peace treaty between Palestine and Israel but I guess not,..at any rate this is wonderful!
ReplyDelete