By Dr. Stephen Schwalbe
Faculty Member, Public Administration at American Military University
At the start of his presidency, Donald Trump appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to mediate peace between Israel and the Palestinians. However, Kushner’s efforts recently suffered a significant setback when Trump announced his decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the U.S. Embassy there from Tel Aviv.
When this declaration was officially and overwhelmingly rebuked by the U.N. General Assembly, the United States announced that it was cutting more than $250 million from its annual contributions to the United Nations.
Israeli Prime Minister Says He Will Not Support a Two-State Solution
To come to a negotiated settlement requires two sides with the legitimacy to pull it off.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly stated on multiple occasions that he would not support a two-state solution, meaning an independent state of Palestine bordering Israel. However, the majority of Americans and Israelis favor a two-state solution.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian side is split into two hostile groups. Al-Fatah controls the West Bank and Hamas controls the Gaza Strip.
Mahmoud Abbas has been the leader of al-Fatah, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority since 2005. Khaled Mashal is the Hamas leader.
In September 2014, Hamas agreed to reintegrate with al-Fatah, with Abbas as their leader. That reintegration lasted only until 2016.
The Palestinian side remains physically and ideologically fractured. That is not a good position from which to negotiate.
New Approach Offers Possible Solution to Creating Peace with Israel and Palestine
While any resolution of the “Palestinian problem” seems bleak today, perhaps there is one approach that might work. In any case, how could anything make matters worse than they are now?
First, the Palestinians would need to name a team that represents all Palestinians, not just al-Fatah or Hamas. This might be the most difficult step to accomplish.
Next, a team of experts and negotiators would need to be formed from the United Nations. That team should include U.S. representatives who would work with the Palestinian team.
Realistic Map for Palestine Would Require Creation by International Teams
The first item on the teams’ agenda would be to draw up a realistic map that clearly delineates the borders of Palestine. This map has been officially attempted only once, during the Camp David summit in 2000 with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and President Bill Clinton. At the very end of negotiations, Arafat asked Clinton what the borders of the proposed Palestinian state would look like.
Essentially, the proposed map looked like a handful of paint thrown on a wall. Arafat was so disappointed that he promptly left the negotiations and returned to the West Bank. It is essential that this type of unrealistic approach should not happen again.
The two teams need to begin with the internationally recognized 1967 borders, which existed before the Six-Day War. This war was between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
Those borders must also account for settlements occupied by Israeli citizens. Whatever borders are negotiated, without the Israelis, must include some type of compensation for whatever settlements revert to Palestinian rule. Previous trade-off discussions involved land.
Once this new state is identified, it must then be coordinated with the Arab League and the United States to ensure international support. With the U.N., U.S. and Arab League supporting this new state, it would be difficult for Israel to say no, especially if economic pressure were applied. This approach would become a fait accompli – just the opposite of what happened at Camp David in 2000 with Arafat. It is likely the only approach that would work with the Israelis.
Of course, creating the borders for Palestine is extremely challenging, but the fact is new border proposals have not been tried since the Camp David summit of 2000. On the slim chance that Israel accepts the proposed borders for the new state of Palestine, there are other issues to be resolved.
After Agreement on New Borders, a Palestine State Capital Must Be Determined
The next issue would be to figure out where the capital of Palestine would be located. This issue should not be too difficult because Arabs dominate East Jerusalem today. Hence, splitting East Jerusalem from the rest of the city would allow both Israel and Palestine to claim some part of Jerusalem as their capital.
The next issue would be the “right of return” of the estimated five million Palestinians displaced by the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and the Six-Day War in 1967. The Palestinians may have verifiable rights to property they once owned in current Israeli territory.
Clearly, returning any lost land is impractical and so is financial compensation based on today’s valuations. However, perhaps some measure of rectifying the problem could be achieved by the compensation of verified losses, based on currency valuations in 1948 and 1967. That would be more realistic and Israel could afford that cost without going bankrupt.
Once those issues are settled, mutual state recognition and security would be easier to negotiate. Over time, negotiations could address trade, water rights and transit rights.
There is never a perfect time to pursue impossible goals, so now is as good a time as any. Previous U.S. presidents have made valiant but unsuccessful efforts at brokering a lasting, two-state solution.
President Trump needs an international achievement to go along with his domestic tax reform success. Kushner has a religious affinity for Israel and Trump has a close relationship with Netanyahu. Although this proposal remains a dream for now, it could one day become a reality.
About the Author
Dr. Stephen Schwalbe is an associate professor at American Military University. He retired as a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force after 30 years of service, including serving as a Defense Attache in Jordan from 2000-2002.
Comments are closed.