Since the Six-Day War of 1967, three main plans for a final
settlement in this land have been on the Israeli agenda. Today
there is essentially only one and it does not coincide with any of
the previous three.
The three principal plans were roughly as follows:
1. Insistence on Israel's retaining all of Eretz Yisrael ("the Land
of Israel," Israel/Palestine) and settlement in all the territories
occupied in 1967;
Return to the 1967 borders and evacuation of all settlements;
3. Territorial compromise and a settlement according to "secure
Israeli borders."
Though lip service is still sometimes paid to these plans, they
have now been demoted. Their place has been taken by a fourth one.
According to this plan, accepted by both Likud and Labor, the main
blocs of settlement in the West Bank and Gaza will remain under
Israeli sovereignty and will be connected to Israel by a network of
winding bypass roads. This proposal took from the first plan the
map of settlement; from the second, recognition of a Palestinian
entity (not a state); and from the third, the principle of
territorial compromise. However, in contrast to the third approach,
the borders of the settlement bloc plan are not to be based on
"security needs" but on placing the greatest number of Jewish
settlers under Jewish sovereignty.
Rather than calling it "the settlement bloc plan," I prefer to call
it "the medusa plan" because, if it is accepted, we will have a
many-tentacled state resembling a medusa. This type of original map
is not, of course, intrinsically bad. The problem is only that such
a complicated plan cannot serve as the basis for a permanent
settlement. It could, at best, be a "temporary permanent
settlement," aiming to get through the next Israeli elections
successfully. In all events, it is hard to avoid the impression
that those who came up with the idea simply overlooked that the
objective was to solve the historic conflict between us and our
neighbors.
Alternative Formula
The alternative formula for a final settlement proposed here has
not been put forward elsewhere. The innovation is not in any of the
components, but in the concept that the final settlement must apply
not only to relations between the State of Israel and the
Palestinian "entity," but also to the overall structure of
relations between Jews and Arabs within the country.
The solution proposed here attempts to be simple and symmetrical.
This is the only way to provide the stability required of a final
settlement. On the other hand, a solution based on medusa-shaped
maps, enclaves, fences and bypass roads is a sure prescription for
friction. The solution is symmetrical because the more symmetrical
it is, the more just it is. The symmetry must apply first of all to
the central point: it is inconceivable that the Jews should have a
state here while the Arabs have only an "entity" or
"autonomy."
According to this principle, the point of departure is the division
of the country into two sovereign states. When there are two states
here, for the sake of simplicity and symmetry, one will be able to
divide the population into four main groups: 1. Jews living in
Israel; 2. Arabs living in the Palestinian state; 3. Jews living in
the Palestinian state; 4. Arabs living in Israel. The main
innovation in this proposal concerns the status of the latter two
groups and the symmetrical relationship between them.
Recognizing Palestinian Sovereignty
We begin with Jews living in the Palestinian state. Our position on
the final settlement must be unequivocal: no settlement will be
dismantled. It does not stand to reason that Arabs can live in
Galilee while Jews should not be allowed to live in the West Bank.
But one must remember that the Arabs in Galilee recognize the
sovereignty of the State of Israel. Therefore, Jews who wish to
remain in the West Bank will have to recognize the sovereignty of
the Palestinian state. We can urge the Palestinians to come to
terms with the presence of Jewish residents on their territory, but
not with the presence of residents who view themselves as
masters.
We are not abandoning the settlers. They may be subjects of a
Palestinian state but they will remain citizens of the State of
Israel. They will be able to work in Israel, to watch Israeli TV
and, of course, to elect our mediocre representatives to the
Knesset. Anyone unwilling to recognize a Palestinian state will not
be able to live there. The settlements will remain Israeli in every
respect and the setters will take part in the political, economic
and cultural life of the state, enjoying its services in education,
health and religion.
However, the settlers will have to take the symbolic step of
recognizing the political facts of life and obeying Palestinian
sovereignty and local laws. This can remove the main psychological
barrier separating them from their neighbors, paving the way to
direct negotiations between settlers and Palestinians on the
details of final settlement. Organizing reconciliation meetings,
friendship associations, youth exchanges, cultural activities,
sports, joint enterprises and, most important of all, efforts to
bring Judaism and Islam closer together - these can achieve more
for the settlers than lobbying against the Palestinians in
Jerusalem.
Security
Nor are we abandoning them in terms of security. We can demand that
the security of the settlements and the roads leading to them
remain in the hands of the Israeli army for as long as that is
necessary. Peace needs a probationary period in which the safety of
Israeli citizens will be in the hands of the Israeli army. But here
again, the key approach must be respect for our neighbors, with
security arrangements made in coordination with local forces. Our
soldiers will have to adjust to behaving as guests, not
masters.
But let us not forget that the security and the political situation
are closely related. If only those Jews who recognize the
Palestinian state were to remain in the West Bank, then we would
soon see that Jews and Arabs can live there together in peace and
even friendship. The Palestinians do not hate every settler for
being a Jew. They simply do not want to have neighbors who seek to
rule them.
The principle of symmetry must apply equally to the Arabs of
Israel. Just as Jews will be able to live in a Palestinian state
and define themselves as citizens of the State of Israel, so too
every Arab living in Israel must be allowed to define himself or
herself as a citizen of the Palestinian state. The Israeli Arabs
who choose to be Palestinian citizens will have a parallel status
to the Jewish settlers: they will be residents enjoying equal
rights in all respects save one - their vote will be cast into the
Palestinian ballot box.
On the other hand, any Israeli Arab who chooses Israeli citizenship
will be an Israeli citizen in the full sense of the word. He or she
will be able to vote and be elected to the Knesset, but will also
have to enlist in national service or in the Israeli army.
Self-Determination
Is this symmetry a strange idea? Not necessarily when we are
speaking of true peace, of historic reconciliation. Anyone refusing
to believe in putting an end to the Jewish-Arab conflict should
avoid preparing plans for a final settlement. I apologize for the
optimism in what follows, but this is the way in which I believe
the conflict between us and the Palestinians can be solved. How can
one use the words "final settlement" without believing this? The
goal is not to sign another scrap of paper. An agreement that fails
to tackle the conflict at its roots cannot constitute a permanent
settlement, even were the Palestinians to sign it.
"The demands of the other side" is a phrase which needs explaining.
I do not mean to say that we must agree to all their demands.
However, it is high time we wean ourselves of the notion that we
know their needs better than they do. We should become accustomed
to the idea that their true interest is what they want and not what
we think they should want. Whoever takes the pains to listen will
have no difficulty understanding what they want. Even if economics,
development and progress are important and even vital issues, the
key words in their vocabulary were and remain what they call "the
legitimate rights of the Palestinian people."
In order to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict, there is no need to
settle the question of who is right. Neither is there any need to
adopt the ideology or the definitions of the other side. There is,
however, one inescapable conclusion: an end to the conflict between
us and the Arabs cannot be enforced against their will. First and
foremost, therefore, one must find a solution they perceive as
fair.
Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?
Thus I have attempted to present a symmetrical solution, one that
tries to be balanced and to foster mutual respect rather than
promote a humiliating sense of no choice. The medusa plan, whose
fans are puzzling over maps and wondering how the border can be
bent just a little more, does not measure up to these criteria
adequately.
One does not need a particularly discerning eye to see that islands
of Israeli sovereignty in the heart of Palestinian sovereignty are
likely to serve as a time-bomb. Instead we have to create a simple
and clear reality of a Palestinian state whose sovereignty is
recognized by all its residents alongside a Jewish state whose
sovereignty is recognized by all its residents. It is not the
settlements that are an obstacle to peace, but the demand of the
settlers for Israeli sovereignty in the heart of Palestinian
sovereignty.
Nobody disagrees that a warm peace involves normalization. We
complain that the peace with Egypt is too cold and that we will not
cede an inch to Assad unless he commits himself to the essence of
peace. It is only with our Palestinian neighbors that we want a
cold peace. For them we have entirely different formulas: "Us here
and them there," "Good fences make good neighbors," "Reduce
contact," "Build bypass roads." Such varied catch-phrases have one
theme in common: the goal is not to solve the conflict but to find
ways of continuing to live with it.
Good Relations between Neighbors
In an interim settlement, transitional proposals are sometimes
needed so as to build trust and overcome deep-seated legacies of
the past. But whoever bases his program on separation and bypass
roads is preparing not for peace but for an Intifada. According to
these proposals, even in the final settlement, the inhabitants of
Ofra will bypass Ramallah when they travel and people from Elon
Moreh will not pass through Nablus. Can this be called a peace
plan? Do the Arab residents of Nazareth have a bypass road around
Afuleh, or the Arabs of Jaffa around Tel Aviv? Does someone need
reminding that peace is the absence of conflict, not the absence of
friction?
If anybody ought to be truly interested in permanent peace in the
territories, it is the settlers who built their permanent homes
there. If I were in their shoes, I would demand a plan that would
guarantee good relations with my neighbors, not defense against
them: a warm peace would assure drinking a cup of coffee in the Old
City of Jerusalem or shopping in the bazaar of Hebron. There is no
real peace in this land without good neighborly relations. With
them, there is no need for separation and without them, even bypass
roads will not be secure. How do such roads fit in with the right
of the Jews to feel at home anywhere in the Land of Israel,
including Jericho and Bethlehem? Can a final settlement involve
living in the Land of Israel without being able to see it?
We all want normalization with the entire Arab world, from Morocco
to Qatar. We all say that true peace in the Middle East is a
strategic necessity. The prospects of our region with nuclear
warheads and without peace sends a chill up the spine. However, our
relations with the Palestinians and with the entire Arab world are
related and an invalid solution to the conflict with the
Palestinians is likely to jeopardize normalization with the rest of
the Arab world. Therefore, one must begin with normalization at
home.
Arabs in a Jewish State
If Jews can live in a Palestinian state and define themselves as
Israeli citizens, then Arabs should not be denied the right to live
in the State of Israel and define themselves as Palestinian
citizens. This sounds strange at the moment only because it is
still over the next hill. Those who continue to waste time on the
question of whether there will be a Palestinian state are naturally
unable to contemplate what might happen after the establishment of
a Palestinian state.
The Arabs in Israel are ostensibly citizens enjoying equal rights,
but we all know that the reality is quite different. This stems in
no small part from the fact that their country is fighting against
their people. This unhappy situation will cease with the settlement
of the Jewish-Arab conflict. For the first time, the establishment
of a Palestinian state will give them the possibility of choice.
Our proposal gives the Arabs in Israel what it offers to all
residents of this country, namely the right to
self-determination.
Every Israeli Arab reaching the age of 18 will be able to choose
between Israeli and Palestinian citizenship. If he or she chooses
Israeli citizenship, that person will be an Israeli citizen in all
respects, with all the rights and responsibilities entailed,
serving in the Israeli army or national service, receiving all
consequent benefits and, of course, having the right to vote for
and be elected to the Knesset.
Prejudice is not eradicated by legislation but in a setting where
"Arab" will no longer be synonymous with "enemy," where all
citizens will serve in the Israeli army and Jews will live in a
Palestinian state - there is reason to hope that discrimination
will gradually diminish.
Israeli Arabs choosing at the age of 18 to hold Palestinian
citizenship will vote in the Palestinian elections instead of for
the Knesset. Apart from being exempt from army service, in all
other respects they will remain residents of the State of Israel,
enjoying equal rights and responsibilities.
An Overall View
Needless to say, this idea must be acceptable first and foremost to
the Israeli Arabs. Even if they accept the principle, one should
not necessarily conclude that many of them will jump at the
opportunity to obtain Palestinian citizenship. The Arab population
of Israel has interests of its own which must be represented in the
Knesset and the Arab parties will not encourage their voters to
give up their voting rights in Israel. Most would presumably prefer
to have an impact on the political life in Israel rather than in
Palestine.
Yet, in time, many Israeli Arabs may conceivably find reasons to
desire Palestinian citizenship. A permanent settlement must, in any
case, recognize the rights of Israeli Arabs to define themselves as
Palestinians in every way. Thinking symmetrically, just as nobody
expects Jews living in a Palestinian state to bring up their
children on Arab culture, so we cannot require Arabs living in
Israel to be brought up on the Hebrew writer Agnon or Israel's
first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion.
But what is the rush? One must, of course, first solve the major
problems on the agenda - settlements, borders, Palestinian
statehood, refugees, Jerusalem - but if we really want to solve
these problems, we must come to the negotiating table with an
overall view. And this can help in tackling the most urgent
issues.
Refugees
Our symmetrical point of departure provides an approach to the
complex issue of refugees. I think the Palestinians are well aware
that as long as Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, it will
never open its doors to the refugees of 1948. Therefore, if we
reject the Palestinian demand that the refugees be let back into
our territory, we must give up the demand to establish new
settlements within theirs; symmetry also means our seeing to the
development (or refraining from discriminating against) Arab
villages in Israel.
According to the same logic of symmetry, we may not, nor cannot,
deny the Palestinian right to take refugees into their own
territory. We, of course, have the right to demand the solution of
problems like water and ecology, so that this additional population
does not hurt us. However, as long as we reserve the right to take
in Jewish immigrants, we cannot expect our neighbors to cede the
right to take in Palestinian refugees. The principle is that the
less we try to dictate their internal affairs, the better. Whatever
does not directly affect us is none of our business. We must get
used to the idea that, while we will not give up our vital
interests, our neighbors deserve sovereignty and not a caricature
of sovereignty.
I have called the basic conception presented here as "simple,
symmetrical and fair," but where the reality is complex and
lop-sided, the proposals cannot be exactly symmetrical. For
example, security arrangements have first of all to provide
security, which means that Israel must provide a strategic balance
with the entire Arab world and not only with the Palestinians. Just
as the Egyptians did in their day, our neighbors will have to agree
to demilitarization, and in my opinion to a temporary presence of
the Israeli army on their territory because possible Baruch
Goldstein-type settler actions will not contribute to stability and
peace. But as a general trend, solutions lacking an honest desire
for maximum, if not always precise, symmetry will not stand the
test of time.
Jerusalem
Since Jerusalem is the most difficult question of all, one should
perhaps make do with an interim agreement for the time being,
establishing conditions which facilitate serious and relaxed
discussions of the final settlement for the city after the rest of
the clauses of the peace treaty will have been concluded. However,
just as only a few years ago few Israeli politicians dared to utter
the words "Palestinian state," Israelis will one day understand
that a billion Muslims will not be persuaded that Jerusalem is
situated in Abu Dis: we shall have to accept that only one final
settlement is feasible in Jerusalem - Jewish Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel and Arab Jerusalem as the capital of
Palestine.
Jerusalem can remain an open city, open both in the direction of
Israel and of the Palestinian state. If East Jerusalemites cease
feeling like second-class citizens, we might at long last be able
to achieve a united Jerusalem. Such a united city of Jerusalem,
open in all directions, is possible as part of a warm and true
peace. It is not consonant with a fortified peace based on "good
fences making good neighbors." A Jerusalem not surrounded by fences
would make building fences elsewhere senseless, for whoever wishes
to penetrate into Israel can do so via Jerusalem. A truly
symmetrical solution to the problem of Jerusalem may appear
impossible today, but I believe that a few years of normalization
will transform the impossible into the inevitable.
Finally, I believe that the ideas presented here will ultimately
have their day and, in time, the parties will opt for symmetrical
solutions. They will adopt them, not because they are perfect, but
because of the realization that there is no other way. The Arabs
will understand that Jewish settlements cannot be uprooted and that
Arab refugees cannot be repatriated to nonexistent villages. We
Israelis, for our part, will also understand that, henceforth, we
and the Palestinians must become partners for we do not live alone
in the country. For a century, we have been creating facts in this
land. From now on, we must move forward together with our neighbors
as equals.
This article is based on a longer essay by the author, originally
published in Ha'aretz. It was shortened and edited by the editors
of the Journal, and on their responsibility.