Sunday,
February 17, 2002
By JEROME M.
SEGAL |
COLLEGE PARK, Md.—From the beginning,
the Bush administration rejected President Bill Clinton's objective in the
Middle East. America went from actively seeking to end the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict to turning away from mediating peace
negotiations to trying to manage escalating violence. Such efforts are not
likely to succeed, and even if it were possible to manage the violence for a
time, the world needs something more. The United States has a responsibility
to aim higher.
The Bush administration is correct in its
assessment that there is no possibility today, or in the near future, that
the two parties will negotiate a comprehensive peace on their own. This
holds true even if a temporary cease-fire might be wrested from both sides.
There is, however, an alternative approach that should be considered. It
would put the focus on ending the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and
Gaza not through bilateral negotiations, but through an external authority,
namely, the United Nations Security Council.
The Security Council, with American
leadership, could prescribe the central elements of a territorial settlement
that the adversaries could be made to accept right now. Discussion of the
Jerusalem and Palestinian refugee issues, which now have no solutions within
reach, would be postponed for three years.
On what basis might the Security Council
assert its authority over territory and statehood? Upon the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire, authority over historic Palestine was assumed by the League
of Nations; this passed to the United Nations after World War II. The
Security Council retains the authority under international law to determine
who has sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. This is an
authority the United Nations had in 1947 when it called for partition of
Palestine into two states with Jerusalem in a zone outside the sovereignty
of either. It is an authority that has never been relinquished.
With United States support, the Security
Council could move to settle the territorial dimension of this conflict in
line with Security Council Resolution 242, which spells out the "land
for peace" principle. Here is how the process could work, step by step.
The Security Council would present the
Palestine Liberation Organization with concrete conditions for the
establishment and recognition of a Palestinian state and its admission into
the United Nations: Recognize Israel as a Jewish state, one that is
sovereign within the borders established by the Security Council plan, with
negotiations on Jerusalem postponed. Pledge not to enter into any defense or
assistance treaty with any state not at peace with Israel, and until a
bilateral agreement with Israel is achieved, import no weapons. Agree to
international inspectors under American leadership with Israeli
participation to verify that all these conditions are carried out. And agree
that the Palestinian state will demonstrate a monopoly over force within its
territory. This would require disarming and possibly disbanding nonstate
actors, like the Tanzim, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
When these conditions were accepted, the
Security Council would require Israel to submit, within 90 days, a plan for
withdrawing from the future state of Palestine. These would be the
requirements for Israel: Withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip and from a
minimum of 95 percent of the West Bank and provide, on a one-for-one basis,
a territorial swap for areas it proposes to retain. Retain no lands that
prevent the territorial contiguity of the State of Palestine or access to
Jordan. Within evacuated areas, provide for the full evacuation of Israeli
citizens. Transfer evacuated settlements to the State of Palestine in good
condition, with the understanding that the value of the housing and
infrastructure will count as a credit in any ultimate plan for compensation
of Palestinian refugees.
After reviewing Israel's withdrawal plan
and perhaps amending it, the Security Council would direct the withdrawal
within 12 months. When this is completed, the Security Council would affirm
that the territorial dimensions of Resolution 242 have been fulfilled, with
Jerusalem excepted.
The Security Council would then call for bilateral negotiations on remaining
issues like economic and security cooperation and water rights, with
settlement of the Jerusalem and refugee rights and compensation questions
delayed for three years.
The refugee issue would then be taken up
in negotiations between two sovereign nations, within the context of Israel
as a Jewish state. For Jerusalem, "what is Arab shall be Palestinian;
what is Jewish shall be Israeli" would be the guiding principle for
negotiations conducted under the auspices of the Security Council.
It is quite possible, of course, that the
P.L.O. would refuse to meet the conditions necessary to get the process
started. That would leave us where we are today, with one great difference:
The onus for the continued occupation would fall squarely on the P.L.O. The
Security Council plan would stand in place awaiting a Palestinian leadership
willing to abide by its provisions.
As for Israeli cooperation, there is no
doubt that the Israeli government led by Ariel Sharon would not welcome this
assertion of authority by the Security Council. However, if the P.L.O. did
accept Israel as a Jewish state and did agree that this plan would end the
territorial dimension of the conflict, it would be quite difficult for even
Mr. Sharon to reject a Security Council directive that had American backing.
If he did, the coalition within Israel would be likely to dissolve, and the
next elections would essentially be a referendum on ending the conflict.
President Bush's leadership has been
embraced by the international community during the war on terrorism. If he
pushed forward on this kind of Middle East solution, he might be surprised
to find how many Israelis are ready for American leadership and are prepared
to recognize that they and the Palestinians can only achieve peace with the
help of the outside world as arbitrator.
|
