In the following blog, NCF Research Officer Arjun Singh reprises the peace process between Israel and Palestine, as it has been and as it is. With increased support amongst an ever larger minority of Palestinians and Israelis for a one-state solution, is a two-state solution still credible, and if so how should it be achieved? By negotiations that seek a complete solution, or by a phased step-by-step process, or indeed by an imposed solution acceptible to the dominant party (Israel) which might arguably be better than nothing?

United Nations Security Council

The United Nations Security Council has approved a number of resolutions over the years to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Resolution 242 was put forward after the 1967 Israel-Palestine war. At the time, it was seen as a significant cornerstone as it contained steps to resolve the conflict. It was designed to provide the framework for peace negotiations based on a “land-for-peace” formula and has loomed in the backround through all subsequent negotiations and peace treaties. The resolution calls for:

• Withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces from territories occupied in recent (1967) conflict

• Termination of all … states of belligerency and … acknowledgment of the sovereignty … of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.

• A just settlement of the refugee problem.

However, it has never been implemented. This is because both sides have different interpretations of what the resolution is. Palestine and neighbouring countries (Egypt, Jordan and Syria) believe that Israel has to give back all of the territory captured in the war. Until Israel did so, the Arab League agreed, it would have no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations. Israel insists Resolution 242 requires each of its neighbouring countries to recognize Israel’s right to exist before any negotiations over territories commence. This led to the breakdown of the implementation of resolution 242. This resolution was still, however, regarded by the UN Security Council as a roadmap to peace and thus in the difficult days of 1973, resolution 338 was introduced which was a reiteration of 242. It called on both parties to:

• Cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy.

• Start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts.

• Start negotiations under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

Despite both these resolutions being hailed as a roadmap to peace, no peace was agreed.

Arab Peace Initiative

As confrontation intensified, the Arab Peace Initiative was proposed in 2002 by Saudi King Abdullah at the Arab League summit. The Arab Peace Initiative is based on going back to 242 and 338 and thus inherits similar principles:

• Complete Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in 1967, including the Golan Heights, based on United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) 242 and 338;

• A just settlement of the Palestinian refugee question on the basis of UNSCR 194;

• Recognition of East Jerusalem as the capital of an independent Palestinian state.

While all these resolutions had good intentions, the vague language used and the apprehension both sides had, resulted in all these attempts being unsuccessful. Thus, there are three remaining ways forward for peace, three options: a negotiated peace, an imposed peace, and a staged or phased peace.

Negotiated peace

A negotiated peace is where countries involved in a war are actively talking to each other to try and resolve the conflict. While both countries have been unwilling to negotiate with each other in recent times, there was a negotiated peace attempt in 2008. In 2008, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas came close to outlining a shared vision of peace between their two nations—closer than the two sides had ever come. Those working behind the scenes in planning, organizing, and conducting the negotiation meetings, describe the interactions and events in public as a concerted effort to depict the “golden path” between the competing interests and opposing positions of the parties to reach a stable and viable settlement. The offer posed by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert included a near-total Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and a land link to the Gaza Strip. In addition, the Old City of East Jerusalem, home to Jewish and Arab holy sites, would have been under international control. It has been described as the most ‘far-reaching’ offer made by an Israeli Prime Minister to a Palestinian leader.

Ultimately, this negotiated peace failed. Palestine President Abbas said in an interview that he rejected the deal because he was not given the chance to study the map that spelled out Olmert’s offer. There have been many other speculations as to why this attempt failed. President Abbas at the time was facing scrutiny for the talks in the first place as it was opposed by Hamas and other militant groups and thus, he may have feared for his position. Also, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was also under investigation for corruption and would not remain for long as prime minister and thus President Abbas also feared that an implementation of such negotiated peace may not have been possible. Some insiders party to the discussions said that President Abbas was frightened to accept the limited deal he was being offered on the “right of return”. Whatever the reason this peach of a deal failed. Since this attempt in 2008, the conflict has become more volatile and the gaps between the two sides have grown and become increasingly entrenched. Thus, while a negotiated peace would be the most desirable outcome, it is the least likely option to happen at this stage.

Imposed peace

The difference between an imposed peace and a negotiated peace, is that an imposed peace is one in which Israel and other major powers agree on an outcome without the agreement of the Palestinians. It would involve Israel recognising the State of Palestine, but the terms would be imposed by Israel. An imposed peace has yet to be attempted for this conflict. However, due to an imposed peace being implemented merely on Israel’s terms, it would be the least desirable option out of the three but still better than the status quo. There is a sense in which many of the great peace deals have been imposed, rather than negotiated. For example Frederik Willem de Klerk, Former State President of South Africa, with his end to apartheid. But whether a Premier of Israel would have the strength to impose a peace settlement is debatable.

Staged Peace

A staged or phased peace is perhaps the most practical option as it has been attempted in the past. The first was the Oslo Accord in 1993. It represented a significant cornerstone as it was the first direct Israel-Palestine peace agreement. Then Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, signed the interim agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas. It included Palestine renouncing terrorism and recognizing Israel’s right to exist in peace. Israel also agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. The second accord signed 1995 went into more detail on how they sought to achieve these goals as it included the division of territory in the West Bank into Areas A, B and C, denoting how much control the Palestine Authority has in each. However, the Oslo Accords ultimately failed and Israel continued its presence in the majority of the West Bank. In addition, following Israeli Prime Minister Rabin’s death in 1995, a number of Israeli leaders who opposed the accords came to power.

This breakdown of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at high level led the United States to intervene again in early 1998. This came in the form of the Wye River Memorandum. The memorandum outlined an interim step-by-step process agreed by both sides. Upon completion of each phase of the Palestinian commitments, Israel was to transfer a specified percentage of land to the Palestinians within the context of ‘further redeployments’ as stated in previous agreements. As a result of this agreement, Israel withdrew from an additional 13 percent of the West Bank. However, the deal fell apart not long after the Wye River Memorandum was signed as conflict within the regions continued and as a result, Prime Minister Netanyahu suspended the agreement as well as the promises made.

Having said that, both Oslo and Wye River were supported at one point by both parties and although both fell apart, it represented a milestone in which both parties have come together in agreeing some sort of peace. Thus, a revised version of a staged peace like Wye River where both sides follow through with it, could provide a significant way forward in resolving this conflict. Either way, we need some sort of agreement in place because we simply can’t carry on the way things are and while all options covered may have their drawbacks, they are still significantly better than the status quo.

The Next Century Foundation’s most recent submission to the UN on the Mid East Peace Process can be found here.