- Home
- About
- General Issues
- Maps
-
Position Statements
- 2011 >
-
2012
>
- Time to Negotiate the Northern and Southern Sectors of the Israeli-West Bank Border
- President Peres and Dr. Ashrawi: Thank You for Staying on Track
- Playing the Victim Card Will Not Bring Peace
- Negotiations By the Parties
- The World Should Help the Palestinian Hunger Striker
- ...and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem
- A Question of Accountability
- Israel Twisting in the Wind
- Netanyahu: Too Big for His Britches
- Netanyahu's "Israeli Comfort"
- How Shaul Mofaz Can Jump-Start the Peace Process
- Netanyahu on the Brink
- Time for Taking Stock
- Israel in Wonderland
- Whatever Happened to the Quartet?
- The Palestinians Want to Negotiate
- A Time for Hope and a Call for Restraint
- Israel Can Win in Gaza, But Not Now
- Congratulations to the New State of Palestine!
- Security and Borders: Both Required for Peace
-
2013
>
- It Is Up to Israel to Restart Peace Negotiations
- Israel and Palestine: Changing the Terms of Agreement
- The Knesset Bill to Increase the Number of Women that Elect the Chief Rabbis Is Important for Jewish Women
- Proposal on Governance of the Holy Basin
- Time for Netanyahu to Reach Across the Aisle
- Tzipi Livni's Challenge
- Women Should Be Free to Pray at the Wailing Wall
- Proposed Highway through the Jordan Valley Will Backfire on Israel
- 2014 >
-
2015
>
- We Should Applaud Herzog and Livni for Reclaiming Zionism
- The Next Israeli Government
- West Bank Citizenry and Receipt of Individuals of Palestinian Origin
- What Next for Israel?
- Palestinian statehood
- Mischief in the Trade Legislation would Hinder Progress
- What Next for America?
- Could American Firms Choose to Gradually Disinvest from Israel?
- Boycotting Israel is not anti-Semitism
- 2016 >
- 2017 >
- 2019 >
- 2020 >
- 2023 >
- 2024
- Resources
- About the Authors
...and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem
February 23, 2012
We at the Citizens Proposal were heartened to learn from Israeli officials’ recent accounts of the exploratory talks in Amman that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposal on borders included the two-stage approach, as we have been advocating on this website (see “Next Steps: Negotiating an Initial Border”). According to Barak Lapid’s February 19 report in Haaretz, at the last meeting of the exploratory talks on January 25 Israeli envoy Isaac Molcho presented Netanyahu’s proposal on borders which included several principles. The third of these stated:
It is necessary to first solve the problem of borders and security in relation to Judea and Samaria, and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem which is far more complicated.
Israel thus indicates that it understands the gist of what has to be done to arrive at a border. Evidently Israeli officials have thought the matter through, and have a plan that could lead to a successful negotiation.
The Palestinians can take this as evidence of Israel’s sincerity about coming to a solution, even though there are still many obstacles to be cleared away.
Therefore, we find chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat’s complaint yesterday, that these accounts were leaked in violation of the agreed terms for the Amman talks, to be beside the point. We understand that many Palestinians will surmise that the Israelis intend by this leak to point the finger at Palestinian intransigence. That is, by revealing that the positions presented in Amman on the issue of borders were not much different than those presented by former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni during the Annapolis Conference in 2007, it invites the implication that President Abbas, who did not respond to the Israeli proposal then, is incapable of doing so now. The Washington Post's advocacy of this viewpoint is not helpful.
Instead, we believe that Abbas should call Israel’s bluff. He should immediately call on Israel to go beyond a vague statement of principles and present a full and offer, including a detailed map of the border.
One would hope that the first stage—arriving at a border for the northern and southern West Bank—can be fairly straightforward. How far apart are the two sides, really? Palestinians insist that the border must be based on the 1967 lines, but in Abbas’s initial proposal to the Quartet last November he offered to make adjustments on 1.9 percent of the land to accommodate Israeli settlements east of the 1967 line. Netanyahu’s proposal is that Israel give up 90 percent of the West Bank, which means that it would keep 10 percent to accommodate settlements. Surely that difference can be negotiated.
In terms of the territory of the future Palestinian state, it is the difference between getting 98.1 percent and 90 percent of what Palestinians desire. We have been down this road before, as negotiators at the Camp David summit in 2000 led by President Clinton worked with a figure in the neighborhood of 95 percent. Israel has already conceded what could have been a complete negation of the 1967 lines by not insisting on keeping the Jordan Valley. Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley would have left the Palestinians without a contiguous state, but only small islands of land surrounded by Israel. But Israel does not require the Jordan Valley, as long as the Palestinians will permit a certain military presence to continue there:
During the meeting, Erekat asked for clarification regarding the Jordan Valley. Molcho referred him to Netanyahu¹s speech’s to the opening session of the Knesset, as well as to that in front of Congress in May 2011. In both speeches, Netanyahu spoke of a “military presence along the Jordan River,” yet he did not demand that Israel maintain sovereignty over the valley. “And if we refuse?” Erekat asked. Molcho responded: “You would prefer that we annex the valley?”
Palestinian sovereignty over the Jordan Valley will give it a border with Jordan as well as north-south routes linking the cities of the West Bank. It will be a fundamental lynchpin of the future state of Palestine.
So far, so good. Still, considerable obstacles remain before a border for the northern and southern West Bank can be resolved. Molcho reportedly pointed to “principles... similar if not identical to that which was presented by Tzipi Livni during the negotiations that took place in 2008.” Most likely he was referring to a map that had two long fingers of Israeli land jutting eastward into the northern part of the West Bank, one along Rte 5 to Ariel and one just south of Qalqiliya running from the settlements of Alfe Menashe to Immanuel. It would make sense for the two sides to compromise on this matter and agree to just one finger. As discussed previously, the Citizens Proposal would accommodate Israeli sovereignty along Rte 5 to Ariel, as long as crossing-points are provided to preserve Palestine’s contiguity north and south of that road.
Peace will require Israel and Palestine to dance with each other. Since they are unfamiliar partners, it is to be expected that sometimes they will step on each other’s feet. Peace is worth the effort to try, and with trying, one day the two sides may even get in step.
We at the Citizens Proposal were heartened to learn from Israeli officials’ recent accounts of the exploratory talks in Amman that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposal on borders included the two-stage approach, as we have been advocating on this website (see “Next Steps: Negotiating an Initial Border”). According to Barak Lapid’s February 19 report in Haaretz, at the last meeting of the exploratory talks on January 25 Israeli envoy Isaac Molcho presented Netanyahu’s proposal on borders which included several principles. The third of these stated:
It is necessary to first solve the problem of borders and security in relation to Judea and Samaria, and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem which is far more complicated.
Israel thus indicates that it understands the gist of what has to be done to arrive at a border. Evidently Israeli officials have thought the matter through, and have a plan that could lead to a successful negotiation.
The Palestinians can take this as evidence of Israel’s sincerity about coming to a solution, even though there are still many obstacles to be cleared away.
Therefore, we find chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat’s complaint yesterday, that these accounts were leaked in violation of the agreed terms for the Amman talks, to be beside the point. We understand that many Palestinians will surmise that the Israelis intend by this leak to point the finger at Palestinian intransigence. That is, by revealing that the positions presented in Amman on the issue of borders were not much different than those presented by former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni during the Annapolis Conference in 2007, it invites the implication that President Abbas, who did not respond to the Israeli proposal then, is incapable of doing so now. The Washington Post's advocacy of this viewpoint is not helpful.
Instead, we believe that Abbas should call Israel’s bluff. He should immediately call on Israel to go beyond a vague statement of principles and present a full and offer, including a detailed map of the border.
One would hope that the first stage—arriving at a border for the northern and southern West Bank—can be fairly straightforward. How far apart are the two sides, really? Palestinians insist that the border must be based on the 1967 lines, but in Abbas’s initial proposal to the Quartet last November he offered to make adjustments on 1.9 percent of the land to accommodate Israeli settlements east of the 1967 line. Netanyahu’s proposal is that Israel give up 90 percent of the West Bank, which means that it would keep 10 percent to accommodate settlements. Surely that difference can be negotiated.
In terms of the territory of the future Palestinian state, it is the difference between getting 98.1 percent and 90 percent of what Palestinians desire. We have been down this road before, as negotiators at the Camp David summit in 2000 led by President Clinton worked with a figure in the neighborhood of 95 percent. Israel has already conceded what could have been a complete negation of the 1967 lines by not insisting on keeping the Jordan Valley. Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley would have left the Palestinians without a contiguous state, but only small islands of land surrounded by Israel. But Israel does not require the Jordan Valley, as long as the Palestinians will permit a certain military presence to continue there:
During the meeting, Erekat asked for clarification regarding the Jordan Valley. Molcho referred him to Netanyahu¹s speech’s to the opening session of the Knesset, as well as to that in front of Congress in May 2011. In both speeches, Netanyahu spoke of a “military presence along the Jordan River,” yet he did not demand that Israel maintain sovereignty over the valley. “And if we refuse?” Erekat asked. Molcho responded: “You would prefer that we annex the valley?”
Palestinian sovereignty over the Jordan Valley will give it a border with Jordan as well as north-south routes linking the cities of the West Bank. It will be a fundamental lynchpin of the future state of Palestine.
So far, so good. Still, considerable obstacles remain before a border for the northern and southern West Bank can be resolved. Molcho reportedly pointed to “principles... similar if not identical to that which was presented by Tzipi Livni during the negotiations that took place in 2008.” Most likely he was referring to a map that had two long fingers of Israeli land jutting eastward into the northern part of the West Bank, one along Rte 5 to Ariel and one just south of Qalqiliya running from the settlements of Alfe Menashe to Immanuel. It would make sense for the two sides to compromise on this matter and agree to just one finger. As discussed previously, the Citizens Proposal would accommodate Israeli sovereignty along Rte 5 to Ariel, as long as crossing-points are provided to preserve Palestine’s contiguity north and south of that road.
Peace will require Israel and Palestine to dance with each other. Since they are unfamiliar partners, it is to be expected that sometimes they will step on each other’s feet. Peace is worth the effort to try, and with trying, one day the two sides may even get in step.
