Many people, including Israelis and Palestinians, are asking me what will happen
after September. The most accurate answer I can think of is
“October.”
The idea that whatever happens in September will produce
immediate changes on the ground is irresponsible because it raises expectations
to dangerous levels. The most important thing that should not happen after
September is a new round of violence. That should be avoided at all
costs, and both sides must take responsibility so that it does not
occur.
Prior to September, the best thing that could occur is for the
parties to return to the negotiating table. In order for that to take place,
there must be a seriously prepared table set up by responsible members of the
international community, led by the United States. The table must be set with
the parameters delineated by President Barack Obama last month in his two Middle
East speeches. My suggestion would be for the president, in the framework
of the Quartet, to issue invitations to the parties with those parameters
specifically framed as the terms of reference. The Quartet should also agree on
a new mediator to replace George Mitchell, whose task will be not only to
convene the talks but to serve as an active mediator in any dispute. The role of
the mediator must be to allow the parties to present their positions, and then
to propose bridging proposals.
The role of the mediator in such a
complicated negotiation is also to be the drafter of the agreement. Just as
president Jimmy Carter and his team used the “single-text negotiation” method at
Camp David I and successfully brought about agreement between Israel and Egypt,
so too the same approach is again necessary. After so many years of failed
negotiations, it is time to finally understand that in it takes three to tango,
not two. Israel and Palestine cannot do it alone.
IF THE parties should
not arrive at negotiations before September, then it is imperative that they
each take steps to prevent a return to a militarized intifada. It is always
important to remember that absolutely no political achievements were gained by
the second intifada. Thousands of people lost their lives, tens of thousands
were injured, billions of dollars were lost to both economies, the fear of each
other rose to almost unbridgeable levels, true hatred developed across both
societies, the children of the second intifada carry with them bitter, indelible
memories of those years, the peace camp in Israel was destroyed, Palestinian
society went deep into chaos, and the lawlessness of streets controlled by guns
took over. The achievements of the past several years, during which the
Palestinians have engaged in active state building, are too precious to be
destroyed by a return to lawlessness.
Nevertheless, and in recognition of
the urgent need to preserve the “two-states for two-peoples” solution, both
sides must take steps which are “out of the box.”
The government of
Israel should accept the Obama parameters because they will not improve in
Israel’s favor. Israel’s standing in the international community will continue
to deteriorate despite the support it has in the US Congress.
Assuming
the Palestinians are determined to bring the issue of “partition” back to the
United Nations and to formally request UN membership, the timetable is quite
tight. The 66th Ordinary Session of the General Assembly will open in
mid-September. A request for UN membership to the Secretary General should be
submitted at least 35 days prior to that, meaning by the end of July. The
Security Council will have 35 days to submit its recommendation to the General
Assembly. Time is short, and it is essential to match public expectations with
practical outcomes.
If by some miracle the US decides to abstain or to
vote in favor, the resolution will pass and Palestine will become a member of
the UN, which will make possible all kinds of legal and political means to
advance Palestinian interests (which I believe are also Israeli interests).
Non-membership resolutions in the General Assembly could also be useful, albeit
less powerful. In both cases, additional steps can be taken that will help end
the Israeli occupation and bring peace.
IF WE end up without a framework
for negotiations, the Palestinian leadership must articulate a clear strategy
that will lead to negotiations with a greater chance of reaching an end of the
occupation and a peace treaty. This should include the issuing of a Palestinian
declaration of peace with Israel, spelling out clearly the basis for
Palestinian-Israeli peace. That declaration should be the heart of a UN General
Assembly resolution to replace previous UN Resolutions 242 and 338 as the points
of reference for future negotiations. The Palestinian leadership,
together with the grassroots popular committees, need to develop a non-violent
strategy against the occupation and for peace.
If Palestine is to be a
state, it must behave like a state. It must remove the very symbols of Israeli
control that determine the existence of that control. One of the best examples
is to simply cease cooperating with the Israeli population registry. All births,
deaths and places of residence are essentially monitored and controlled by the
Israeli civil authority. The Palestinian government would simply issue new
identity cards with new numbers, and not share them with Israel. Obviously, that
would mean Palestinians would no longer be able to apply for permits to enter
Israel. If that is the price of freedom, so be it.
Palestinian leaders
should no longer accept that the Israeli authorities have closed roads and
blocked transportation. Palestinian state officials should themselves use
bulldozers to open road blocks for Palestinian traffic. Palestinian convoys of
hundreds of cars would ride on settler-only roads and settler bypass roads to
assert their authority over those roads.
The Palestinians should also
call on Israelis who want to end the occupation and bring peace to join them on
the front lines of their non-violent struggle. With mainstream Israelis
alongside them (that is Israelis who support the two-state solution), the
chances are much higher that violent Israeli responses will be
mitigated. For this to happen, the Palestinian non-violent struggle must
be
really non-violent, not “sort of non-violent” meaning that even stones should
not be thrown. It also means that there must be a clear articulation of the
goals of the struggle which verbalize not only the end of occupation, but also
peace between the two states on acceptable grounds to both sides. Many more
ideas can be offered to advance these goals; the more we talk about them and
define them the more likely we can shift the deadlock into positive movement
toward peace.
The writer is co-CEO of IPCRI, the Israel/Palestine Center
for Research and Information (www.ipcri.org) and founder of the Center for
Israeli Progress (http://israeli-progress.org).