Standing between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators on July 30, Secretary of State John Kerry announced the start of “sustained, continuous and substantive talks” in which “all the core issues” would be on the table, and the objective is “to achieve a final status agreement over the course of the next nine months.” There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical this new effort will succeed. The trail of failed U.S. peace initiatives can be traced back through every American administration since the late 1960s. Given the failures of past peace efforts and the history of violence, mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians runs high. The current Israeli government is the most rightwing in decades; Palestinians have two governments, one in the West Bank engaged in the talks, a Hamas government in Gaza very critical of the talks, and so far no formula for uniting the two. Final status issues are dauntingly complex and emotional for both sides. And there are extremist factions on both sides ready and willing to use violence to torpedo the talks.
In Jerusalem on March 21, President Obama declared, “Peace is necessary … Peace is just … and peace is possible.” There are reasons why this time may be different, why this time negotiations could end the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict and achieve a two-state peace agreement. Everyone is aware that a combination of demographics and expansion of settlements means time is running out for a workable two-state agreement, the only realistic solution to the conflict. The growth of radical, including radical religious factions on both sides makes a solution difficult now, but in the future could make a solution impossible. In the aftermath of the war in Iraq and the Arab Spring, momentous and unpredictable changes underway in the Middle East make resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict more urgent than ever. The other, perhaps most important new positive factor is Secretary Kerry’s determination, supported by the president.
The failure of past peace initiatives is a source of bitter frustration to Israelis and Palestinians, but it is also true that progress made in earlier formal and informal, unofficial negotiations have produced benchmark principles and practical ideas for resolving all the final status issues. Sources of these ideas include: the Clinton Parameters (2000), the Taba Agreement (2001), the Arab Peace Initiative (2002), the unofficial Geneva and Peoples Voice initiatives (2003), and more than 20 rounds of secret talks between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas (2006-08). None of these efforts provides a blueprint for peace but, taken together, they do provide an outline of ideas for an agreement that could be acceptable to majorities on both sides. While it’s definitely a good sign that the talks will be mostly secret, hopefully, Secretary Kerry and his team will be quietly pressing Israeli and Palestinian negotiators to consider ideas developed in previous rounds of talks.
On borders, security, and settlements, for example, the idea is that, while consistent with U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, negotiations would be based on the 1967 borders, there could be mutually agreed, equal (1-1) land swaps that would allow Israel to keep some territory closest to the former 1967 line on which a large percentage of Jewish settlements were built. While settlements deep in Palestinian territory would have to be removed, agreement could reached on security arrangements, including early warning systems and international observers in certain areas, such as the Jordan Valley. The parties would agree on passage between Gaza and the West Bank and on a fair and equitable distribution of water. Two very emotional issues relate to refugees and the future of Jerusalem. On refugees, it is widely understood that there would need to be a negotiated solution that does not alter the demographics of Israel. While Israel might agree on a relatively small number of Palestinian refugees returning to Israel based on family reunification, Palestinian refugees would have a right of return only to the Palestinian state. There would be an international fund to provide compensation to refugees. On Jerusalem, Palestinian residents of Jerusalem would be citizens of Palestine, as already indicated by their voting in Palestinian elections; and Jewish residents of Jerusalem would continue to be citizens of Israel. The city would be open and undivided with access to holy sites guaranteed. Both Israel and Palestine would have their capitals in Jerusalem. None of the ideas for compromise are complete or easy for either side to accept, but they have been developed and evolved after decades of violent conflict and based on years of formal and informal negotiations.
As Israeli-Palestinian negotiations proceed, there will need to be strong public support for active, fair and determined U.S. leadership. National organizations such as JStreet, the “pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby,” the American Task for on Palestine, and Churches for Middle East Peace will play important, timely roles. The National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East, including 20 present and past heads of Jewish, Christian and Muslim national religious organizations has pledged to mobilize support for Secretary Kerry’s initiative in churches, synagogues and mosques across the country. Israeli-Palestinian peace is possible. Public support can help make it happen. Ron Young is Consultant for the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East. He lives in Everett and can be contacted by email at usicpme@aol.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
