|
|
|
|
December 11, 2001 Solving
the Israel-Palestine conflict By
Michael S. Sanders
Prologue
The
art of a successful negotiation is to ascertain at the onset what your adversary
wants and attempt to accommodate those needs in a way that benefits one's own
self interests. Unfortunately the history of Arab-Israeli negotiations has been
to disregard what the Arabs have been saying whilst hoping that
"generosity" would make everything acceptable. Introduction
From
the time that Rabin gave Yasser Arafat the city of Jericho in return for the
recognition of the state of Israel, the die was cast. The words here are chosen
carefully. The words Israeli and Palestinian were not used. This was an
arrangement by individuals without regard to the views of the majority of either
the Jews or the Arabs around the world, nor even to Palestinians or Israelis at
"home." At that moment, the creation of "the state of
Palestine" was inevitable even though the Israelis tried very hard not to
come to that realization for quite some time. That,
of course, has been one of the problems. Whatever the shortcomings of Arafat, he
has had one vision for the future and the Israelis have only had a series of
crumbling hopes. They have not listened and not learned. Neither, of course, has
the United States government – whose idea of negotiations at every step has
been to ask the Israelis to concede more and more and more. Both the Israelis
and the United States have always been amazed that Arafat continues to turn them
down and turn to violence instead. But if they had been listening, it was
inevitable. They never read Mein Kampf, and they have never listened to the
Palestinians. Now
Barak comes along and everyone believed that with his amazing
"generosity" Arafat would finally be tested as to his true intentions.
But the Israelis and the United States were not listening. What they offered did
not test Arafat's intentions. His intentions may be benign or evil – they have
yet to be ascertained. He may in fact have one of two motives. 1.
He
has a secret intention of totally destroying the state of Israel over a very
long period of time.
At
the moment, there is no way of determining which one is correct, and one of the
main goals of this proposal is to ascertain the answer to that fundamental
question. We know the concerns of Israel: true peace with dependable and true
security. We need to find what the Palestinians want. There
are three main areas of concern. The boundaries of a viable Palestinian state
and the future of the settlements, the Haram al Sharif and "the right of
return." If these problems can be solved whilst maintaining the concerns of
Israel, then the Palestinians' true motives can quickly be ascertained. If their
true motives include the total destruction of the state of Israel, then all bets
would immediately be off. Thus, one needs to know the answer to that quickly and
accurately so Israel can make the appropriate response. The
territory
A.
The problems From
the beginning, the Israelis have been forced continually to cede more and more
of the West Bank to the Palestinians. From 50 percent through varying small
increments (almost on a monthly basis), they are now up to around 95 percent.
For Arafat, violence and stalling obviously pays. Why criticize a man who
doesn't see generosity but sees weakness? His is the correct position under the
circumstances. That he is abused for being the better negotiator is absurd. If
the United States and Israel wish to carry a weak hand, it is for history and
their people to judge them. Who, in the face of Israeli weakness would not have
taken full advantage of it? We
are now at a negotiating stage referred to as "90 plus." But listen to
the Palestinians who have remained steadfast in their position. They want 100
percent of the West Bank and Gaza based on United Nations resolutions and have never
changed their position. Their claim is that they gave all
their concessions when they recognized Israel in the rest of the area. Someone
therefore needs to change the paradigm of the negotiations. The
question of settlers is just as confusing. Israel started off by adding little
enclaves in strategic positions throughout the West Bank and Gaza. People who
moved there were considered heroes by the Israelis. Gradually, they have
conceded, more and more of the enclaves have to be withdrawn and many settlers
are now considered the source of the problem. Thus the Israelis over the years
have again shown steady weakness in the face of a foe who has been steadfast. B.
The solution There
has to be a change of paradigm. The Palestinians have accepted the concept of
security for the Israelis, which they know involves a presence on the West Bank.
The question is in the nature of that presence. Thus we change the whole tone of
the negotiations by formulating a concept of "100 percent minus." What
does this mean in reality? The Palestinians are given sovereignty over a
complete and whole state according to their stated goals and positions. They are
then in a position to negotiate a defense agreement on equal terms with Israel.
That new state would exist de facto only when the legitimate defense and
security needs of Israel are guaranteed – even if it means by a leased
presence or international forces. No
agreement would be put into effect until such time as Palestine adheres fully
and completely with all their
previous commitments on arms, incitement, education, etc. The time period for
that to occur would be up to the Palestinians. The quicker they put it into
effect, the quicker they would have their total state. What
about the settlers? Today in Israel, there are millions of Arabs living as
Israeli citizens. The Israelis have pretended, until recently, that they are not
quite the same as Palestinians. Well they are. They are Palestinians who have
Israeli citizenship. It is proposed that they be given a form of dual
citizenship, as would the Jewish settlers in Palestine. Palestinian towns in
Israel and Jewish townships in Palestine would have at least the autonomy that
is usual in the USA. They would have their own local police, their own education
system, etc. Thus another brick of symmetry is added to the two states living
side by side. Many
on both sides would wish to leave to return to their "own" state, but
many would wish to stay and, as will be seen, that can also be the solution to
"the right of return." What
about Jerusalem and especially the Old City? The Temple Mount will be dealt with
in the next section. In
1948 – and until the 1967 war – the Old City and East Jerusalem were under
Jordanian rule. The Palestinians maintain that under United Nations resolutions
228 and 442, they should have all
the territory that was captured by Israel in that war, even though the United
Nations were very careful not to
include the word "all" when it referred to the return of territory. One
of the plans that Barak is supposed to have accepted is one in which both the
Old City and the Arab areas of East Jerusalem would be given to the
Palestinians, less the Jewish quarter in the Old City and the "Western
Wall." This despite many pledges by Israel never to divide Jerusalem again.
One thing is clear, however – once one side concedes one idea, it is difficult
if not impossible to ever retract it. It is, therefore, inevitable that
Jerusalem be part of the "100 percent minus" paradigm with
negotiations regarding the complete openness of the city to everyone. The
Vatican has sovereignty over Vatican City but its arrangements with the
government of Italy make certain that there are no artificial boundaries between
the two. The
Temple Mount – Haram al Sharif
A.
The problem Like
many other religious problems, this is the hardest of them all. Physical danger
to leaders who mess with it would come not only from fundamentalist factions but
ordinary people who have a visceral connection with the center of their
religion. Both sides have both good and bad arguments to keep the site under
their sovereignty – and their sovereignty alone. They will never agree.
Remember, it was Moshe Dayan who handed over the site after its capture by the
Israelis to the Islamic Waqf in 1967. That act was the start of all the major
Israeli problems in Jerusalem. However, without a solution, all the rest of the
issues cannot be resolved. B.
Analysis There
appears to be only one possible solution, and that is outlined on the
Bible
Mysteries website. The
evidence seems extremely convincing. "The City of David" over the
Gihon Spring is not only the logical place where the Temple of Solomon should
have been built, it is the place in the Bible so described. C.
The solution If
the above is correct – and we suggest there be assembled a conference of the
leading academics in the field of biblical archaeology, rabbis and political
leaders of all sides to investigate the thesis thoroughly – then the problem
is solvable by a sacrifice on both sides. The sovereignty of the Temple Mount
can be handed to the Palestinians but, in return, they would have to hand over
the Arab area known as "the City of David" south of the Temple Mount.
There the Israelis can build their third Temple. The
"right of return"
A.
The problem The
underpinning of Arafat's support amongst the Palestinian people since the
beginning of his leadership has been his promise that he would enable them to
"return home." This is the reason why Arab states have tried not
to absorb the Palestinian "refugees" and condemned them to camp living
for more than a generation. No Arab leader likes either Arafat or the
Palestinians. Their financial support has been predicated on the hope and belief
that he would get all his people out of their hair eventually. For Arafat then
to state categorically that after all these years the efforts of the Palestinian
Diaspora has been for naught would be signing his own death warrant. On
the other hand, the whole rationale for the state of Israel being a Jewish state
would be destroyed if 3 to 5 million Arabs suddenly were allowed to settle in
greater Israel – especially if they were granted Israeli citizenship. It is
the only thing that the Israeli people have in complete agreement. Both the
extreme left and extreme right agree that an unlimited right of return is
suicide. B.
The solution We
have already suggested that for peace now to be a reality, there must be two
states, existing side by side with intricate defense agreements to protect the
national security needs of Israel. There also has to be a situation where Arabs
can live in Israel and Jews in Palestine with special status for each that will
be the subject of negotiations between the two parties. From this arrangement
comes a solution to the problem of the Palestinian "right of return."
By definition, and by treaty, each side would have the right to an unlimited
right of return of its own people. Jews from the Diaspora to Israel,
Palestinians to Palestine. Many, many Arabs would perhaps want to leave Israel
to become fully integrated into a Palestinian state and many Jews would probably
want to leave the "settlements" to return to Israel. On the other
hand, many relatives of Arabs wishing to continue to live in Israel would want
to join them. The same would also apply to Jews living in Palestine (which would
include East Jerusalem). Thus a series of negotiations could be instigated where
reciprocal agreements would be worked out to expand the numbers of Arabs in
Israel and Jews in Palestine. As each group would have a special status
especially with regard to voting, this would not
affect the essential Jewishness of Israel nor the Arab nature of Palestine,
whatever the numbers agreed upon. The advantage is that each side has an
incentive to be "generous" to the other for its own self interest. For
the Palestinians it is essential for their economic well-being that there be a
free flow of people from Israel to Palestine and back. That they have not
responded to this factor before now is due hopefully to the fact that they were
only allowed a percentage of their needs and felt that until those needs were
met, nothing else mattered as much. If in fact their real motive for any peace
treaty is the eventual elimination of the state of Israel, this will become
apparent within a very short period of time and the only solution then would be
total war. It
must also be understood that the process is likely to take many, many years,
unless there is complete and early compliance by the Palestinians. With a just
and certain future for all their demands, they will no longer have any excuse
for violence or incitement. Should their leadership immediately call publicly
– and at every opportunity – for peaceful reconciliation, then the process
could move faster. There will be no more excuses for any bad behavior. We look forward to the debate on the key issue, the true site of the early temples in Jerusalem.
Michael
S. Sanders is well known as an explorer and biblical scholar. Today, Mike serves
regularly as an adviser to Middle East experts and commentators. Sanders'
long-term experience as a resident of the Arabian Gulf – and his friendships
and business relationships with leaders and influential businessmen in the
region – add to an intimate and fresh perspective on the origins and solutions
to the ongoing crisis.
|
Send your comments or
suggestions to Michael S.
Sanders |
