A Settlement Freeze Can Advance
Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Be the first of your
friends to like this.
Now that Israel has
a broad and secure national unity government, the time is ripe for that
government to make a bold peace offer to the Palestinian Authority.
The Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate
unless Israel accepts a "freeze" on settlement building in the West
Bank. Israel accepted a 10-month freeze in 2009, but the Palestinian Authority
didn't come to the bargaining table until weeks before the freeze expired. Its
negotiators demanded that the freeze be extended indefinitely. When Israel
refused, they walked away from the table.
There is every reason to believe that they
would continue such game-playing if the Israeli government imposed a similar
freeze now, especially in light of current efforts by the Palestinian Authority
and Hamas to form their own unity government, which would likely include
elements opposed to any negotiation with the Jewish state.
That is why Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
should now offer a conditional freeze: Israel will stop all settlement building
in the West Bank as soon as the Palestinian Authority sits down at the
bargaining table, and the freeze will continue as long as the talks continue in
good faith.
The first issue on the table should be the
rough borders of a Palestinian state. Setting those would require recognizing
that the West Bank can be realistically divided into three effective areas:
- Those that
are relatively certain to remain part of Israel, such as Ma'ale Adumim,
Gilo and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem.
- Those that
are relatively certain to become part of a Palestinian state, such as
Ramallah, Jericho, Jenin and the vast majority of the heavily populated
Arab areas of the West Bank beyond Israel's security barrier.
- Those
reasonably in dispute, including some of the large settlement blocs
several miles from Jerusalem such as Ariel (which may well remain part of
Israel, but subject to negotiated land swaps).
This rough division is based on prior
negotiations and on positions already articulated by each side. If there can be
agreement concerning this preliminary division—even tentative or
conditional—then the settlement-building dispute would quickly disappear.
There would be no Israeli building in those
areas likely to become part of a Palestinian state. There would be no limit on
Israeli building within areas likely to remain part of Israel. And the
conditional freeze would continue in disputed areas until it was decided which
will remain part of Israel and which will become part of the new Palestinian
state. As portions of the disputed areas are allocated to Palestine or Israel,
the building rules would reflect that ongoing allocation.
I recently proposed this idea to a high-ranking
Israeli official. His initial reaction was mostly positive, but he insisted
that it would be difficult to impose an absolute building freeze in any areas
in which Israelis currently live. He pointed out that families grow and that
new bedrooms and bathrooms are needed in existing structures as a simple matter
of humanitarian needs. I reminded him that Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly stated
that Israel is prepared to make "painful compromises" in the
interests of peace.
An absolute building freeze would be such a
painful but necessary compromise. It might also encourage residents of
settlements deep in the West Bank to move to areas that will remain part of
Israel, especially if the freeze were accompanied by financial inducements to
relocate.
Such a proposal by Israel would be an important
first step and a good test of the bona fides of the Palestinian side. Since
their precondition to negotiation will have been met by the promise of a freeze
(to begin the moment they sit down to negotiate), they would have no further
excuse for refusing the Israeli offer to try to resolve the conflict.
The conditional freeze would also test the bona
fides of the Israeli government, which would no longer have the excuse that any
freeze would risk toppling a fragile coalition that relies on right-wingers who
have threatened to withdraw in the event of another freeze. The new national
unity government is now sufficiently large and diverse that it could now
survive a walk-out by elements opposed to any freeze.
Once the parties reach a preliminary agreement
regarding the three areas and what could be built where, they could get down to
the nitty-gritty of working on compromises to produce an enduring peace.
These compromises will require the Israelis to
give up claims to areas of the West Bank that were part of Biblical Israel but
that are heavily populated by Palestinians. It will require the Palestinians to
give up any claim to a massive "right of return" for the millions of
descendents of those who once lived in what is now Israel. It will require an
agreement over Jerusalem, plus assurances about Israel's security in the Jordan
Valley and in areas that could pose the threat of rocket attacks like those
that have come from the Gaza Strip in recent years.
Both sides say they want peace. In my
conversations with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, I have repeatedly
heard the view that "everyone" knows what a pragmatic, compromise
resolution will look like. Each side claims that the other side has erected
artificial barriers to reaching that resolution.
If the building freeze issue can be taken off
the table, one of the most controversial and divisive barriers will have been
eliminated. The Israeli government should take the first step, but the
Palestinian Authority must take the second step by immediately sitting down to
negotiate in good faith.
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at
Harvard. His latest book is "Trials of Zion" (Grand Central
Publishing, 2010). A version of this article appeared June 4, 2012, on page A17
in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: A
Settlement Freeze Can Advance Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment