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

May 8, 2013


In light of certain news reports that Israel may have informally suspended issuing permits for new settlement construction in the midst of Secretary of State Kerry's efforts to restart peace negotiations, we are posting excerpts from an article that one of the authors of this website first published in December 2011 on the blog of the World Policy Institute. It speaks to the concept of an informal "halt" to settlement construction as an opening to talks. 

Although some of the particulars are dated, the landscape has not changed that much (aside from Palestine's recognition by the UNGA), and the overall issue is as relevant as ever.

Israel and Palestine: Changing the Terms of Agreement

By Andrew Wilson
December 5, 2011

How can the continuing impasse in the Middle East be broken, with the Palestinians demanding a settlement freeze in the West Bank and East Jerusalem while Israel insists on negotiations without preconditions? Generally in conflict resolution, when the issues have been articulated to death, a door can be opened by changing the language. Accordingly, let me offer a new proposal: a settlement “lull.” 

Now may be a good time for Israel to consider such a conciliatory move. With Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas having failed to gain international recognition of Palestine statehood at the UN Security Council, he has indicated that he will suspend any unilateral steps at the UN until January 26, 2012--this according to a December 1 report in Haaretz. The previous day, Israel announced that it was releasing tax funds to the Palestinian Authority that had been embargoed. However, “If the Palestinian Authority takes unilateral steps again, the transfer of funds will be reconsidered,” according to a statement from the prime minister’s office.

Thus, both sides have halted their unilateral actions and tit-for-tat around the UN issue. Reports indicate that Tony Blair, representing the Quartet (the U.S., EU, Russia, and the UN), welcomed Israel’s move.

Can the same be done to restart actual negotiations under the auspices of the Quartet? The Quartet had suggested a timeline calling for the Palestinians and Israelis to submit proposals on borders and security issues by January 26 of next year. These should serve as opening positions for subsequent direct negotiations.

The Palestinians have already complied, having presented their proposals on November 14. Their document lays out the borders of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with a willingness to swap 1.9 percent of West Bank territory with that of Israel.

But Netanyahu has balked. According to Haaretz, his representative, Isaac Molho, said that Israel would not cooperate with the Quartet’s approach, preferring instead a return to direct talks with the Palestinians. European diplomats see Netanyahu's response to the Quartet as recalcitrant, while the Palestinians appear to be the party taking the initiative and interested in advancing the peace process.

Israel wants direct negotiations, but this brings us back to the Palestinian precondition to negotiations that Israel must halt the construction of settlements. But to require Israel to halt, or freeze, settlement building as a precondition is something that the Netanyahu government is not willing to do, because it considers that in any final agreement many of those settlements (Gilo, for example) will remain within Israel. To “freeze” settlement construction would be tantamount to admitting that they are on the table to fall within any future Palestinian state. Netanyahu’s government argues that Israel should not have to be bound in advance to a position that should be worked out in the course of negotiations.

Yet despite having laid out this precondition, Abbas is seen to be complying with the Quartet while Israel is not. Hence, he has diplomatic justification for standing pat. If Abbas were to retreat from his conditions, he would run considerable domestic political risk. He is already weakened by the apparent failure of his UN venture, and he looks weak by comparison to Hamas which can crow about its success in the Shalit affair. The Arab street roundly condemned Abbas when his moderate positions in the 2008 negotiations were exposed by Al-Jazeera earlier this year in the “Palestine Papers.” Hence, he may not be at all confident that his government could survive if he enters into negotiations from the position of having to concede on settlements.

Nevertheless, as the Quartet insists, negotiations are essential. The two sides need to begin talking to one another, regardless of what the other party is doing. It is the responsibility of each party to work for its goals by winning the assent of the other. This is what can lead to cooperation, trust, and a lasting durable peace.

Apparently Israel agrees, having refused to cooperate with the Quartet’s indirect diplomacy. But stalling the process in an argument over preconditions in order to seek a more advan-tageous starting-point is not helpful. Continued delays by Israel will not necessarily improve its position. Meanwhile, the rhetoric of “occupation” and the construction of settlements have become weapons in a low-grade conflict that, if prolonged, may once again lead to unwanted escalation.

It is in Israel's best interests to begin negotiations with Abbas. Indeed, commencing negotiations will benefit both communities. The alternatives for Israel are not pleasant: international isolation and even possibly a Hamas victory in the upcoming Palestinian elections. Furthermore, Israel has the means to provide Abbas with a face-saving measure that would afford him the dignity he needs to come to the negotiating table—while not compromising its own position.

I propose that Israel announce a unilateral “lull” in settlement construction. In diplomacy, where words are important, the word “lull” could be employed to soften the impasse that currently exists.

Language is important here. The word “lull” has quite different connotations from the word “freeze.” The noun “freeze” connotes a “fact on the ground” that settlement construction has stopped. Israel should not have to put a new fact on the ground that favors the Palestinians. A “lull,” on the other hand, connotes a temporary cessation of an activity that has been undertaken.

For Israel to announce a “lull” would mean that its policy on settlements has not necessarily changed, only that there is a temporary cessation of that activity. Israel can announce a lull with the under-standing that it is free to consider a resumption of settlement construction at any time, remaining in control of when to end the lull. Affirming that a lull is not a full-blown concession on settlement construction should make the idea more palatable to Israel’s supporters on the right.

On the other hand, the Palestinians can characterize the lull as outright abandonment of settlement construction, since construction activity will have in fact stopped. This will allow Abbas to state, or overstate at his discretion, what his people will understand as a victory: that he has secured an end to Israeli settlement building.

Meanwhile, there could be an understanding between Israel and the Quartet that such utterances from either party are to be allowed to pass without objection in order for all sides to move forward, save face, and commence face-to-face negotiations.

A “lull” will change the terms of the dispute, as it changes the terms for engagement just enough to open the door to negotiations under the auspices of the Quartet. It is designed to enable the two parties, now at an impasse, to move beyond that impasse without requiring either party to back down from its position.
Now that both sides are showing some flexibility, it is an opportune time for Israel to take such a step. 

JEWISH LIFE

Women Should Be Free to Pray at the Wailing Wall

March 16, 2013


Update: This week several women MK's (members of the Knesset) joined the women praying at the wall. Due to their presence, the police refrained from arresting anyone. Also, we can hope that with the new government the laws regarding prayer at the holy places will be changed to give these women relief. 

What has been happening regularly is that although women customarily pray at the wall, in the designated area, these women did not wish to pray silently as is expected of their gender, but to make a joyful noise! The men on the other side of the fence do it all the time, dancing and singing with Torah scrolls in arm, but the Orthodox authorities did not approve of the women doing it, and the police did their bidding, arresting the women worshippers.

PETITION (Continued on next page)

Update to the North Jerusalem Map

May 12, 2013

The North Jerusalem Map was updated with reference to the new Benzion Netanyahu Interchange linking Route 404 with Route 20. This necessitated moving the border west to place the interchange within Israel. To compensate, the border west of Beit Hanina and Shikunei Nuseiba was moved eastward, so that there is no net change in the square kilometers allocated to each nation.

Tzipi Livni's Challenge

 April 4, 2013

Among those of us seeking a two-state solution, Israel's newest government does not inspire confidence. Jewish Home, the pro-settler party of Naftali Bennett, is ensconced in the government, and Bennett's party now controls key ministries, like the Construction Ministry, which cater to settlers' needs. This does not bode well for resuming peace talks with the Palestinians--if Bennett has his way, that is. Only Tzipi Livni, who joined the coalition based on a promise that it would negotiate with the Palestinians, is forcefully advocating for moving towards a two-state solution. If she is to have any success, she will need Netanyahu's support. But with his track record of temporizing and delay, there is not much confidence there. He will need to be convinced by circumstance, such as Israel's increased international isolation or US arm-twisting, that moving forward with negotiations with the Palestinians is in Israel's interests.  

Before writing off this government, let’s consider how Livni might prevail. At the new government’s swearing-in at the Knesset she spoke heart-felt words to a reporter, saying that it will be “very difficult” to energize negotiations with the Palestinians, but she’s going to do her best. 

She may find an ally in Bibi’s wife Sara Netanyahu, who detests Bennett from the days when he served as the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. When the government was being formed, Sara demanded that her husband deny Bennett the post of Vice-Premier. Netanyahu listened to his wife; he can do so again. 

Livni is the only female member of the new “security cabinet.” Imagine her there, sitting in a smoke-filled room with all the men and trying to promote her policies. How can she prevail over Bennett and his like-minded cronies? She will need all the cunning of Queen Esther.

Bennett is a hard-liner who says he opposes any gestures to woo the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Sitting in that smoke-filled room, he is among friends. President Obama came and delivered a good speech about the ideals of peace, but he has been wont to back away from any real arm-wrestling. Is it any wonder that the Palestinians of Bethlehem burned posters of him in disgust?

How can Livni use her feminine wiles so she will not have to back down when Bennett tries to push her into a corner? She cannot win by confronting him directly. Nevertheless, there is a way to manage Bennett. He is a small-minded man who is committed only to defending the insular settler community. Livni, in contrast, is dealing with the Palestinians, an issue that impacts the entire world. Therefore, her strategy should be to go global.

Livni should travel the world, from Norway to Vermont, from Argentina to the Vatican. She should meet the new Pope and ask him to call on all Catholics to pray for a cessation of settlements. What will happen when the newspapers have headlines like, “Pontiff says Obama must strong-arm Israel on Settlements”?  Catholic Europe will stir with protests, and even the staid Northern Europeans will be aroused to action.  

With hard work and a strategy that makes use of international leverage, Livni might just be able to outsmart Bennett and win the day. Once Netanyahu recognizes that he cannot avoid international pressure to resume negotiations with the Palestinians, he will oblige Livni by enacting a settlement freeze. It doesn’t matter whether Bennett and his people leave the government; Labor Party leader Shelley Yachimovich declared that she is ready to step in the breach. Addressing Netanyahu at the Knesset, she said, “If you get even to an interim agreement… I promise you, what I said to you face-to-face... we will join your government in order to see through such a move.”

Given this less than ideal outcome, the key to renewing the peace process must be international pressure on Netanyahu. He must be convinced that he has to back Livni to pursue meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians, even to the point of a settlement freeze over Bennett’s objections. Yet neither Europe nor the United States have as of yet mustered the will to act. 

Over the past three years the Americans have shown particular weakness, having been preoccupied with the politics of the Jewish vote. Rather than leaning hard on Israel as well as the Palestinians to come to the peace table, the United States ended up suffering the embarrassment of being on the losing end of a 138-9 vote on Palestinian statehood at the UN last November. 

We would hope that the United States understands by now that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is of supreme importance to its national interest. It will do more to pacify the Arab world than any further Iraq-style wars. It will do more to end the Iranian nuclear threat than fifty air strikes against its nuclear facilities. And it will do more to end the threat of terrorism than 5,000 drone strikes.

Will President Obama as the leader of the West, hold  Netanyahu's feet to the fire in the coming months? Will he back up Secretary of State Kerry who will be pressing for confidence-building measures, like a prisoner release and a settlement freeze?  Yet regardless of what the Americans say or do, in the final analysis it is still up to Israel to take the substantive actions that can re-energize the peace process.
 
We had hoped in vain that Israel would form a government that would be inclined to give the Palestinians their state on the West Bank because it understood that ending the occupation will open the path to a new era of peace and security. Instead, we see that the Israelis are too preoccupied with their domestic problems to recognize the larger picture—the impact of the occupation on their standing in the world and on the long-suffering Palestinians themselves. Bennett and his cronies remain blind to the danger of the occupation, which erodes Israel's security position with each passing day. Only Tzipi Livni understands what is at stake. In this situation, she must work with the international community to create a partnership that will press for real change.

It Is Up to Israel to Restart Peace Negotiations

February 22, 2013

When President Obama visits the Middle East next month, he will no doubt be cautious about whether to invest the energy of his administration into resuming the peace process. The failure of his efforts in 2009, at the start of his first term, remains an object lesson. There are many other areas of the world where American involvement could be lead to more fruitful results than a Middle East where both sides remain mired in fear and mistrust. 

It will be primarily up to Israel to make the first move. Throughout Palestine’s efforts to achieve recognition as a state at the UN General Assembly, the United States has stood at Israel’s side in affirming its position that although a Palestinian state is a desirable goal, no such state can exist without a negotiated agreement. Israel has positioned itself as wishing to enter into negotiations that it will pursue with good faith. President Obama will now be testing Israel to determine if its position is sincerely held.

(continued)

Congratulations to the New State of Palestine!

December 1, 2012

We a the Citizens Proposal applaud the decision by the UN General Assembly to grant Palestine the status of an observer state. This resolution will open many doors and change many people's thinking about the viability and propriety of Palestine as a full-fledged state with borders and sovereignty. Also, thereby the world has expressed its disapproval of the injustice of the continuing occupation. It is indeed a major step forward on the path to full realization of a 2-state solution. 

Through this resolution, the world has affirmed that Palestine's borders shall be at the 1967 line. Therefore, the 1967 line is now accorded international status as the baseline for negotiations to establish an agreed upon border with Israel. This means that the international community is taking the 1967 border as the basis for determining what settlements are acts of occupation against Palestine. We believe that this situation will result in increased international disapproval for Israel's settlement policy, and we would hope that Israel will quickly see that it is in its interests to begin negotiations with Palestine as soon as possible.

In this website, any language referring to Palestinian territory or territory under dispute will now be updated, as per the new norms of international relations, to refer to it as "Palestine."
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