Peaceways

A solution for the Israeli – Palestinian conflict

_____________________________________________________________________

Background…

One can sum up in a single sentence the myriad of ideas that have been brought up in the last couple of years as a solution to the ongoing conflict: “we’ll evacuate the settlements – you’ll give up the Right of Return”

The price of peace is to be paid by the settlers and the refugees.

It doesn’t work that way. Reality teaches us that this illusion has no hold in real life. In Camp David it became obvious that evacuating settlements isn’t enough. The Palestinians won’t give up their Right of Return. Not long after Camp David, the confrontation broke out and the Palestinians proved their willingness to pay a heavy price . From the other side, the settlers of the west bank and Gaza, while paying a bloody price themselves, proved they too have no intention of giving up their hold of the land. This equation, on which so many ideas were founded, has drowned in a sea of blood.

The way to a true solution is through the basic understanding that in this conflict no one is right nor wrong: Every man wants to go home- Jew, Arab or Uzbek. Refugee or settler. There is no point arguing about it, and agreement papers will not stop the longing.

It is the Jewish nation that serves as the fiercest example for the longing to return, doing so after two thousand years, and from all around the world. How can one expect a Palestinian refugee to forget his home, only a few kilometers away, and after only one generation? And the religious settler – how can one expect that the cease fire line of 1949 will tell him that ‘legitimate Zionism’ ends exactly were the 3000 year-old land of his forefathers begins?

The refugee will never give up on his dream, even if his leaders sign such a treaty, and neither will the settler, even if he is forcibly uprooted. The wounded existence of both would soon upset the celebration of the new order, and peace and reconciliation would be pointless to discuss... it turns out peace must include those on the fringes.

An answer – both to the Palestinian “Right of Return” and the Jewish “Right of Inhabitance” - is therefore clearly in the interest of both sides. Without it the conflict does not end, pure and simple!

It takes then, naturally, an answer that will not burden the Israeli society with those who return – not her resources or her identity. This means an answer in which those who return remain Palestinian citizens, and the settlers remain Israeli citizens. Maintaining full and clear separation – a governmental separation: the Jewish governing the Jewish, the Palestinian governing the Palestinian.

Sounds fictional? That is exactly the sort of answer peaceways is offering! And without 'painful concessions'.

Looking at reality straight in the eyes, not to the ‘left’, not to the ‘right’, and not to the ‘middle’.

The solution…

Background | Issues | Maps

___________________________________________

In a sentence – moving the lines according to the people, rather than people according to lines.

This basic principle is accompanied by ‘The Principle of Land Keeping’: the territory of any sovereignty, Palestinian or Israeli, stays identical to the total amount determined in the ’67 lines. The total amount is the same – the way the land is divided is changed. The modifications are made to provide a solution to the problems caused by changes that happened both since ’48 (the Right of Return) and after ’67 (the Right of Inhabitance).

It is clear that one consistent borderline, like the one in ’67, is not enough. Such a border would prevent the Jewish settlers of ‘isolated settlements’ from living in their homes, and Palestinian refugees from returning to theirs. To preserve both the separation and the rights of return and inhabitation it simply takes a new mechanism of drawing borders.

This new mechanism, that defines the new ways to divide the land, is called S.S.L- the initials of ‘Sovereignty Shift Lines'.

For this new division of land there are two types of S.S.L: the main S.S.L relays on the ’67 borders. This borderline twists with only few local changes. The changes required to include Israeli sovereignty on the Jewish settlement of the territories which are adjacent to the ‘Green Line’, a matter of few kilometers. Of course, the main S.S.L is not sufficient to ensure Israeli sovereignty on all the settlements of the territories, for many are much further from the ‘green line’. For this the second kind of S.S.L is implemented – the circular S.S.L.

The circular S.S.L is Peaceways’ great novelty: the circular S.S.L is a parameter change of sovereignty borders, that makes sure the Jewish settlements (the ‘isolated’ ones), which are in Palestinian territory, are included under Israeli sovereignty. On the other side, the circular S.S.L includes new Palestinian sovereignties that are inside the Israeli territory ('Palestinian settlements'). To these settlements the Right of Return is implemented! That way, receiving Israeli citizenship is not part of this right: the returning Palestinian maintains Palestinian citizenship, and the settler in the territories remains an Israeli citizen. The total sum of territory remains the same as it was before ’67! No one is forcibly uprooted – either from his home or from his dream.

What answer does peaceways give to all issues of the conflict?

Background | Solution | Maps

_____________________________________________________________________________

The circular S.S.L upholds the Israeli ‘Right of Habitation’. The S.S.L includes the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza under Israeli sovereignty. It allows a ‘growth belt’ by not being drawn exactly in the ‘last house line’. The principle of land keeping will require Israel to allot the same amount of land on its side, so a mechanism of self-restraint is operated in this matter. The circular S.S.L thus allows all Israeli settlements to remain under Israeli sovereignty, no matter how isolated. The circular S.S.L allows the dropping of the problematic issue of twisted corridors towards what is referred to as ‘settlement blocks’, as presented in various offers. These corridors cover unsettled territory, preserve Israeli dominance and include several Palestinian villages, thereby preventing true Palestinian independence. This perpetuates the hate, and is far from being in Israel's interest. In fact, by the means of the circular S.S.L, Israeli sovereignty is implemented in less territory on more settlements (the developed part of the settlements is only 1.7% of the West Bank…).

The circular “S.S.L” upholds the Palestinian ‘Right of Return’. Inside Israel, areas are allotted to the refugees equal in size to the ones allotted to the Jewish settlements in the territories. Where possible, even if mainly on the symbolic level, those allotted areas will be the ones actually abandoned (if those have not been resettled). Some may be close to the abandoned villages, but mostly considerations to demographic needs and land resources may guide the locations. On all those territories Israel is to build, with international aid, the same number of houses abandoned: counting houses rather than number of refugees! Here too the disagreement of the deliberations is solved, since houses do not multiply and it is possible to learn of their number from aerial photographs taken in 1948. The identity of those who will populate these houses that Israel will build is, with international supervision, an internal Palestinian affair. The refugees won’t be coming back to the same houses, since most have been torn down and new settlement built atop them, but they will be getting new modern houses with better substructure. To those offspring of refugees who will not be getting houses, settling in the newly allotted Palestinian territories is still possible, both in the West Bank and Gaza and in the new communities of the circular S.S.L. The Palestinians’ return from abroad thereby becomes an internal Palestinian matter! Allowing return only according to Israeli-approved allotments would invite a malcontent return and pointless arguing over numbers. These allotments likewise preserve dominance, which does not serve real independence in the making. Either way, the same return still occurs, only this time to the territories defined under Palestinian sovereignty, so the Israeli interest lessens. On the other hand, by defining it as an internal Palestinian matter, it will be easier for the Palestinians to take into account the amount of resources available, economic and social considerations etc., thus encouraging them to accomplish this process gradually. Here again, the Jewish nation is a case study: even after fifty years the majority of Jews are still living in Diaspora, and from there have a crucial role in the growth of Israel. One cannot expect the Palestinian case to be different.

The circular S.S.L allows refugees to settle in abandoned territories or relatively near by, without giving up their Palestinian citizenship and without having to sing the Israeli anthem, vote for the Israeli government, or burden Israeli resources.

Some of the new settlements for the refugees are to be built near Arab-Israeli villages. These villages will have the power to choose to dissociate themselves from Israel’s rule and return to the Palestinian nation. Such a village is then under Palestinian sovereignty, through the main S.S.L -when it is near enough, or the circular S.S.L- when it is not. In such cases the sum total of Palestinian land is even larger than the one determined by the ’67 border. Obviously, the villagers will thereby lose their Israeli citizenship and all that is tied with it. But in the new reality of free movement, trade and work relations, and a dramatic increase in Palestinian standard of living (also with international help) such change of citizenship might become more and more attractive, especially in the long run. Even if most villages will decide not to change their citizenship, it may have deep implications to the relationship they will have with the state of Israel.

And what about Jerusalem? The same principle applies. Israel has no interest in governing and supporting hundreds of thousands of Palestinian, while still not having any real control of the city’s east. In light of the new arrangement there, the Palestinian will have an interest in keeping east Jerusalem under order and maintaining self-governing there. An in-depth look in the city’s map reveals there’s no need for the circular S.S.L at all: the sovereignty line change here is part of the main S.S.L (though it does not follow exactly the original cease fire lines since Jerusalem has changed since ’67). One continuous line, with no wall or fence in the city, separating the Arab neighborhoods from the Jewish ones! Finally, and for the first time in this new age, Jerusalem is to be reunited! No less! Despite the different sovereignties in the city it is still possible to use joint municipal procedures. The freedom of movement and worship are kept.

Temple Mount – even simpler. In a place of worship and prayer sovereignty has no room. Moslem religious life continues, with assurance of Jewish access, and the same for Christians and other religions. Any change in the status quo, such as ideas of building a new prayer hall, are to be discussed by a committee composed of all religions.

How are order and security to be kept? Israel's military superiority, also proven in this recent confrontation, along with a Palestinian statement that agrees to the disarming of heavy weapons are assurances. But deeper than this, security is maintained by the new set of interests: So far the Palestinian interest in ensuring order have been as vague as the prospects for a acceptable agreement. Violence rose as hope for an appropriate agreement fell. But now, with the whole arrangement in mind, things change and such an interest is undoubtedly formed: the realization of national Palestinian aspiration in full, and the new houses that are being built for refugees. With it, the agreement sketches a freedom to move, an open trade and work, as well as tourism. There is an obvious Palestinian interest in keeping the order, and not just in honoring the agreements. Simply because it is worthwhile. Once such a special interest arises, as laid out in Peaceways, it is the strongest guarantee to order! The Palestinian are to stop displays of hate and keep the order, not necessarily due to a sudden 'infatuation' with the other side, but rather because all benefits depend on exactly that. Consequences of security violations are to be detailed in the agreements, thus serving as a deterrent to violence. Only where the Palestinians fail to deliver, will the Israeli forces intervene. The price for such failure is than paid by the Palestinian people, in a ‘rate’ that is also sketched in the agreements, out of a recognized right for self defense. These agreed sanctions include limitations on the open movements, trade, and work for specific periods, depending on the extent of the deviations from order. In light of the overall agreement, Israeli military actions are likely to receive international backing, since Israel is no longer faced with demands for territorial concessions. However, it is unlikely that a system, which includes interests as deep as described here, will encourage substantial nests of hatred to develop. None, at least, too large for the Palestinians to handle themselves.

Alongside all this is global sponsorship and supervision. Billions of dollars in support money are expected from nations worldwide. Such an investment is likely to be returned many times over, when compared to the economical returns that are due when order and stability reside in the area. Global economy craves stability in general, especially in this region where stability directly diminishes the threat of a global clash that is in its course now. There is a reason why this region receives the international attention that it does.

But the world is not dumb. Governments will want to see a return on their investments. The flow of international support is to follow the implementations step by step. Deviations from a full adherence to what was agreed upon, are bound to impair this flow, thus further increasing the interest of both sides to stick to the agreement.

Scary? Palestinian settlements inside Israel? In-depth thought will reveal there’s nothing to it. The recent cycle of violence shows that in cases of confrontation it is easier for the Israeli defense forces to act in Palestinian territory rather than inside Arab-Israeli areas (see the ‘Or committee’). The IDF has already proven how easily it can take over cities of the Bank, and it is even easier to retake isolated Palestinian territories surrounded by Israeli territory if an overall confrontation breaks. Even more, the existence of such Palestinian settlements not far from Israeli ones can serve as a ‘human shield’ in cases of unconventional attack on Israel, the main, if not exclusive, existential threat to the state of Israel. Such ‘human shield’ might prove more powerful even than dozens of batteries of ‘Arrow’ and ‘Patriot’ missiles.

Security in the settlements is to be kept through the mechanism of transition. This entails an intermediate period in which authorities and control are gradually transferred, under the condition of peacekeeping. The intermediate time is required anyway in order to build the new houses for the refugees (in itself a huge booster for the Palestinian economy, solving some unemployment problems, thus enhancing further the interest of maintaining order). In any case, settlements in the territories are seen today as the 'embodiment of occupation' by the Palestinians. By the new order of things- under the sketched terms of full self definition, and the parallel new 'Palestinians settlements'- this view of the settlements is bound to dissipate, and with it, the hate attached. After all, ‘thanks’ to these settlements, Palestinians now see the rights of the refugees fulfilled. More and more people may be able to see that the Right of Habitation and the Right of Return are interwoven. But above all, cementing the peacekeeping on the Palestinian side will be the building interest, pun intended. There’s just too much to lose.

How does this all take place? The transition period spreads over about seven years. Initially, upon signing the agreement, Palestinian sovereignty will be implemented in all territories in the West Bank and Gaza where the Palestinians already retain control (today's area A+B). The next step, known as the ‘corridors’ phase, is when Palestinian sovereignty is implemented in other areas on the territories, with the exceptions of corridors that include the Jordan Valley, settlements, military facilities and access ways. In the next phase, the ‘Naval cord’ phase, Israeli governing will be reduced to the Jordan Valley, military facilities, settlements and roads alone without the wide corridors. Only in the final stage, after seven years have passed, and order has been carefully maintained by agreed upon mechanisms, will the final circular S.S.L be implemented. Jewish settlements then gain Israeli sovereignty and the rest of the area, Palestinian sovereignty. This is also the stage in which the population of the new Palestinian settlements begins in the circular S.S.L on the Israeli side.

Special jurisdiction mechanisms will be formed under the new agreement. The ‘Peace Forest’ in Jerusalem (near Talpiot), that was to be an international zone according to the cease-fire agreements, will indeed get such status. An international judicial force, composed of professionals from different nations, will be seated there. This force will have jurisdiction in cases when an Israeli infringes the law in a Palestinian territory and visa versa. A resident is required to honor the laws of the sovereignty of the territory he is in (territorial jurisdiction) but the actual judging will be left in neutral hands, just to be on the safe side.

‘Offences against Peace’ – acts of hatred, terror and incitement, will fall under one agreed law, likewise enforced by an international judiciary tribunal – a ‘Supreme Court of Peace’. As part of the global fight against terror, all nations will be invited to sign onto an international treaty, giving this court authority over terrorist acts committed in their borders. Thus, they ensure themselves against terrorist bargaining, for the accused will no longer be in the possession of any one nation. This special court has jurisdiction, but not authority to release. The convicted face the certainty of punishment. A deterring factor indeed, compared to a situation today where a terrorist is likely to be bartered or traded within a few years. This way, international cooperation in the fight against terror deepens.

Even for those who put their faith in the concept of ‘unilateral seperation' Peaceways offers the best route. For those who claim ‘there's no one to talk to’ and 'its too late- hatred is bound to win'- it pays to supports the idea: Supposing what they are argue is true, and order is not kept despite the sheer interest, it is possible at any point during the intermediate time and afterwards, to say ‘we told you so’ and go back to square one - unilateral separation. The new houses that have been built on the Israeli side could be used in such a case for the uprooted settlers. The Peaceways plan would enjoy broader initial consent as compared to unilateral separation, as the settlers and the refugees are not ousted in the first place. A ray of hope for full implementation of aspirations of both sides is granted.

Either way, even if settlements were to be uprooted, it would take several years to build new housing for the relocated settlers. Why not build these houses with the peaceful intention of a complete solution for the refugees as presented here, and only if the plan fails, to use the houses for the uprooted settlers? On top of this, in this situation of continuous violence, the forced element of uprooting is lessened as the settlers would have been the first to face it. Either way, the possibility of violence continuing seems unlikely: the Palestinians have too much to lose (the precedence of demolishing the ‘Yamit’ settlement would not leave them the uprooted settlement fit for habitation..), the option of returning to ‘one sided separation’ can also be anchored in the agreement itself, in case of continuous violence. This way the Palestinian interest to achieving the end goal becomes even greater.

Water? This problem is answered by a combination of plentiful seawater, recent discoveries of natural gas recourses in the coasts, advanced Israeli desalination technology, Palestinian workforce, and international investments and funding. All those band together to form huge conjoined desalination factories, for the welfare of the people of the region. Thus one of the basic problems of the area generally, and the Israel-Arab conflict specifically, becomes a carrier of cooperation..

Peaceways mends the social tear. In the Israeli society Peaceways represents a solution that aligns with the entire spectrum of the Israeli political realm: For the 'rightists' the vision of 'Greater Israel’ comes real, as all settlements are under Israeli internationally recognized sovereignty, with even some room for their growth, and there’s the freedom of movement throughout the land, regardless of the sovereign. Also the 'leftists' see their ideas comes real. A separation higher than any fence is achieved through ensuring that each nation governs its own people, even if they happened to live on the 'wrong' side.. The idea of ‘two nations for two people’ takes form and even the 'confusing' element of the Palestinian Right of Return gets answered. Each side can see its ideas triumph, without the other side losing..

Also on the Palestinian side, even the supporters of the Refusal Front, see now a solution that doesn't rely solely on the 49' lines of defeat, as other suggestions imply. Also they may see now the vision of ‘greater Palestine’ comes real- through the Palestinians sovereignty over most of the territories, the additional sovereign holds throughout the country and the new Palestinian settlements there, and through the freedom of movement and worship all over- as long as order is kept. For them, this is a solution that does not perpetuate the 49 'disaster' line alone. For every one who still fails to see this full realization of all Palestinian aspirations, there may be a hundred Palestinian who wouldn't want now anyone to spoil their achievements: " now that the revolution has been won- no one is to block us from harvesting..'.

Peace. We’ve tossed that concept around a lot, mostly during the last decade. So it’s worth to put some things in order. So far all that was discussed is the new order: mechanisms, treaties, interests, transitions etc.. Peace was not mentioned, but rather ways to attain it: Order and Peace are not the same. Order is a necessary requirement of peace, but it alone is not enough. Different arrangements can be measured by their potential to bring peace. For example, the supporters of the one sided separation ‘we’re here – and they’re there’, have not always guaranteed peace, some have even honestly compared the arrangement to a ‘divorce’. Indeed, it doesn’t take too deep a look to see that walls, patrols, check points, upper bridges, passes, minefields, restriction on movement, work and trade – all these do not seems like what most would imagine ‘peace’ to be. It turns out the collection of the ‘cost of peace’ from minority group won’t help: ‘Peace includes all of the pieces'. Settlers and refugees too. And anyway, as we’ve seen here, Peace has no price..

A new order is usually attained by leaders, but Peace is in the hands of the people. A leader, as good as he may be, might be blessed with an agreement with a high ‘peace potential’, but never in attaining ‘peace’. Beyond deepening the interest of peacekeeping, and beyond maintaining guarding and implementing national aspirations, Peaceways keeps alive the hope called ‘peace’: the offered new order paves encounters. Encounters that comes with the open passage, the free trade, and the evolving tourism. Encounters in which fear does not dominates, and no longer takes center stage. Encounters that are supported now by the growing feeling of equality and personal safety. All these are not peace quite yet, but hold the promise for it. A promise emanating from the required gentle treatment of the forces of together and apart. On the one hand – profound governmental separation, national fulfillment and self-definition, on the other – a fertile ground for cooperation and the deepening of mutual interest through the open market and movements, and through those special Palestinian and Israeli settlements within the heart of the counter sovereignty. The existence of those, beside allowing the encounters that are a must for reconciliation, offer balancing mechanism, as each side hold a living vested interest inside the other.

In comparison, a new 'order' that relays on 'physical' separation alone, cannot offer this essential element of encounters, nor this mentioned balancing mechanism, (thus ensuring the evolvement of two hostile entities..).

And to all the skeptics, who claims hate is too deeply rooted, and the chasm cannot be bridged, here again the Jewish nation is first to testify: the tale of the holocaust of the European Jews compared with the relation of Germany and Israel to-day..

For further explanation, expansions and maps mail Peaceways. Elad – mail@peaceways.net