14 March
2002
By Jerome M.
Segal
|
Unilateral separation is a seductive notion, with
serious flaws. It gives up land without getting peace in exchange. As a
half-way withdrawal, it is likely to spur greater violence. A far more
decisive approach is to have the United States impose, on both Israelis and
Palestinians, a final territorial settlement, roughly along the lines of the
Clinton parameters of December 2000.
The United States could do this most effectively through its role as the
dominant veto-power within the Security Council. Here is how it could work:
*Step 1: The UN Security Council asserts its legal authority over the
occupied territories
The council would note that except for its recognition/admission of the
state of Israel in 1949, the United Nations never relinquished the
territorial authority it possessed at the end of the British Mandate. It
would further note that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were not, in 1948
or 1967, nor at present, under the recognized sovereignty of any state. The
council would then go on to assert that the council is the ultimate legal
authority for the disposition of these areas.
*Step 2: Conditions for authorizing the PLO to establish a Palestinian state
The council would authorize the PLO to establish a Palestinian state, and
will recognize that state, provided that:
a) The state of Palestine will recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
b) The state of Palestine will recognize Israel as sovereign within the
borders established by this plan, and further agree that such borders are
final, constituting [except for Jerusalem, which is deferred for three
years] the end of the territorial dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
c) The Palestinian state will not enter into any defense or assistance
treaty with any state not at peace with Israel, and until a bilateral
agreement with Israel is achieved, will not import weapons.
d) The state of Palestine will accept international inspectors led by the
United States, and with Israeli participation, to ensure that such
conditions are carried out faithfully.
e) The state of Palestine will demonstrate, as a condition of recognition, a
monopoly of force within its territory. This will require disarming all
non-state actors.
*Step 3: Israel directed to present an interim withdrawal plan
Provided the PLO agrees to these conditions, the Security Council would then
direct Israel to submit to the council, within 90 days, a plan for an
Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and West Bank territory. Specific
requirements would be:
a) Israel must withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip.
b) Israel must withdraw from at least 95 percent of the West Bank, and on a
one-for-one basis, provide for a territorial swap for areas it proposes to
retain.
c) There must be territorial contiguity, with access to Jordan.
*Step 4: Council acceptance or modification of the Israeli proposal
A committee formed of the five permanent members of the Security Council,
and chaired by the United States, would either accept the Israeli proposal,
modify it or return it to Israel for specified amendments. Once the
committee agrees on a final plan and has received from the PLO its
acceptance of the conditions detailed above, the Security Council would
direct Israel to carry out the withdrawal. It would further announce, that
[Jerusalem excepted] the resulting border between Israel and Palestine
fulfills UNSC Resolution 242 and constitutes the permanent international
border, with Israel recognized as a sovereign Jewish state within that
border.
*Step 5: Bilateral negotiations on the remaining issues and modifications to
the separation plan.
The council would specify that if the two sides reach agreed modifications
to the council's separation plan, it will accept those modifications.
Negotiations on Jerusalem and refugees would be deferred for three years. At
that time, the issues of refugees would be taken up, under Security Council
auspices, within the context of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, and
of Jerusalem within the Clinton parameter, "what is Jewish will be Israeli,
what is Arab will be Palestinian."
Following are the advantages of an imposed solution:
Unilateral separation turns land over to the Palestinians but gets nothing
in return. In particular, it leads to a Palestinian state that has made no
commitments with respect to security issues. By contrast this plan extracts
from the PLO major concessions on final borders, weapons, alliances and
international inspectors, and most importantly, on Israel as a Jewish state.
It is likely that the PLO would accept these conditions. However, if the PLO
refuses to meet these conditions of the Security Council, then the onus for
the continued occupation will fall squarely on the Palestinians, and they
will be isolated internationally. At that point, if it chooses, Israel can
pursue unilateral options.
Like unilateral separation, the plan would result in Israeli withdrawal, and
a Palestinian state, and leaves for the future negotiations on other issues.
Because both approaches result in a Palestinian state, they share the
important benefit of moving Palestinian nationalism toward the familiar
patterns of nation states with national interests to protect, and with a
susceptibility to the logic of deterrence.
An externally imposed agreement, however, has particular value with respect
to the problem of settlements. Under any approach, extricating the settlers
from the West Bank and Gaza will be a traumatic experience that may leave
scars for a generation. An evacuation which is forced by the entire outside
world is "not optional." It will engender the least amount of resistance,
and have the widest level of popular support. Once accomplished, it will be
relatively free from never ending charges of internal betrayal.
The Security Council would require a withdrawal not to some interim
territorial line, but to a permanent border between Israel and Palestine,
recognizing Israeli sovereignty within that border. Thus it seeks
territorial stability. Today, in Israel, this could not be accomplished
through unilateral separation. The above plan, by using the Security
Council, would within international law, end the territorial dimension of
the conflict. Thereby, it isolates on the Palestinian side the true
maximalists from the bulk of the populace. And by giving rise to a
Palestinian state, it removes from the various factional forces their claim
to be independent decision makers on issues of war and peace. Both factors
increase the capability (and thus the accountability) of the new Palestinian
government for any continuing violence.
This plan cannot occur without American leadership. There are three
conditions under which this could happen. First, if an Israeli government
were to signal its desire for an imposed solution. Today, this is
impossible. Second, if the conflict became so heated as to generate a major
threat to fundamental American security interests. And third, if there
developed within Israel a substantial body of public opinion which called
for American leadership of this sort. Recent polls show growing numbers of
Israelis look with favor on international intervention if it will end the
conflict. It is time to focus that sentiment around a specific proposal.
|
