Non-proximity talks

In a speech on Sunday night at Tel Aviv University, Saeb Erekat, Chief Negotiator for the PA, claimed that the Palestinians are ready for a historic compromise. But, I beg to differ, as proximity talks are due to start, I believe it is impossible for Pres. Abbas of the PA to make any kind of deal with Israel. He is too weak, both in his own legitimacy (he ceased being President in Jan 2009 when he cancelled the PA elections), in his support from his own people and in the lack of representation of nearly half of the Palestinian people living in Gaza. The PA itself is on the point of collapse and may not survive long. And after all, every American President has had his own plan, and all of them have failed.

Everyone has their own "solution" to the Israel-Arab conflict. Here is my latest version. Instead of seeing this as a purely Israel-Palestinian conflict, rather see it as a wider Israel-Arab conflict in which all the Arab States are involved. This is because not only are they antagonistic to Israel to the point of being in a state of war (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.) but even those that have peace treaties with Israel (Egypt and Jordan) continuously attack Israel in all international agencies. Their involvement could greatly facilitate an overall peace. It seems impossible for the Palestinians to overcome their enmity to Israel and the so-called Arab (Saudi) Peace Plan could form a basis for negotiations. Israel has avoided meetings at which there are so many "enemies" present at one time for fear of being out-numbered, but eventually this may be the only way to break the logjam on peace. Waiting for the Palestinians to make peace, especially with the control of Gaza by Hamas, makes the proximal approach unworkable.

Now what should be the Israeli "peace plan"? It should be a "two-state solution" based on the international legitimacy of a Jewish State enshrined in the Balfour Declaration of the British Government of 1917, the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, the San Remo Conference of 1920, and the League of Nations endorsement of the British Mandate for Palestine of 1922. All of these provide a legal basis of the Jewish State in all of Palestine. Since the country of Jordan was unilaterally detached from the Palestine Mandate by the British in 1922 and it has achieved international legitimacy and is represented at the UN, then Jordan should be recognised by Israel as the Arab State portion of the "two state solution." Its name should be changed to "Palestine-Jordan." But, the West Bank and Gaza have never received such international recognition and remain in the same status as they were when the British captured those areas in 1917, i.e. part of the Jewish State.

In order to solve the overall situation, the Arab States should agree to allow a referendum under international auspices in the Palestine territories to enable each inhabitant to choose whether they want to become citizens of Israel, citizens of Jordan or to move to another Arab country. If they choose to become citizens of Jordan they can move to Jordan or continue to live in their present locations, but the land on which they live will become part of the sovereign State of Israel. If they don't accept this they will be free to move elsewhere with Arab and international financial support. This will "solve" the Arab-Israel conflict and remove the so-called refugee problem. If some Palestinians wish to move to the USA, Pres. Obama should agree to accept them and pay for their immigration, since he supports their human rights and wishes to see a solution of the dispute.

Now some of you might see this plan as hopelessly optimistic, since the Palestinians will never give up their fight to form another Arab State, and the other Arab States are afraid of the radicalization of the Palestinians (in fact Kuwait expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians after the First Gulf War for supporting Saddam Hussein). The oil rich Arab States have hardly spent any money on improving the settlement of the so-called refugees in Arab countries, rather allowing them to wallow in squalor. After all Israel successfully resettled the 850,000 Jewish refugees that reached Israel from Arab countries in 1948-9.

But, even though this "Cohen Plan" is not acceptable to the Arab States that does not mean that Israel should not formally endorse it, because the Arab Peace Plan is of course completely unacceptable to Israel, since it envisages a Palestinain State in the pre-1967 borders and the right of return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel. Somewhere between them might be an acceptable solution. I follow the view of Yehoshafat Harkabi, former Head of Israeli Intelligence who said "the Palestine situation will not be "solved", it will be "resolved" when there is an overlap of interests between the two sides and in ways that cannot be predicted." For example, Kind Abdullah might be overthrown by Palestinian elements in Jordan and then they might rename Jordan "Palestine." For example, the use of alternative energy sources (wind, sea, sun, plant) might in time reduce the West's dependence on Arab oil and reduce their influence on world affairs. Another unexpected change might be a solution of the Iranian conflict, either thru the overthrow of the Mullah-controlled Government, or sanctions, or a nuclear swap with Turkey and Brazil, or more likely military action. Israel will defeat Hizbollah and Hamas in a future Iran-inspired war and that would increase Israeli deterrence.

I see no reason why Israel should not propose its own maximal solution and then work towards it, if necessary imposing certain aspects when conditions are ripe. After all who is the stronger party. In international relations expediency rules.