Ever since the Six-Day War, Gaza and the West Bank have been presided over by Israel. The genesis of the conflict harkens back to Israel’s founding and the advent of the Arab nationalist and Zionist projects of the 19th century.
This analysis by Tomas Nordberg examines many of the initiatives that we have seen so far and why they have all failed to bring enduring peace to the region.
Israel´s Declaration of Independence speaks movingly of the Jewish quest for statehood and the fulfillment of the Zionist vision:
”In the year 1897 the First Zionist Congress, inspired by Theodor Herzl’s vision of the Jewish State, proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national revival in their own country. This right was acknowledged by the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, and re-affirmed by the Mandate of the League of Nations, which gave explicit international recognition to the historic connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home. The Nazi Holocaust, which engulfed millions of Jews in Europe, proved anew the urgency of the re-establishment of the Jewish state, which would solve the problem of Jewish homelessness by opening the gates to all Jews and lifting the Jewish people to equality in in the family of nations.”
Count Bernadotte imagined Palestine (including Transjordan) as a union comprised of a Jewish and an Arab member. The negotiating parties would together with the mediator decide on the boundaries between the members and the Boundary Commission would determine the specifics concerning the borders. And the Union would aim to: ”promote common economic interests, to operate and maintain common services, including customs and excise, to undertake development projects and to co-ordinate foreign policy and measures for common defence.” Importantly, Count Bernadotte emphasized ”religious and minority rights be fully protected by each member of the Union and guaranteed by the United Nations”.
Folke Bernadotte (who was later murdered by terrorists, one later to become the president of Israel) proposed the inclusion of the City of Jerusalem in Arab territory, with municipial autonomy for the Jews and certain dispositions with regard to the Holy Places. For this, he received much criticism. Israel had agreed to a ceasefire prior to Bernadotte arriving in the Holy Land. The Israeli public did not welcome the peacemaker´s suggestion to separate Jerusalem from the state of Israel given that it meant international authority over the city or, even less acceptable by the Jews, Arab governance. Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under international jurisdiction is a controversial idea, to say the least, in the Jewish state. However, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947 embodies this principle in that it contains the UNGA Partition Plan Map. And in November 1988 the Palestine National Council (PNC) (the PLO’s ”parliament”) declared the establishment of a Palestinian state on the legal footing of UN Resolution 18.
Various peace proposals with a focus on territorial arrangements have been put forward throughout the years, including to incorporate the whole or parts of the Negev in a Palestinian state. Count Bernadotte proposed that the whole or part of Western Galilee should be included in Jewish territory. Further, he controversially suggested to the Arab and Jewish negotiators that Jerusalem should be included in Arab territory, with municipal autonomy for the Jewish communitry and special arrangements for the protection of the Holy Places. The UN mediator underscored that Holy Places, religious buildings and sites must be preserved and that both parties to the conflict bear responsibility for guaranteeing the rights with respect to these places. And he insisted, equally controversially, on Israel recognizing the right of Palestinians who had left their places of residence due to the the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 to return to their homes with no restrictions and their right to regain their lost property.
The Cairo Agreement and the Oslo Framework
The Cairo Agreement of 1994 dealt with the Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, the transfer of authority from Israel to the Palestinian Authority (PA), the make-up of the PA and the relationship between Israel and the PA. Arafat famously initially refused to sign the maps at the signing ceremony. The Palestinians made it clear that they wanted all the trappings of statehood even if they didn´t have it formally. Israel and the Israeli negotiators, on the other hand, interpreted both the Cairo Agreement and the Oslo process as a devolution of powers. There were more specific disagreements as well, for instance related to the fact that the Palestinians didn´t want patrols at the crossings.
Uri Savir chronicles in his amazing book how 1100 days of peace talks ended in May of 1996. This was the month of his penultimate meeting with Abu Alaa as Head of the Israeli negotiating team. In 2003, Yossi Beilin published the draft of a permanent status agreement. Arafat approved the agreement, Israel did not. The Beilin-Abu Mazen Agreement of October 1995 incorporates many of the thoughts that have been the basis for subsequent negotiations and included in draft agreements on issues such as refugees, the status of Jerusalem, the legal status of the settlements and the principle of territorial exchange, or ”land for peace”. The Peres Center for Peace and Innovation, a leading force in the search for peace, supports peacemaking projects in the Holy Land and elsewhere. The IPNP (Israeli Palestinian Negotiation Partners) is especially intriguing since it builds on the negotiation philosophy of Harvard professor Roger Fischer.
In order to get to this kind of solution, we need brave leadership that understands that we can, should, and will achieve the two-state solution by employing a Joint Problem-Solving approach. Our current approach does not empower the moderates or diplomacy, but rather empowers Hamas, a terror organization.
I am proud to say that the Joint Problem-Solving approach and the win-win perspective is leading our vision and projects at the Peres Center for Peace and Innovation. Cooperation in medicine, education, business, entrepreneurship and the environment between Israelis and Palestinians and between Arabs and Jews within Israel is what we do every day in order to achieve peace and coexistence.”
It is clear under the Oslo Accords that the Israeli army is responsible for monitoring the terms of the agreements. Uri Savir and Yossi Beilin were not invited to subsequent negotiation rounds and Mr Beilin has lamented that he wasn´t able to convince then Prime Minister Shimon Peres to further certain terms of the agreements. It is imperative to understand that the Palestinians desiderated an agreement that would end the occupation and restore the national rights of their people. And they were willing to carry out security coordination with Israel.
The Fafo Institute was of central importance in the Oslo back channel negotiations. And individuals such as professor Saeb Erekat took on a leading part. Saeb Erakat was Chief Negotiator for the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo Process and he has remained in this capacity with brief interruptions. The Oslo channel consisted of secret diplomacy and of Norwegian diplomats creating a secret channel between Israel and PLO because the official, bilateral talks that were ongoing didn´t produce any results. The Norwegian foreign policy leadership wanted to talk directly with the PLO.
The Camp David Accords
US President Jimmy Carter invited Prime Minister Begin of Israel and President Sadat of Egypt to Camp David for negotiations in 1978. The first of the two agreements that were concluded was named ”A Camp David Accords: The Framework for Peace in the Middle East”. The agreement refers to Article 2 of the UN Charter, including Article 2 (3) which states: ”All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.” The agreement says in the Preamble: ”To achieve a relationship of peace, in the spirit of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, future negotiations between Israel and any neighbor prepared to negotiate peace and security with it are necessary for the purpose of carrying out all the provisions and principles of Resolutions 242 and 338.” The Palestinians were not a party to the agreement. The European Community (EC) voiced in 1979 that a two-state solution is required for sustained peace.
Israel withdrew its soldiers and evicted Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 under the so labelled Disengament Plan. Territorial control was transferred to the PA but Israel remained in charge of the seafront, access (except from the border crossing with Egypt) and airspace, including the deliverance of humanitarian assistance.
Peace through Territorial Arrangements: The Case of Secretary of State John Kerry
US Secretary of State John Kerry attempted to find a peaceful solution between the parties during the Obama administration. As facilitator, he tried to address all the core and final status issues and reach a final status agreement. Secretary of State Kerry focused on peace dividends and on convincing the parties that they both have an interest in the sucess of the other. Economic initiatives would strengthen the Palestinian economy which were to become a partner with Israel who would prosper. Sustainable peace with Arab and Muslim states would put an end to the charges that Israel was not a legit state. Security matters was dealt with by expanding the capacity of Palestinians to deal with these issues. Israel helped in improving conditions in the occupied territories which was appreciated by Palestinian security agencies and followed by a drop in attacks on Israelis.
Furthermore, the Arab League reconfirmed that they stand behind the Arab Peace Plan of 2002. And world leaders tried to convince the parties to seek peace based on this initiative. Kerry intended to facilitate sustained, continuous and substantive negotations on the core subjects such as how Jerusalem is to be divided up and the creation of a Palestinian state that respects human rights and is able to survive. Kerry is a firm believer in the two-state solution as the only sustainable way for a democratic and Jewish Israel to last.
President Obama did veto a UNSC Resolutions that condemned settlements
The US has traditionally been in opposition to settlements, a sentiment that is widely shared in the world community. The Palestinians try to take advantage of this to create a state of their own via international organisations. We saw how President Trump changed the bipartisan consensus since fifty years regarding settlements, paving the way for complete Israeli annexation of the West Bank. Kerry, on the other hand, had ever since he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee strived for bilateral negotiations between the parties with the US as a facilitator.
We must try to understand the legal context. The Geneva Conventions forbid a country that has taken over territory during an armed conflict to move its citizens into the territory of an occupied country. Israel accepted already in 1947 the notion of a Palestinian state but the Arabs refused this idea. The United Nations came up with the two-state solution which has been the basis for subsequent peace negotiations. It was argued that Jerusalem should be the capital of two states, a concept that President Bill Clinton incorporated in the Clinton Parameters. Under the UN plan, the Jewish sections would constitute the capital of Israel and vice versa for the state of Palestine. Of course Jerusalem in 1947 was a smaller city than it is now. Israel annexed large swaths of territory in 1967 to the north, south and east of Jerusalem, areas that were part of the West Bank but that Israel viewed as part of Jerusalem.
Back in 2002, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia made an attempt to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for ”full withdrawal from all the occupied territory, in accordance with UN resolutions, including in Jerusalem.” Israel asserts that the settlements are excogitated by the settlers with the intent of settling state land which is not owned by the Palestinians. The late Saeb Erekat worked all his life for what he called a comprehensive peace with an independent, sovereign Palestinian state and all Israelis and Palestinians living in peace, freedom and dignity. John Kerry worked with Saeb Erekat to resuscitate the Arab Peace Initiative. It aspires for Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and full normalization between the Arab States and Israel. Israel refused land swaps during the Obama Administration because it wanted to proceed with settlements. The Palestinian state would set up a postal service under the Arab Peace Initiative but it would not be allowed to control the borders of the state or have an army. It was glaringly obvious during Kerry´s negotiation rounds as a facilitator that the very border referred to in the Arab Peace Plan is missing.
The Clinton Parameters said that a Palestinian state should include 94-96 % of the West Bank and allowed for Israeli annexation of settlements in blocs, with 80 % of the settler population at the time. Further, the Parameters included Arab areas for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Jewish ones for the Israeli; temporary international and Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley and the long-term presence of three Israeli-controled ”early warning stations”; Palestinian sovereignty over its own airspace and return of refugees only to the Palestinian state. Gaza was not mentioned; however, President Clinton declared publiclty that the Palestinian state would include the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, Israel vowed to acknowledge the ”moral and material suffering caused to the Palestinian people by the 1948 war, and the need to assist the international community in addressing the problem”.
The main problem of this peace proposal was that it didn´t provide for a geographically contiguous Palestinian state. The Palestinian Negotiating Team (NAD) went as far as saying that the parameters divided the Palestinian state, including East Jerusalem, into separate cantons. The team also refused to relinquish the right to return. And it was naturally against the Israeli annexation of settlement blocs in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem. Interestingly, a Hebrew University opinion poll found in 2011 that 58% of Israelis and 50% of Palestinians supported a two-state solution based on the Clinton Parameters, compared with 47% of Israelis and 39% of Palestinians in 2003, the first year the poll was conducted.
Both sides did agree that a solution should be found along the lines of UNGA Resolution 242 and lead to the implementation of UNGA Resolution 194. The main critique levelled against the Clinton/Barak plan of 2001 was that it would afford Israel around nine percent of the West Bank, deprived the Palestinian state of good land and water and almost split the Palestinian state by Israeli annexation flowing east from Jerusalem.
Other Peace Mediators
Individuals have played and continue to play a vital role in peacemaking efforts. The Swedish jurist Emil Sandström was the Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) that produced the Palestine plan of partition with economic union in 1947, the so-called Sandström plan. The aforementioned Israeli legal adviser Joel Singer not only took on a leading role during the Oslo process but has worked for decades on a peaceful solution to the intractable conflict.
Another prolific Swedish mediator in the Middle East was Sten Andersson. Yassir Arafat visited Sweden in december of 1988 which raised controversy. But the hallmark of Foreign Minister Andersson´s approach was quiet diplomacy. Susanne Palme writes insightfully about FM Andersson´s central role in laying the basis for Arafat´s recognition of Israel´s right to exist which occurred in Geneva in 1988. This bestowed a mandate for the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza to commence negotiations with the Israeli government.Foreign Minister Andersson came up with a novelty at the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: a top secret task force to be devoted full time to the Middle East.
Shimon Peres was a disciple of David Ben Gurion, the founder of the Jewish state. Ben Gurion was of the opinion that Israel would not survive as a both democratic and Jewish state unless it gave back the land it occupied in 1967 to the Palestinians. He argued that the demographic realities would transform Israel into an Arabic nation if it annexed the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The United States contributes greatly to the process of finding peace in the Middle East. A telling example in financial terms is the support of the Quartet; the US being the single greatest contributor by far. Norway is the fifth largest single contributor, interestingly enough. The West Bank had been under Jordanian trusteeship and Jordanian law since 1950 and remained so, formally speaking, post 1967. But Arafat announced the birth of the state of Palestine on the 15h of November 1988. The Palestinian parliament in exile endorsed the two-states solution and accepted the two core UN Resolutions 242 and 338 the night before. Arafat held an almost mythical belief in ”the Swedish way” according to Sten Andersson. And the Swedish lack of geopolitical interests in the region contributed to it being accepted by both parties to the conflict.
The Abraham Accords: is this the way to peace?
The Abraham Accords constitute a joint declaration between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States, arrived at on August 13, 2020. They refer to the Israel-United Arab Emirates normalization agreement and the Bahrain-Israel normalization agreement. The joint statement of August 13, 2020 was the first public normalization of relations between Israel and an Arab state since that of Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. To label the accords peace agreements is counter-intuitive given that the countries involved have never fought a war with Israel. But other Arab states may very well trail the UAE and Bahrain. The Trump Administration facilitated the accords and it combined this initiative with a new peace plan for the Palestine question. The peace plan has largely been with met with distrust and it is actively opposed by the Palestinian leadership. It does make Israeli annexation of the West Bank more effortless.
Are other Arab countries going to follow in the footsteps of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and sign normalization agreements with Israel? And will the incoming Biden Administration take advantage of the more congenial atmosphere in the region to suggest a new attempt to make peace between Israel and the Palestinian state?
The Trump Administration
United States President Trump has by leaving many multilateral instruments and institutions made dispute resolution significantly more difficult. Other states have as a result resorted to unilateral means of dispute settlement more often. The Trump Adminstration has, by departing from the Optional Protocol on Compulsory Jurisdiction to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as a reaction to Palestine suing the United States under the Convention in September of 2018 concerning the change of residence to Jerusalem of the U.S. Embassy, left the floor wide open for future conflicts to be resolved by violent methods rather than legal. The embassy move coupled with the recognition of the Golan Heights as being part of Israel could very well cause Prime Minister Neanyahu to proceed with the annexation plans in the West Bank.
Annexation is a serious threat to the two-state solution and should be discouraged. It would cause Palestinians to seek refugee from the West Bank in Jordan. And it might jeopardize Jordan´s position as the caretaker of the Muslim holy places of worship in Jerusalem according to Article 9 of the peace treaty between it and Israel. Jordan must be engaged in peace talks. The Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of October, 26, 1994, established peace between the two countries. And the threat of Iran, which subsumes it trying to acquire nuclear weapons, should be dealt with by the US by returning to the JCPOA. The nature of the leading actors that must be dealt with on the Palestinian side complicates the picture. Egypt, another obligatory participant in peace negotiations, is fiercely opposed to Hamas which it claims is allied with the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas overtook the Gaza Strip from the PA in 2007. It is responsible for the launching of thousands or rockets and mortal shells which has hit southern Israeli cities and villages and disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israelis. The Israeli retaliatory attacks have caused mayhem on a large scale and the deaths of many civilians.
However, to many the Trump Administration´s ”Peace to Prosperity” plan seems misguided. The Palestinian state would under this framework consist of separated territories guarded by Israel and with up to 30 per cent of the West Bank annexed by Israel. The Arab Peace Initiative from 2002 is much more promising. This peace plan conditionalized normalization between Arab states and Israel on the completion of the occupation and the setting up of an independent Palestinian state. The Abraham Accords discourages Israel from meeting the Palestinians halfway. As a result, the two-state solution becomes more elusory.
Uri Savir wrote a groundbreaking editorial in the Jerusalem Post in 2014 on the need for a two-state solution. In this piece, the master negotiator presents a comprehensive outline for a peaceful unravelment of the conflict. Savir points out that the expansion of the settlements are the biggest threat. He writes: “Expanding and planning settlement housing is intended to prevent a two-state solution. Without a border, we are faced with the question of equal rights for Palestinian Arabs, including the right to vote. Equality is the furthest away from those people who treat Arabs not only as second-class citizens, but also as second-class human beings.” And he makes the well-founded claim that without an Palestinian state, Israel will cease to be a Jewish state, due to the population dynamics within Israel. Also, the occupation is not compatible with the founding of the Palestinian state.
In January 2020 President Donald Trump of the United States announced his peace plan for the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This plan allows for Israel to annex 30 percent of the West Bank and Netanyahu has initiated the annexation. Shimon Peres wanted a Palestinian state in Gaza and an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian conglomeration in the West Bank. One of the lessons of the Oslo negotiations is that a minor country like Norway cannot play a symmetric role in peacemaking. But the United States under Trump´s leadership failed to replicate earlier successes such as Henry Kissinger´s feat of orchestrating a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Five years earlier, 1974, saw Arafat approving a plan to gain a foothold in the region, administered by the PA.
Now, the question will of course be how Biden will act. Is he the president that could bring the long peace process to its completion, or will it be (failing) ”business as usual”?
Tomas Nordberg
