The Citizens Proposal for a Border between Israel and Palestine  is the result of efforts to envision a border that would respect equally the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians. We also see the value of this border in providing a context for modifying some of the incongruous relationships, built over many decades, between Jews and Arabs. We see the opportunity to tap into the beauty that is both the people of Palestine and the people of Israel in a way that could generate tremendous dividends.

This website lays out one specific proposal for a border. We invite both Palestinians and Israelis to examine this proposal and to consider whether they would be satisfied that said border could represent them—in what they would wish for themselves and what they would be willing to give to the other side—or at least serve as a good basis for negotiation.   (continued)

POSITION STATEMENTS

Secretary Kerry, Please Beware of Israel’s Stalling Tactics

January 7, 2014

Secretary of State John Kerry has worked indefatigably for some five months now to steer Israel and Palestine toward a peace agreement, but progress has been glacial. As evidence of the slow pace of the talks, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat signaled recently that he would be willing to extend negotiations beyond the designated 9-month period if by the April 29 deadline the two parties could sign “an initial framework agreement” that would “specify the borders, percentage of the land swaps, security arrangements, Jerusalem status, refugees,” and other core issues. Although Mr. Erekat has since retracted this idea, he is to be commended for his flexibility. Still, considering that the Israelis and Palestinians had already made substantial progress toward an agreement during negotiations with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as long ago as 2007, the slow pace of the current talks deserves closer scrutiny.

Who benefits most from dragging out the talks? Not the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PA is eager for the negotiations to succeed in establishing a bona fide state of Palestine. Delays in the talks serve to harm President Mahmoud Abbas’s credibility, in the face of continual challenges from Hamas for the allegiance of the Palestinian people. Abbas has staked his government on the promise of attaining the hoped-for Palestinian statehood by negotiations and diplomacy, and any sign that he is failing to deliver on that promise will strengthen the extremists in Hamas who have argued for years that Israel cannot be trusted as a negotiating partner and independence can be gained only through armed struggle.

On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could well see benefit in stalling. His governing coalition includes a large bloc of pro-settler Knesset members in the Likud Party and in Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home Party who advocate that Israel summarily annex much of the West Bank, which they call “Judea and Samaria.” In their view, the major Palestinian population centers should become small enclaves within Israel, tightly patrolled by the IDF.

Although Netanyahu does not publicly support their position, their strength in the coalition can be measured by the announcements of new settlements at every turn in the negotiating process. Every time there is a prisoner release, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, a strong proponent of settlements, has issued permits for construction of hundreds of new housing units east of the Green Line.  These pro-settler members of Netanyahu’s coalition would not be promoting new settlement construction if they expected that in five months Israel would sign a peace agreement having borders that placed many of those settlements within Palestine.

But what is Netanyahu’s view? Only a few days before Ya’alon’s most recent announcement of new settlement construction on Christmas Day, Netanyahu had huddled with the members of his cabinet and, in an effort to cement a unified front, told them “he cannot accept repeated insubordination in the coalition.” (Jerusalem Post, December 22, 2013) One can surmise that Netanyahu does not view Ya’alon to be insubordinate.

Despite Netanyahu’s public support for Kerry’s efforts to negotiate an agreement, it often seems that he would rather avoid that outcome. His way of managing the situation could be to drag the talks out as long as possible. To satisfy the United States he appears to cooperate with the April 29th deadline for an agreement, only to steer matters to a limited framework that leaves many details unresolved. That way, the negotiations will drag on at least through September 2014, long enough to forestall the Palestinians from going to the UN and mounting their bid for statehood during the 2014-2015 session. This will effectively push the “peace process” into 2015.

What would be gained by prolonging the process in this way? Netanyahu may be gambling that as time goes by the Palestinians will lose patience and initiate a new intifada with violent attacks, which will diminish any sympathy the world community now holds for the long-suffering Palestinians. Then there will be some teeth to Israel’s perpetual argument that the Palestinians cannot be trusted to have their own state. Meanwhile, the new settlements will become established as “facts on the ground.”

Behind Netanyahu’s reluctance to grant the Palestinians a state is fear, fear born of the Jewish experience in the Holocaust and reinforced in Israel’s fight for independence in 1948, that the world will always be against the Jews. Netanyahu learned this point of view under the tutelage of his father Ben-Zion. It is the attitude that Arabs are not to be trusted and Israelis live in a rough neighborhood with no one to rely on but themselves. In the 1970s and 80s it gave impetus to a systematic program of settlement construction throughout the West Bank, justified in the name of national security. But a fortress mentality is only of limited usefulness; every fortress in history has fallen to the ground sooner or later, the forty-plus years of Israel’s military dominance notwithstanding.

It is good to be reminded that there is more to Israel than settlement blocs, religious and Zionist fundamentalists, and muscular right-wing politics; that Israel is as much Tel Aviv as Jerusalem; that entire swathes of people, including women, organized labor, African immigrants, disillusioned young people who have taken to the streets, academics who teach at world-class universities and professionals who are struggling to maintain their middle-class status in a shrinking economy. And there are Israeli leaders who speak for these populations: They include, among others, Yair Lapid, Tzipi Livni and the newly elected Labor head Isaac Herzog. These leaders are looking for a warm peace, cemented by the human ties of trade and economic development that can bring prosperity to a free Palestine. They can see Israel and Palestine standing together in alignment with moderate Arab states in the fight against Islamic extremism, believing that Israel can do better by opening its hands to its Arab cousins, the descendants of Ishmael and of the same father, Abraham.

One would have hoped that by now, Israelis and Palestinians who sincerely want a peace agreement to work would be setting up all sorts of informal bilateral meetings in order to build trust and confidence between the two sides. Discussions about the details to be worked out in any successful agreement require at the least that each side sound each other out on issues such as all manner of border issues (including security policies), transportation routes, and the legal rights of Israeli settlers who find their homes under Palestinian sovereignty. This sort of communication would help to overcome fear, which escalates in the absence of dialogue and person-to-person contact.

Instead, the current Israeli government has been dragging its feet. If it stays true to form, it will make every effort to frustrate a final agreement. In this regard, talk of reaching only a “framework agreement” by April 29 may serve to open the door to further delaying tactics. It is entirely possible that Israel will attempt to insert language into the framework agreement that in its imprecision creates a welter of conflicting interpretations, making further negotiations extremely challenging. And it is predictable that Israel will use settlement building as a lever to extract additional concessions from the Palestinians.

Secretary of State Kerry should be advised not to indulge Israel in this matter. He must avoid at all costs the temptation to play into Israel’s hands. He should not sell the Palestinians on a false agenda, one that instead of bringing peace will cement and perpetuate Israeli dominance. Sooner or later the Palestinians will see the futility of their position, and the consequences will blow up in Kerry’s face and bloody America’s nose before the Arab world. To avoid this unfortunate outcome, Kerry needs to demonstrate to the Arab world that he is taking their viewpoint into account by holding Netanyahu’s feet to the fire and reminding him that the United States expects nothing less of Israel than to negotiate in good faith.

Picture
Example of dislocation when an Israeli highway runs through Palestinian land: the wall next to the highway bulges out to accommodate a settlement, taking over formerly Palestinian farmland. (Photo looking north from Nebi Samuel) 

Proposed Highway through the Jordan Valley Will Backfire on Israel

September 25, 2013

We have seen reports of a new proposed Israeli road from Gush Etzion to the Dead Sea. Though ostensibly meant to foster tourism, it would, if built, extend the web of settlements to bisect the future state of Palestine. Some regard it as such an affront to the peace process that it could derail the peace talks. 

Palestinians should keep a cool head. This road will be seen internationally as an egregious sign of Israeli bad faith that will only backfire on Israel. European pressure is already growing. This sort of action may even result in removing the American blanket of protection. 

In any final status agreement, this road will become part of Palestine. Any hotels and factories that might be built along it will be Palestinian hotels and factories. The road could become a golden goose for Palestine, providing a boon to Palestine's share of the tourist trade by providing a route from Bethlehem to the Dead Sea entirely within the future state of Palestine. In the future, the route could be a nexus of Palestinian-Israeli economic cooperation as tourism companies offer comprehensive travel packages through both countries. Imagine in the more distant future when cruise ships dock at an improved port of Gaza and buses bring their passengers down this road on excursions to the Dead Sea.

Nevertheless, the route also passes through a pristine wilderness area, and just as Israeli environmentalists are raising objections, we believe Palestinian environmentalists also should be given their say about whether the road is even built. Palestine, which hosts numerous World Heritage sites, has a growing sense of responsibility for the land as its patrimony.

We should not allow acts of greed and provocation to derail the peace talks. The road is not an obstacle to peace, but only a sign of Israel's lack of resolve to bring it to pass. The world will see it as such, and Israel will be the one to face the consequences.

Time for Netanyahu to Reach Across the Aisle

June 25, 2013

These days Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a man caught in the middle. He seems to have come around to the understanding that peace with the Palestinians is a necessity to preserve Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. Yet he is beholden to the members of his own Likud party, which includes rightists like Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon. Danon recently stated on Israeli TV that there would never be a Palestinian state and that the Palestinians would be governed by Jordan. Since it is apparent Netanyahu cannot find enough support for peace negotiations from his own base, if he truly wishes for peace, he may have no choice but to reach across the aisle.
 Continued

Proposal on Governance of the Holy Basin

May 26, 2013

We of the Citizen's Proposal endorse the substance of Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 offer to set up an international trusteeship to govern the Holy Basin, which he advanced during his talks with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. We consider that his offer, while seemingly a concession, actually provides the best way forward toward a shared future for the three Abrahamic Religions for the long term. We also believe that by sharing the burden and responsibility for protecting the Holy Sites, it will enhance Israel's security.

Our proposal for the Trusteeship Council that would govern the Holy Basin, which we understand initially to be the Old City and its 3 main holy sites, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Western Wall, and the al-Aqsa Mosque/Temple Mount, is as follows: 
  1. The Trusteeship Council would consist of 7 permanent members and 3 non-permanent members. The permanent members would be Israel (the Jewish nation), the US, England and Germany (Christian nations), and Palestine, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (Muslim nations).
  2. The 3 non-permanent members would serve for 3-year terms. They would be selected from the various regions of the world: 1) Europe/Eastern Europe/Russia; 2) the Americas; 3) Africa; 4) Asia/ Oceania on a rotating basis. 
  3. The 10 sitting members of the Trusteeship Council would elect a new non-permanent member each year. A nation is qualified to serve as a non-permanent member if it fulfills certain basic conditions: it does not support or engage in terrorism, it recognizes the legitimacy of Israel and Palestine as sovereign states and has diplomatic relations with both states, etc.
  4. The non-permanent members would have a vote on all matters of governance. But they would not have a vote on any constitutional matters that would change the procedure or scope of the Trusteeship's governing authority. Constitutional matters would be decided by a vote of the Permanent members.
Download the entire Citizen's Proposal
citizens_proposal_v8.pdf
File Size: 3057 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
General Issues

Maps

Position Papers

About the Authors

Feedback