Now that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has applied to the U.N. for recognition of a Palestinian state and membership in the U.N., putting great pressure on all the parties, the Quartet (the United States, the U.N., the European Union and Russia) has presented a plan to the U.N. General Assembly. The plan calls for Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to meet without preconditions within a month and to have security plans in place within three months. It calls for significant progress to be made within six months and a final peace agreement by the end of next year.
"What is all the negotiation about?" many people ask. "After all the years of negotiations, doesn't everyone know the issues and the solutions that are required for an end-of-conflict deal between the parties?" I think it is true that everyone involved knows the issues and even the ultimate outline of the deal. What most people don't realize is that two elements of the deal involve decisions by the two leaders that are not only difficult but possibly life-threatening. Let me elaborate.
There are three basic issues to be resolved by the parties. The first issue that was recently the focus of political conversation in this country and elsewhere is the question of borders: where are the borders of Israel and the Palestinian state, and how are they secured? President Obama raised a firestorm when he presented the concept in his May 19 speech stating that the U.S. "believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan and Egypt and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states." I addressed that topic in my article in The Huffington Post titled "President Obama's speech and the Peace Process: Nothing Will Change."
The second issue requires a determination as to the status of Jerusalem, with the Palestinians seeking jurisdiction over East Jerusalem and the Israelis seeking to control an undivided Jerusalem as their capital.
The third issue relates to the Palestinian insistence on a "right of return" by Palestinians to the properties in Israel inhabited by their families before the 1948 war between Israel and the Arab states that attacked it.
These were the topics of negotiation between Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak under the aegis of President Clinton in 2000. They were the same topics of negotiation between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. In Olmert's Sept. 21 op-ed in The New York Times, he summarized his proposed deal with Abbas as follows:
The parameters of a peace deal are well known and they have already been put on the table. I put them there in September 2008 when I presented a far-reaching offer to Mr. Abbas.
According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.
The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the city's holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.
Because ensuring Israel's security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence.
In that context, it is important to understand the truly difficult decisions for the respective leaders. Let's start with Mr. Netanyahu. There are now approximately 370,000 settlers in settlements located beyond the original 1967 borders, excluding Jerusalem. After drawing borders that would include the major settlements within Israel, there are still about 75,000 settlers left outside those borders who would face the choice of living in the new state of Palestine or leaving their homes to return to Israel. Even if, as it is estimated, about half would move out of their settlements in return for equivalent housing in Israel and/or some form of subsidy, that still leaves about 37,000 dedicated settlers who would fight the state of Israel against being uprooted from their homes and from land they believe is theirs by right.
Some commentators point to the successful evacuation of settlers out of the Sinai in 1982, as part of Prime Minster Begin's deal with President Sadat. But even in that case, the evacuation of Yamit required force, and Yamit only had some 3,000 settlers. Moreover, the Sinai settlements did not have the same level of emotional biblical ties as the West Bank. Forcing the settlers out today might well require military action by Israel against its own citizens, action by an army that has a significant proportion of senior officers and enlisted personnel who are religious and themselves believers in the right of Jews to inhabit the land given to them as described in the Old Testament.
Any deal with the Palestinians would require Netanyahu to convince his coalition to support such a forced displacement of settlers. His coalition consists of his own right-wing Likud party, together with the very nationalistic Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Is Our Home) party, led by politically ambitious Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who has advocated a population exchange of Israeli Arabs by annexing the settlement blocs to Israel in exchange for heavily Arab-populated areas inside Israel. The other key member of the coalition is the Shas party, whose religious leader has consistently denigrated the Arabs, calling them "snakes." Under those circumstances, Netanyahu could well fear not only for his political life but for his safety -- witness the fate of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, murdered by a religious zealot for bravely seeking a peace with the Palestinians.
On the other side, is Prime Minister Abbas who would have the burden of signing an agreement that would for all time relinquish the dream of millions of Diaspora and other Palestinians of the right to return to their claimed lands in Israel -- a dream that has passed from father to son to grandson and been at the center of some of those families' hopes for years. In 2000, just before Arafat entered into negotiations with Barak, a small group of us met with him and came away feeling that there was some room for negotiations about Jerusalem, which people then thought would be the major stumbling block. But I wrote publicly at the time that in my view, he was not prepared to trade away the "right of return." In the Palestinian political picture, Abbas is not in as strong a position as Arafat. He has to deal with the extremist Hamas party in Gaza that does not even recognize Israel and ultimately seeks its destruction. So for him, too, the threat is not only to his political life, but to the safety of his person.
Yes, we all understand the existential issues for the two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians. And, yes, we all hope that the leaders can muster the brave leadership required to inspire their people to take the risks of a deal to end their conflict. But we should understand the realities facing these leaders, how difficult the course ahead is for them, and how much support they each need from the rest of the world: members of the Quartet, the Arab nations and the other members of the United Nations. Yet, even with that support, it will require a strong commitment to a two-state solution and the courage to carry it out. There is nothing in the history of the two leaders that would indicate that they have the fortitude that would enable them to achieve a resolution of the conflict. Still, as we have seen in the case of Ireland, history is sometimes made by leaders who surprise us by overcoming their fears and prejudices. We can only hope that such is the case with this conflict.
Mr. Lifton, a business man and political activist is writing a book entitled "Life's Lessons and Stories from a Member of the "Greatest Generation.'"
Israels terms are:
Israel is not going back to 1967 lines.
Jerusalem will not be divided.
Arab refugees cannot return to Israel.
The Arabs must recognize Israel as the state of the Jews.
Everything else is subject to negotiation.
Negotiation does not mean imposed terms on Israel by the US, UN, the quartet or anyone else.
Israel must be able to defend its sovereignty on its own.
Two states, each with separate governents that control their own territory
This talk about how israel gets to control palestine's immigration policies (presumably for the purpose of racial segragation) is not and will never be israel's descision.
Your dream of a racially pure state is a bad one, and it deserves the condemnation it gets
Conversely, Israeli right wingers see no need to compromise and while I generally don't have much in common with them, in this case, I can see their point--when you are attacked over and over again and you win, generally, you are not the party that is expected to make any compromise. Furthermore, every attempt Israel made at offering something to the palestinians was viewed as a sign of weakness and exploited as such. Israelis fare best when a right wing government keeps their enemy tightly locked up.
At the end of the day, the Israeli government is responsible only for the well being of Israelis and this becomes the only factor in the decisions made.
It is a charade for both sides--pal leaders don't truly want a state and Israeli leaders don't either and they know pal leaders don't want a state but everyone has to vilify the other side in order to survive politically.
Ideally, Israelis should annex area C, build a huge wall around it and wash their hands of the rest of the land, making it clear that every rocket launched will be met with a fierce response.
Palestinian National Council granted observer status at European assembly
"A council of European parliaments granted the Palestinian National Council "Partner for Democracy" status on Tuesday, only the second time the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has granted the position, which is reserved for parliaments from regions adjacent the Council of Europe. "
"In return, a PACE statement indicated, the Palestinian National Council pledged to pursue the "values upheld by the Council of Europe, hold free and fair elections and work towards abolishing the death penalty, among other commitments."
partial membership in PACE would also mean that the assembly could monitor "concluding negotiations for a government of national unity, and making the Palestinian National Council a democratically-elected body."
"Other points include refraining from violence, rejecting terrorism, recognizing the right of Israel to exist and freeing the soldier Gilad Shalit. The Assembly will review progress on these points within two years," the PACE statement said. "
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinian-national-council-granted-observer-status-at-european-assembly-1.388118
1.Jerusalem will not be divided.
2.Major settlement blocks will remain Israeli. Some Israeli land can be given in return.
3.Future Palestine will have no heavy weapons.
4.A small amount of Palestinain refugees will be accepted into Israel. Strictly a face- saving issue important for Palestinians..
Everything else is open to negotiations.
Time for Palestinians to accept the deal and built a peaceful and prosperous community alongside their more powerful Jordanian, Egyptian and Israeli neighbors.
What abotu two separte states do you not understand
You don't get to control their imigration policies their miltary, ther roads, their borders, ect.
But sorry, no standing army.
Actually Palestinains already accepted 3 of my points ( except Jerusalem). And Jerusalem is non-negotiable.
So they can have their state now. Or not.
1. They actually believe their own PR which stresses entitlement and denigrates rational negotiations in favor of revanchist doctrine.
Example: both Palestinian and Israelis know that there's no possibility Israelis will agree to admit into Israel all the descendants of original refugees. Yet this remains a talking point
2. Palestinian are psychologically incapable of accept a deal which does not include a significant amount of humiliation for the Israelis.
Israelis, Americans and Arabs who were astounded and devastated that Arafat turned down flat Camp David and its revisions simply do not understand this element of Arab-Palestinian psyche.
3.The U.N. bid is of the same revanchist specie.
It has nothing to do with building of a Palestinain state. Everyone knows there's no substitute for negotiations. Neither for Palestinians nor Israelis.
Where has any country ever been told that the mineral wealth in their sovereign lands can not belong to them but must belong to some other country, since the end of colonial times. The Israeli demands for possession of Palestine's water rights is a clear attempt to maintain a colonial authority over the sovereign state of Palestine.
These colonial demands have continued to extend to Israel's demands to control Palestine's borders, airspace and ports. Based on Israel's demands, "in the name of security," amount to nothing less than maintenance of colonial authority over Palestine.
For example if the Nile river goes through Sudan before it reaches Egypt. Sudan doesn't have the legal right to create a dam in its own territory and claim all of its water. Historic use of the water is a key factor and is an example that having water in your territory doesn't always mean you are entitled to all of them. Under the peace agreement Israel is giving large amounts of water to Jordan by the way.
And continuing with water rights, Israel refuses Palestinians ANY and ALL rights to drill a well for access to water, even on their own private property. And how can Israel justify the demand to continue to control all Palestinian water rights in opposition to a sovereign Palestine. Would YOU be satisfied with Mexico demanding full control of all Colorado River and Rio Grande River waters?
If Israel needs more water, they can negotiate with Palestine and Jordan for water on the open market, as a purchaser of a supply, not as a colonial power controlling assets.
Israel always has access to desalination of Mediterranean waters just as Saudi and Bahraini governments have resorted to in the Persian Gulf. It might teach them to conserve more, steal less.
This problem still exists today. Fully 38% of all settler-occupied lands in the West Bank are clearly properties owned by Palestinians who have had their land stolen by the settlers. When will Israel and the settlers at least do the morally responsible thing to recompense the Palestinians for the lands stolen from them?
This theme is too consistent. Israel has time and again stolen lands from Palestinians, and the Palestinians are not recompensed for that theft. Israel has even virtually stolen lands from Palestinians by denying Palestinians the right to develop their own lands. While settlers may build where ever they wish, if a Palestinian even adds one room to his home, Israelis have had the IDF destroy the whole home, time and again. The rights of ownership of properties Palestinians own do not even extend to the right to development.
Matrix of Israeli and Palestinian Positions - January 2009
"Israelis seek:
a comprehensive, just and agreed resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue in accordance with the vision of the two States for two people The solution should ensure closure/end of claims. Israel so far opposes to recognize its responsibility. Israel so far opposes to recognize its responsibility. Refugees shall be entitled to Palestinian citizenship and provided with resettlement and integration options only (no return to Israel). Refugees shall be granted compensation only. Israel agrees to an IM mechanism, but which would be established and led by the US, in coordination with Israel & Palestine. IM mission will extend to all aspects of the agreed solution. It shall bring an end to the Palestinian refugee status and enable the phased termination of UNRWA in parallel with the implementation of the solution and in coordination with the IM. IM will also provide rehabilitation assistance to Palestinian refugees and to relevant States. International fund shall be established to enable the IM to fulfill its mission. Israel will make a fixed financial contribution to the fund (level of their contribution remains unclear), together with contributions from international stakeholders. Israel does not recognize Resolution 194."
Israel also demands Jewish refugees from Arab states to be fully compensated for their losts.
http://transparency.aljazeera.net/en/document/3647
On the other hand, Israel continues to suggest that Palestine can exist as disconnected blocks surrounded by Israeli control, with restricted access for Palestinians between these disconnected "Bantustans", controlled by the Israeli military. Freedom of movement appears NOT to be granted to Palestinians.
The final negotiated border between Israel and Palestine should be one continuous border - excepting the case of the West Bank/Gaza - and any land swap ought to be done in such a way that where the border encroaches into the West Bank in one place, should be offset by the same border encroaching into Israel in another.
Other significant issues still apply.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/images/iht_daily/D171209/olmertmap.pdf
The link in Hebrew makes things a bit more easy to see, green being Arab populated neighborhoods and blue Jewish. Blue line Jerusalem municipality jurisdiction and brown the separation barrier. I think there should be no problem for Israel moving Arab neighborhoods outside the wall like Abu Dis under Palestinian control. The Palestinian can have that as their capital with Arab towns neighborhoods refugee camps around as Part of Palestinian Jerusalem. Inside the wall some arrangement could be found in which the area is under Jewish Jerusalems municipality but Arab people are Israeli permanent residents but hold Palestinian citizenship and vote in the Palestinian elections.
I think the majority of Arabs living in those neighborhoods would rather have it that way and not become part of Palestine since that would mean losing alot of privileges comming from holding an Israeli ID.
http://www.ir-amim.org.il/eng/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/GreaterJerusalem2009Eng.pdf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Jerusalem_separation_wall.svg/691px-Jerusalem_separation_wall.svg.png
Will the neighborhoods where Israeli settlers and extremists have infiltrated be part of Israel or Palestine?
And why, if Palestine was granted full, unrestricted sovereignty, would Arabs want to remain part of Israel where they are for the most part treated as second class citizens, culturally if not legally.
Are you kidding me? In 1948, the palestinians and jordanians ethnically cleansed east jerusalem of every single jew living there, including all those living in jewish majority neighbourhoods.
I don't see how Jews moving into Arab neighborhoods is ethnic cleansings. Would you consider Arabs moving into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem as thnic cleansings as well?. Jerusalem is one united city today Arabs are free to move to Jewish parts of Jerusalem and I assume you you would find it unacceptable to prohibite Jews from buying homes in the city where you live in so why would you support doing so in Jerusalem?
My interest in this affair is simply the inhumane treatement of both the Palestinians, and the Isrealis that occupy the settlements and the unlawfull settment building process using IDF soldiers to insure the land is ready for building, and to protect the settlements built directly alongside established Palistenian developments.
If the UN memebership passess, I believe President Abbas has the ability to insure UN action against the atrosties being committed by the current Israeli governement. Holding them accountable is a direct method in insuring future cooperation. The Palesitian goverment would also have to allow the Palestinian refugees back into the West Bank, or wherever in Palestine, and accept any wrong doing towards attacks against the Israeli's. I'd rather the membership first, then the negotiations.
Is Palestine going to be a jew free region.
Wouldn't their behavior be tantamount to treason, above and beyond their already established trademark of being criminals and scofflaws?
And if Israel can defend their insistence on maintaining the Jewish nature of Israel, why should the State of Palestine not insist on maintaining a Palestinian nature of their state? Justice should apply equally to both, Jew and Palestinian, Israel and Palestine.
The exact same question could be asked of any palestinians wanting to return to israel under RoR. Would they be good citizens or terrorists and beggars on the social safety net?
Israel isn't asking for a single arab-israeli, muslim, christian or druze to leave or sacrifice their identity, they are asking that palestinians recognize israel as the nation state of ethnic jews, just as the palestinians want to create a nation state for ethnic palestinians, this does not in anyway diminish the rights of non-ethnic-jews living in israel, any more than those who aren't french are denied rights in france or those who aren't german are denied rights in germany - this is israel, not some arab state that treates ethnic minorities like chattel.