What are land swaps?
In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza. Since then, it has expanded its presence in the West Bank, building settlements and enacting administrative control. There are currently around 630,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, in 150 official settlements and 128 outpost settlements constructed without official government authorisation. Both Israel and Palestine claim a historic right to the West Bank. It would be an integral part of a future Palestinian state, yet Israel claims that its presence in the West Bank is necessary for its security. A suggested way to counter this problem is land swaps. This concept involves Israel handing over some of its land to Palestine in exchange for being able to retain some of its settlements in the West Bank. This would satisfy Israel’s demands for a presence in the West Bank while ensuring that a future Palestinian state ends up with the same land area it would have with all of the West Bank. Given that nothing concrete has been achieved since the idea’s origins in the 1990s, some have suggested that land swaps are unfeasible. However, the difficulties that come with evacuating settlers and Israel’s unwillingness to give up the entirety of the West Bank makes land swaps necessary for a realistic two-state solution agreement.
How much land should be swapped?
One of the main difficulties in reaching an agreement about land swaps is determining exactly how much land should be involved. Israel’s politicians often propose taking over 10% of the West Bank, although some are open to lower figures – for example, for example, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was willing to go as low as 5.9%. Palestinian President Abbas, on the other hand, was only prepared to accept 1.9% of the West Bank being annexed in the 2008 negotiations with Olmert, the size of Israeli settlements there at the time, which Israel deemed insufficient to meet their security concerns. Generally, Palestinian negotiators accept a maximum of 2-3% of the West Bank being lost. Therefore, to reach an agreement both sides will need to compromise and agree to a figure inbetween the figures that tend to be proposed. An ideal compromise would be around 4 or 5% of land being involved in the swap.
What areas of the West Bank should Israel be allowed to keep?
On the West Bank, land swaps should prioritise ensuring that Israel gains land with settlements while ensuring that Palestine remains a contiguous state. Therefore, it would be easiest for settlements close to Israel’s pre-1967 border to be prioritised. Fortunately, many of the largest settlements are located close to the border, such as Modi’in Illit with a population of over 80,000, Beitar Illit with a population of over 64,000 and Ma’ale Adumin with a population of over 40,000. Indeed, the map below shows that 88% of settlers can be evacuated if areas close to the border are prioritised. The map also shows that some major settlements deeper in the West Bank, such as Ariel, can also be retained with Palestine still being a contiguous state.
Smaller settlements deeper into the West Bank will need to be removed. Residents in these settlements should be offered compensation and the chance to either become relocate elsewhere in Israel or become a permanent resident of Palestine. Israel has often demanded to retain a presence in the Jordan Valley for security, as it has faced invasions from Jordan in the past. However, this would put Palestine at risk of not having a contiguous state. A potential solution to this is the Palestinian state allowing Israel to station some troops there. Finally, it must be recognised that while land swaps would allow Israel to retain many of its settlements, these settlements are illegal under international law. There are concerns that some Israeli politicians use land swaps to deflect away from the illegality of settlements, arguing that future land swaps make them justifiable. To build trust towards the two sides and foster improved relations in the future, Israel should not only stop illegal activity, but launch investigations into human rights abuses such as extrajudicial killings of Palestinians and appropriately discipline those responsible. The international community has a responsibility to put pressure on Israel to do this in order to avoid setting a precedent that land swaps are an excuse for states to ‘get away’ with building illegal settlements and committing human rights abuses in occupied territories.
What areas should Israel give to Palestine?
A key demand from Palestinians is that any land which they are given should be of ‘comparable value’ – it would not be acceptable to offer uninhabitable land in Israel in exchange for land in the West Bank which can support settlements. This is one of the many reasons why the peace plan proposed by Donald Trump was doomed to fail, as it involved Palestine acquiring areas of the Negev desert in exchange for giving large portions of the West Bank to Israel. However, Israel would be unwilling to give up any land which is of cultural and historic significance, strategic importance or home to critical infrastructure. Therefore, determining what land should be exchanged requires finding land that is valuable enough to be a satisfactory compensation for land in the West Bank, but not of such great value that Israel would not accept losing it. Some have argued that it may be impossible to find enough land that meets all these conditions – Gideon Biger estimates that only 2.5% of Israeli land could feasibly be swapped. However, others are more optimistic – the Washington Institute proposes that up to 4.73% of land could be swapped.
A particularly viable proposal is transferring agricultural land as this land has economic value but not strategic value, meaning it can be an asset to the Palestinian state without compromising Israel’s security needs. Furthermore, Palestine gaining more agricultural land could help with their food shortages – 0.6 million Palestinians in the West Bank experience food insecurity. Additionally, a similar number experience limited access to water – Israel has access to 87% of water resources in the West Bank, leaving Palestinians with access to only 13%. Therefore, land swaps should also ensure that Palestinians have improved access to water, and perhaps areas with good quality water resources and water infrastructure should even be prioritised as areas to give to Palestine to improve access to water. This will be especially important if Palestine is to gain agricultural land, as water is vital in agriculture. A controversial issue is handing areas with settlements over to Palestine, such as the Umm al-Fahm first plan which proposed swapping Israeli land inhabited by Arab Israeli citizens. This caused concerns from many residents of these towns to such an extent that some young people are keen to move away due to fears that they will one day be living in a Palestinian state. Citizens also pointed out that they were not being treated the same as Israeli settlers in the West Bank, for whom Israel’s government is trying to ensure that they do not become part of a future Palestinian state. For these reasons, Israel should try as much as possible to avoid transferring settlements where possible, and in cases where settlements are transferred, people living in them should be well-informed and given plenty of notice to reduce uncertainty. They should be treated in exactly the same way as residents of West Bank settlements that will become part of Palestine – they should be offered compensation and the chance to relocate elsewhere in Israel or become permanent residents of Palestine.
Overall, navigating the complex geographic intricacies of land swaps may be difficult, but it is certainly possible. It has come close to happening in the past – former Israeli President Ehud Olmert revealed in his memoirs that he and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas came very close to a peace deal – and it can happen in the future, if there is political will. There will have to be a recognition that realism must precede idealism. Both sides must be willing to make compromises and recognise that not all their demands will be able to be met. Nevertheless, land swaps can work and, if done correctly, they can be the key to a future two-state solution.
