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

Israel Can Win in Gaza, but Not Now

In November 2012, during the last round of fighting in Gaza, I wrote this statement outlining a way out of the dreary cycle of violence between Israel and Gaza. Not much has changed in the nearly two years since then, and many Israelis and Palestinians I talk to are despairing. Yet the way to peace remains open and available. Thus, I invite the reader to review that statement.

Andrew Wilson
November 15, 2012

Israel has every justification for responding to Hamas’s provocative rocket attacks and neutralizing its ability to fire missiles on its population. However, in the absence of a long-term strategy, Operation Pillar of Defense is liable to repeat the same futile effort as the 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead. That three-week ground offensive was ostensibly to degrade Hamas’s military capability and damage its leadership, but clearly it did not succeed in its objectives. Today Hamas is stronger than ever, and together with other radical Gazan splinter groups, its threat to Israel undiminished. Hamas undoubtedly believes that as they bloodied Israel’s nose then, they can do so again now.

In a short ground war, Hamas stands to benefit. Even if many of its leaders are killed, those who survive will be seen as the “tip of the spear” to fight Israel. It will further their objective to gain supremacy in the long-running power struggle within Hamas between Gaza and its overseas branch, now in Cairo. In a longer war, Hamas’s fighters are motivated, especially if defending their homes. If the battle is taken to Gaza City, in house-to-house fighting the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will suffer significant casualties. Furthermore, Hamas now has the support of Egypt, which, ruled by the like-minded Muslim Brotherhood, has already recalled its ambassador to Israel. A long-term conflict with Gaza would risk Egypt terminating its peace treaty with Israel. The consequences for Israel’s security would be incalculable.

In the short run it may seem justifiable to attack Gaza, but in the absence of a clear strategy and end-game, the results could end up being worse for Israel than when Israel attacked Gaza four years ago. Let’s consider the options.

The first is a short offensive, either limited to an air war or coupled with a short ground offensive into Gaza and then withdrawing after a few weeks. It could be a politically popular option if there are few Israeli casualties and it brings Hamas to heel. The diplomatic fallout would be contained, and it would preserve the military’s flexibility to deal with Iran. However, as with Operation Cast Lead, it would most likely not break Hamas. The best Israel can hope for would be a temporary lull while Hamas recoups and re-arms.

The second option is a long-term occupation of Gaza. It would no doubt be costly, brutal and require the Israeli public to accept a weekly death-count as its soldiers face the sort of ambushes and IEDs that are now the bane of American forces in Afghanistan. The IDF would risk overextending its forces, which already must devote significant resources to defending settlements in the West Bank, not to mention preparing to contend with Iran.  We could see a scenario play out much like Afghanistan, as the Gazans’ persistent resistance over the years wears down Israel’s resolve. 

A third option is an occupation whose objective would be regime change. It would require measures to “pacify” the population of Gaza by charitable “nation-building” activities to win hearts and minds, as the Americans did in their postwar occupation of Japan and as they tried to do in Iraq. Pacification strategies are less costly, because they enlist the help of sympathetic locals who oppose the existing regime to form new governing elites. Thus, Israel would, with this option, be able to work for the clear goal of replacing Hamas with a Palestinian regime amenable to peaceful co-existence with Israel. Certainly this would be a path to a permanent solution to the problem of terrorism emanating from Gaza.

We do not hear Israeli officials discussing this approach in public. They may believe that Gaza is a tiger that cannot be tamed. But a more significant problem is Israel’s poor working relationship with the obvious choice to replace Hamas in Gaza, namely the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas. In recent years the Palestinian Authority has cooperated with Israeli security forces to arrest and eliminate Hamas operatives in the West Bank. It would like nothing better than to supplant Hamas in Gaza and once again be the only legitimate governing authority in Palestine. 

Yet by treating Abbas as an opponent instead of a partner for peace, Israel has squandered its main asset that would be quite valuable in dealing with Gaza for the purpose of regime change. (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.

Palestinian Unity: Not a Deal-Breaker

May 3, 2014

The State Department is wise to be wary of a unity agreement between the Fatah and Hamas. The agreement does not, however, have to spell disaster. In time it may even strengthen the peace process by transforming Hamas from a militant threat to a responsible player in the diplomatic arena. (more)

A Proposal on the Issue of Palestinian Recognition of Israel as a Jewish State

Alison Wakelin
March 31, 2014

 It is strongly desirable that the long term goal of the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that are being mediated by Secretary of State Kerry is total reconciliation between the two peoples.

Restoration of Family Relationship

This will eventually restore their identity as siblings, children of Ishmael and Isaac, as would have existed within the family of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar before Hagar and Ishmael were banished. Over time, the family relationship will have opportunity to develop.

The Two State Solution

 Within this context, the Two State Solution is seen as a necessary step. It will give each side space for a necessary period of healing after long suffering and conflict. The world can recognize the need of the Jewish people, who have suffered for millennia as a persecuted minority, to have a state of their own. However, Israel can afford the Palestinians the rights and dignity of a state as well, and the two states can over time learn to live in peace with one another. This will provide the opportunity for reconciliation between the two peoples, who were set at enmity so many millennia ago by that act of banishment. 

To the Palestinian Negotiators

Since Mr. Netanyahu makes his demand that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state on the basis of the Jewish people’s historical claim on the land dating from biblical times, he has opened the door for Israel also having to take responsibility for the historical origins of the Jewish people in the family of Abraham and Sarah. Within that family, it was Abraham and Sarah who caused Hagar to become the mother of Abraham’s son Ishmael. Regardless of how the conflict between Sarah and Hagar developed to the point where Sarah demanded her banishment, together with her child Ishmael, we have to acknowledge that responsibility for that situation lay with both Matriarchs and with Abraham.  As this conflict occurred in the family that is at the root of Jewish history, it cannot be separated from Israel’s current claim to be a Jewish state.

Therefore, rather than reject Mr. Netanyahu’s demand outright, we propose that the Palestinian negotiators take the following position: “We recognize Israel as a state for the Jewish peoples that gives due consideration to all the children of Abraham.”

By taking that position, the Palestinians preserve their obligation to advocate for the rights of Arab Israelis and can hold Israel accountable. Furthermore, the phrase “due consideration” can become the basis for a final status agreement that provides some satisfaction to Palestinian refugees, both as regards financial compensation and also for Israel to possibly agree to take in a limited number of refugees for such purposes as reuniting families.  

To the Israeli Negotiators

It is proposed that Israel accept this position, if it is offered. It would satisfy the fundamental requirement that the Palestinians recognize Israel’s Jewish character and sovereignty. It would reassure Israel that the Palestinians have no intention to press their claims under the Right of Return to the point of overwhelming Israel with non-Jews. But at the same time it would reaffirm what Israel already requires of itself according to its own founding documents, that it is a democracy that provides equal rights for all its citizens, including its Arab minority.

Furthermore, down the road, Israel could request that the Palestinians accept symmetrical language that would oblige them to provide rights and protection for Jewish settlers who choose to remain in the future Palestine, thus: “We recognize Palestine as a state for the Palestinian people that gives due consideration to its Jewish minority.” 
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