Annapolis: A Speech Not Given

There follows an address that will not be delivered by President Bush at the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Maryland. After the proper tribute to the various dignitaries present and a reference to the importance of peace for the region and the world, the speech reads as follows:

"A Palestinian state, long overdue, can be born before the sun sets on this day. It must be a state that will live in peace and security with Israel. To proceed, several essential compromises, which I list immediately, must be reached. None of them will please either side--the sure sign of compromise. However, if each side will continue to seek advantages, the road to peace will never be traveled. I hence call on all sides to bring an end to the bloodshed and suffering and to embrace the following set of peace and state- building measures. The measures must be accepted as one, and there is no room for haggling about their composition. The United States and its allies are committed to do all they can to ensure that the terms of the following suggestions will be honored.

Borders

The borders between Israel and the Palestinian state will follow roughly along what is known as the green line. Because of security concerns and developments that cannot be reversed, the final border according to the attached map varies by less then ten percent (in terms of the territories encompassed) from the green line. In some cases, it turns over to the Palestinian state some towns and villages that are west of the green line (mainly comprised of Israeli Palestinians); in some cases it turns over to Israel some towns and villages that are east of the green line (mainly comprised of Jewish settlers); in few cases, it creates bi-national parks on the border. All in all, it requires both sides to make concessions, albeit not totally equally ones. A small tilt to Israel in this part of the measures for peace will be more than offset when we turn to the status of Jerusalem.

The barrier that separates the two states will be repositioned in line with the said map, but from now on it will be fully recognized as legal. It should be noted that once the sides learn to live in peace with each other, the barrier can be very readily removed and replaced by normal border markers used by most nations. Also, even as we speak, it should be noted that the barrier already has 96 gates that can be opened at will to the flow of people and goods.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem will be the capital of both the state of Israel and of the Palestinian state. It will also ensure sovereign control of the holy sites to still other faiths. There are several neighborhoods in Jerusalem that Palestinians consider part of that city (such as the Shuafat refugee camp, Sawakhra, Walaje and other villages) but many in Israel --do not. These are parts in which many Palestinians live. These and some other areas, to be discussed, will be the location for the Palestinian capital. Sites that are holy to several religions will be granted a sovereign status, comparable to the Vatican in Rome. Their guardians--for instance Saudi Arabia for the Al Aqsa mosque, and the Greek Ortordox Church for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre--will watch over these places and neither the police nor the armies of the state of Israel nor the Palestinian state will enter these turfs unless clear evidence is presented to the international community that they are being used to harbor terrorists and weapons.

The right of return

All the Palestinians that have left Israel in 1948 have a right to return to their homes and lands or be properly compensated for their loss. No distinction will be made among those who left voluntarily, were chased out, and those who sought to return after the war and occupy their Jewish neighbors' house. However, these rights will be balanced by rights of Jews who left Arab countries, such as Iraq and Egypt, and other Muslim ones such as Iran. No distinctions will be made among those who left voluntarily, were chased out, or just sought to better their economic state. Hence the right to return will be enacted for the net numbers involved.

In closing

There are numerous details that must be worked out. Not least is how to ensure that the new Palestinian state will not allow a terrorist group such as Hezbollah to use its territories to accumulate heavy weapons and fighters bent on the destruction of Israel. However, for now I call on all sides to accept a compromise that will satisfy neither, but will allow the bloodshed and suffering of good people to end, for each to have a state of their own, and for them to learn to live together in peace and prosperity."

****

Amitai Etzioni is Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University and the author of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy (Yale, 2007).
www.securityfirstbook.com

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

Let's see
Abbas--powerless leader without any political clout.
Olmert: powerless leader without any political clout.
Bush: powerless leader without any political clout.
The results? Beginning a dialog between Arabs and Israelis would b good enough for this meeting.
The ancient cultures like Arabs and Jews know that negotiations take a long time. Both arabs and Jews LOVe to negotiate. Perhpas its a fault of most Semitic races.
As Treebeard said:"...And we never say anything unless it is worth taking a long time to say."
For our Arabic friends my advice. Relax and stop hyperventilating. This is not a souk.

[Justtellthetruth]

Despite trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, I find your speech to be crafted for the same type of equivocation that has served to make this situation appear intractable to the americn public for decades.

The settlers, in both their actions and beliefs are on par with the KKK, although the KKK never was able to get the US army to help carry out its plans of apartheid and ethnic cleansing. You know VERY well that their plans and beliefs differ IMMENSELY from those of the average Isreali, most of whom depise these fanatics and the terror they inspire. Every time an Israeli dies at the hands of a suicide bomber, there is blood on the hands of the settlers whose actions over the last 4 decades have needlessly inspired so much terror.

The settlers have absolutely no claim to the land they occupy. they need to withdraw, completely, just as the israeli public forced them to do in the Gaza.

The settlers are an albatross around the neck of the Israeli public. Their actions inspire terrorism(as Clinton, The Iraq study group, the CIA, and virtually the rest of the world contend) and accomplish nothing in return.

Their actions are, as desmond Tutu and Jimmy carter contend, WORSE than apartheid.

The right of return to the state of Palestine will make most people happy, and if offered in conjunction with the total return of the West bank and East Jerusalem, it will be more than sufficient for lasting Peace.

But the real point is, that despite what else occurs, the settlemets and its occuapants must go, in that their fanatical behavior has already needlessly cost the lives of thousands of israelis, Palestinians, and after 9/11, Americans. The settlers and the occupation that exists solely to support them are %90 of the problem.

[Liberterna]

Wow

this is completely doomed to failure

It's so unfair it's hurts to read it

the only winners in this are Israel and Saudi Arabia.

It's a joke, not a roadmap to peace.

It makes no distinction between those from "muslim" countries that sold their homes and emigrated to Israel with a few million dollars in suitcases with Palestinians that were chased out of their village by Israeli army forces.

It'll fail. I'm sorry to say.

[NABNYC]

I've got a better idea. Israel should exist solely within the borders that existed in 1948 when it was created. That land was stolen from the Palestinians, but compensation could be fairly determined. All the other land that Israel has taken since that time is just straight-up theft. It must be returned to the rightful owners, and compensation must be paid.

As for the so-called "settlements," which are really just squatters and land-grabbers, all those teeming masses from Brooklyn need to get out of there, move back into Israel proper or go back to the U.S., but get off of other people's lands.

As far as the proposal for net compensation, that is absurd. There is no "net" involved. Palestinians were driven off their land. Their homes and property were stolen. They should be given back their homes and property, and fully compensated for the loss of use during the past 60 years. If some Jewish citizen somewhere thinks they have a dispute with Iran, that's for Israel and Iran to solve.

Right of return? Yes, right for the Palestinians to return and take back their homes. As well as the right to compensation for the taking and use for the past 60 years. As well as the right to live in peace. Some of the comments here say that for the Palestinians to "return" might not be practical.

Would these same commentators have forbidden the European Jews the right to return to their homes after WWII if they had chosen to do so?

Israel should not be a religious state. If the Palestinians, are allowed to return, they presumably would not vote to have a Jewish government. All rights of citizens should be independent of religious affiliation. Like real democracies.

What Israel has today is apartheid. As Americans we should stand up against these types of racist systems, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Israel.

[Blackspeare]

What ever are you smoking? The Annapolis Meeting is just a rerun of the Madrid Meeting that took place many years ago and eventually led nowhere. The same will happen here because each side believes that time is on their side. After the Arab defeat in 1948, the Arab's claimed that their secret weapon was "time." Today, Israel is enjoying an economic boom thanks to their military and security industries spurred on by a siege mentality so they have no desire for a hasty peace pact dictated by others.

All that will come out of the Annapolis Meeting is rhetoric and grandstanding----each side hoping to get a political and public relations advantage.

[nbdave]

Overall these proposals seem very reasonable. Like others, I have to question the proposal regarding right of return. I agree that it is not realistic to have Palestinian refugees or their descendents return to Israel, but the suggested financial compensation seems rather complex.

Surely there must be records of property ownership prior to 1967 that could be used to determine who is eligible for compensation in lieu of returning to Israel. The same must also exist for Jewish people who left or were forced to leave homes in surrounding Arab countries. Working from those documents would seem a much simpler and therefore implementable approach.

[Dap]

The guardians of the Al Aqsa mosque are the Jordanians. The 1967 border is the International recognized legal line in the sand. The wall could remain after being moved to its proper location.

[Henry]

And...water rights? Who will be honorable enough to put this topic on the table?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Per Lon below, I too have many questions about "net" numbers involved in Mr. Etzioni's Right of Return concept.

While the other three topics have enough clarity, this one does not.

Say 100 Jews were displaced from Iraq, Egypt, Iran, etc., etc. But say 90 or 110 Arabs were displaced from Israel.

1) What of the possibility more Jews were displaced than Arabs?

2) What of the value of the properties abandoned?

3) How to decide which INDIVIDUALS get compensated, and with cash or property?

4) If I were a displaced Arab, I would not see the justice in getting my compensation reduced 90% simply because Iran, for example, displaced some Jews elsewhere. etc.

5) How to deal with the multi-lateralism? i.e. What would an Egypt, Iraq, or Iran have as an interest to contribute to this deal? (I would suggest at least Iran, and throw in Syria, has an interest in keeping the pot boiling.)

6) Note that the surrounding Arab countries have not let the Palestinians resettle and assimilate as Israel has the Palestinians who stayed. (Don't jump me yet.) Point being, what of the original displaced parties' progeny? (Now you can jump me.)

I get the cosmic karma of the "net" notion, but not sure how the rubber meets the road, even a road to peace.

Shalom, Salaam, Peace.

[Countess]

This American view is so lopsided in favor of Israel it is bordering on the ridiculous until we consider that in fact the Palestinians have no conquering military like Israel and are living like beggers in a cage. Israel and their colony the United States can force any deal they want on the Palestinians. The united States should have fought for justice instead an ever expanding Israeli empire.

[pakiman]

It would be so simple, but success requires negotiations in good faith. Israel has no interest in a viable Palestinian Democracy. They want Palestinians to disappear, many Israelis don't even acknowledge there is such a people as Palestinians. Furthermore, when you have a broker as biased and hypocritical as the US, there can be no hope for peace under this structure. The best chance I have heard for peace in the last 20 years was the Arab Peace Initiative, but this was soundly ignored by Israel.

[avergejoe]

This would require:

1. BALLS
2. Understanding of history
3. Ability to analyze complex situations
4. Willingness to tell a friend they are WRONG
5. BALLS

None of which Bush has.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Until they all sit down at the Big Table with
a good map, and come to a mutual agreement on
lands and territory, this story will keep
being in the news.....
foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........and we'll
end up paying for it....
foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[jhNY]

The Palestinian gratitude for having the right to most of their territory conferred on them by folks who insisted on becoming neighbors they never wanted is likely to be deafening, if not explosive. How nice that the new neighbors might be somewhat agreeable to returning some portion of what they took. With conditions, which will doubtless include guard towers and sudden armored incursions.

After the Holocaust, the state of Israel was a political and existential necessity for Jewish people, none of whom could be expected to trust the ministrations of any nation-state in Europe, where so many millions met an ignominious death in the form of state-murder. But there is no logical reason beyond that European-born necessity that people in the British mandate of Palestine should have had to give up land and political power to foreigners to whom they owed neither of those things.

And in what other instance would the giving away of territory to a third party by a colonial power be considered justified? When will the Israelis thank the Palestinian people for their sacrifice? When will they be repaid?

[Lon]

These seems a generally positive proposal. One of the frustrating things about the dispute is how much of it can only have one solution which both sides already know the outlines of. So fighting is over details, and worries about whether the other side will live up to their agreements.

I don't get the section under right of return, though. Obviously compensation must be used in place of actual return, but in what sense can there be net compensation? Why would a certain number of palestinians lose compensation because Israel has made a policies of encouraging immigration from its arab neighbors? It is hard to see what is comparable between a group that was generally encouraged to emigrate through financial incentives, and a group that has been living in refugee camps.

But the suggestion of net compensation suggests that this is money being transfered between governments rather than being given to affected individuals.

The Jerusalem proposal obviously is not what is generally being proposed, and is likely the most contraversial aspect of the above proposal. But it seems a good proposal if there could be agreement. Is it clear that the arabs would accept Saudi Arabia's authority over muslim holy sites in the way that Catholics accept the pope?