Proposals for a Palestinian state

(see also Palestinian nationalism). (Key terms, events, and proposals are bolded)

[edit] The Mandate Period

The future of Palestine was contentious from the beginning of the Palestine Mandate since the British promised it as a "Jewish homeland.", even though most of the population were Arabs (though in some regions of the territory, most of which are now under Israeli control, Jews formed a majority). It was also, according to one common view, the subject of British promises to the Arabs (creation of a large Pan-Arab state; promised to the Sharif of Mecca in exchange for Arab help fighting the Ottoman Empire) during World War I. Therefore, it is not surprising that many different proposals have been made and continue to be made, including an Arab state, with or without a significant Jewish population, a Jewish state, with or without a significant Arab population, a single bi-national state, with or without some degree of cantonization, two states, one bi-national and one Arab, with or without some form of federation, and two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with or without some form of federation.

At the same times, many Arab leaders believed that Palestine should join a larger Arab state covering the imprecise region of the Levant. These hopes were expressed in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, which was signed by soon-to-be Iraqi ruler Faisal I and the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, which called for a Jewish homeland in Palestine amidst a larger Arab state. Despite this, the promise of a Pan-Arab state including Palestine were dashed as Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan declared independence from their European rulers, while Palestine festered in the developing Arab-Israeli Conflict.

In light of these developments, Palestinian Arabs began calling for both their own state in the British Mandate of Palestine and an end to the British support of the Jewish homeland's creation and to Jewish immigration. The movement gained steam through the 1920s and 1930s as Jewish immigration picked up. Under pressure from the arising nationalist movement, the British enforced the White Papers, a series of laws greatly restricting Jewish immigration and the sale of lands to Jews. The laws, passed in 1922, 1930, and 1939, varied in severity, but all attempted to find a balance between British sympathies with the Jews and the Arabs.

Finally, the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine led the British to create the Peel Commission, which produced the first concrete suggestion for a Palestinian state. The Commission's report published in 1937 called for a small Jewish state, an Arab state covering Judea, Samaria, and the barren Negev desert, and a British enclave stretching from Jerusalem to Yafo. The plan also called for a large population transfer. Jewish leaders accepted the plan, while Arab leaders rejected it and the two subsequent proposals offered by the Peel Commission.

World War II (1939–1945) gave a boost to the Jewish nationalism, as the Holocaust reaffirmed their call for a Jewish homeland. At the same time, some Arab leaders had even supported Nazi Germany, a fact which could not play well with the British.

[edit] 1947 UN Partition Plan

In 1947, the United Nations created the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to find an immediate solution to the Palestine question, which the British had handed over to the UN. As recommended by UNSCOP, the UN General Assembly approved what is known as the Partition Plan in Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947. The plan determined a specific date for the end of the British Mandate, May 15, 1948. More importantly, the proposal called for the creation of two states, while Jerusalem and Bethlehem would be placed under United Nations control.

Jewish leaders accepted the plan, while Arab leaders refused it. Large-scale fighting soon broke out between the Jews and the Arabs. King Abdullah I of Jordan met with a delegation headed by Golda Meir to negotiate terms for accepting the partition plan, but rejected its proposal that Jordan remain neutral. Indeed, the king knew that the nascent Palestinian state would soon be absorbed by its Arab neighbors, and therefore had a vested interest in being party to the imminent war.^[1] As the Mandate was set to end, the State of Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known to Israelis as the War of Independence and to Palestinians as the Nakba--the disaster. Almost immediately, Transjordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Arab Liberation Army declared war against Israel. Over the course of the war, scores of Arab settlements in the new state, mostly small villages, were depopulated due to a variety of often-disputed reasons, including expulsion by Jewish or Israeli troops, fear from attack, or encouragement by the British or Arab officials (see Palestinian exodus).

Meanwhile, Abdullah of Transjordan sent the Arab Legion into the West Bank with no intention of withdrawing it following the war. Egypt, for its part, annexed the Gaza Strip, the last remnant of the Palestinian state. The territory which Israel did not annex, Palestine's allies had taken in its place.^[2] As the Palestinian writer Hisham Sharabi would observe, Palestine had "disappeared from the map."^[3]

[edit] Under Arab rule

At war's end in 1949, Jordan had conquered and annexed the West Bank of the Jordan River, including Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Egypt took control of the narrow Gaza Strip, while Israel controlled the rest of the British Mandate.

King Abdullah I of Jordan decided to grant citizenship to the Palestinian refugees and residents living in the West Bank against the wishes of many Palestinian leaders who still hoped to establish a Palestinian state. Under Abdullah's leadership, Palestinian hopes of independence were dealt a severe blow. In March he issued a royal decree forbidding the use of the term "Palestine" in any legal documents, and pursued other measures designed to make the fact that there would not be an independent Palestine clear and certain.^[4]

In Gaza, a government calling itself the All-Palestine Government formed, even before the war's end in September 1948. The government, under the leadership of the Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, declared the independence of the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. The All-Palestine Government would go on to be recognized by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, while Jordan and the other Arab states refused to recognize it.

In practice, the All-Palestine government was only a publicity stunt, as it was given no real authority by the Egyptian government. In 1959, Egypt's new leader Gamal Abdul Nasser ordered the dismantling of the All-Palestine Government, yet notably refused to grant Palestinians in Gaza Egyptian citizenship.

[edit] The Six-Day War

In June 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and area known as the Golan Heights from Syria during the Six-Day War. The State of Israel, which was ordered to withdraw from some of the conquered territories and negotiate final borders by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, annexed neither Gaza nor the West Bank, except for East Jerusalem.

Jordan continued to have economic influence over the West Bank until the 1980s, when King Hussein unilaterally cut the link between his kingdom and its residents and the Palestinians of the West Bank.

[edit] The PLO and the State of Palestine

Before the Six-Day War, the movement for an independent Palestine received a boost in 1964 when the Palestine Liberation Organization was established. Its goal, as stated in the Palestinian National Covenant was to create a Palestinian state in the whole British Mandate, a statement which nullified Israel's right to exist.

The PLO would become the leading force in the Palestinian national movement both politically and in the field of terrorism, and its leader, Yassir Arafat, would become regarded as the leader of the Palestinian people.

In 1974, the PLO adopted the Ten Point Program, which notably called for the establishment of an Israeli-Palestinian democratic, bi national state. But despite this peaceful and egalitarian guise, the ultimate goal was "completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory, and as a step along the road to comprehensive Arab unity." The program led many hard-line groups to break away from the Arafat and the mainstream PLO members, a split which is still evident today.

[edit] Proposals for Arab or Jewish states in the early mandate period

• The 1937 Peel Commission proposal. A British Royal Commission led by Lord Peel examined the Palestine question beginning late in 1936. Its report, published in July 1937, recommended the creation of a small Jewish state in a region less than 1/5 of the total area of Palestine. The remainder was to be joined to Transjordan except for some parts, including Jerusalem, that would remain under British control. The Arab population in the Jewish areas was to be removed, by force if necessary, and vice versa, although this would mean the movement of far more Arabs than Jews. The Zionist leaders accepted the proposal, while the Arab leadership rejected the proposal outright. Two more partition plans were also considered: Plan B (map) and Plan C (map). It all came to nothing, as the British government had shelved the proposal altogether by the middle of 1938. In February 1939, the St. James Conference convened in London, but the Arab delegation refused to formally meet with its Jewish counterpart or to recognize them. The Conference ended on March 17, 1939 without making any progress. On May 17, 1939, the British government issued the White Paper of 1939, in which the idea of partitioning the Mandate was abandoned in favor of Jews and Arabs sharing one government and put strict quotas on further Jewish immigration. Due to impending World War II and the opposition from all sides, the plan was dropped.
• The Zionist Biltmore Conference of 1942
• Independence of Israel on May 15th, 1948
• Various proposals made in 1947

• United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947 establishing two states west of the Jordan River: Israel and Palestine. Once again, however, the Arab leadership rejected the proposal, which was accepted by the Zionist leadership.
• The All-Palestine government. In September 1948, partly as an Arab League move to limit the influence of Jordan over the Palestinian issue, a Palestinian government was declared in Gaza. The former mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was appointed as president. On October 1, the All-Palestine government declared an independent Palestinian state in all of Palestine region with Jerusalem as its capital. This government was recognised by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, but not by Jordan or any non-Arab country. However, it was little more than a facade under Egyptian control and had negligible influence or funding. Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip or Egypt were issued with All-Palestine passports until 1959, when Gamal Abdul Nasser, president of Egypt, annulled the All-Palestine government by decree.
• Various declarations of Palestinian independence
• During the 1978 Camp David negotiations between Israel and Egypt Anwar Sadat proposed the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel refused.

[edit] Current proposals

The current position of the Palestinian Authority as well as Israel is that some portion of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip should form the basis of a future Palestinian state. For additional discussion, see Palestinian territories.

The main discussion during the last fifteen years has focused on turning most or the whole of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into an independent Palestinian state. This was the basis for the Oslo accords and it is favoured by the U.S. The status of Israel within the 1949 Armistice lines has not been the subject of international negotiations. Some members of the PLO recognize Israel's right to exist within these boundaries; others hold that Israel must eventually be destroyed. Consequently, some Israelis hold that Palestinian statehood is impossible with the current PLO as a basis, and needs to be delayed.

The specific points and impediments to the establishment of a Palestinian state are listed below. They are a part of a greater mindset difference. Israel declares that its security demands that a Palestinian entity would not have all attributes of a state, at least initially, so that in case things go wrong, Israel would not have to face a dangerous and nearby enemy. Israel may be therefore said to agree (as of now) not to a complete and independent Palestinian state, but rather to a self-administering entity, with partial but not full sovereignty over its borders and its citizens.

The central Palestinian position is that they have already compromised greatly by accepting a state covering only the areas of the West Bank and Gaza. These areas are significantly less territory than allocated to the Arab state in UN Resolution 181. They feel that it is unacceptable for an agreement to impose additional restrictions (such as level of militarization, see below) which, they declare, makes a viable state impossible. In particular, they are angered by significant increases in the population of Israeli settlements and communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the interim period of the Oslo accords. Palestinians claim that they have already waited long enough, and that Israel's interests do not justify depriving their state of those rights that they consider important. The Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a territorially disjointed state. It is feared that it would face difficulties similar to Bantustans.

[edit] Peace process

A peace process has been in progress in spite of all the differences and conflicts.

In the 1990s, outstanding steps were taken which formally began a process the goal of which was to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict through a two-state solution. Beginning with the Madrid Conference of 1991 and culminating in the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Palestinians and Israelis, the peace process has laid the framework for Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and in Gaza. According to the Oslo Accords, signed by Yassir Arafat and then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in Washington, Israel would pull out of the Gaza Strip and cities in the West Bank, leaving contested East Jerusalem in question.

Following the landmark accords, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was established to govern those areas from which Israel was to pull out. The PNA was granted limited autonomy over a non-contiguous area, though it does govern most Palestinian population centers.

The process stalled with the collapse of the Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel.

Despite these important advancements, the Al-Aqsa Intifada brought the peace process to a screeching halt. Israel ceased to act in cooperation with the PNA and later on would occupy some Palestinian cities anew. In the shadow of the rising death toll from the violence, the United States initiated the Road Map for Peace (published on June 24, 2002), which is intended to end the Intifada by dearming the Palestinian terror groups and creating an independent Palestinian state. The Road Map has stalled awaiting the implementation of the step required by the first phase of that plan.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip as part of the Disengagement Plan, which was seen as a move toward creating an independent Palestinian state.

[edit] Historical views

[edit] Israeli views

The traditional Israeli view has been that there is no such thing as a separate Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs, at least historically. The borders of historical Palestine and surrounding countries were arbitrarily determined and there are already several Arab nations. Therefore, it is unreasonable to demand that Israel should have any responsibility or part in establishing a nation for them. This is summarized by the famous statement of Israeli Prime Minister (1969-74) Golda Meir: "There was no such thing as Palestinians ... It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." This view was also expressed by some Arab leaders. Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, a local Arab leader said to the Peel Commission, "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria." Additionally to this there is believed to be a wealth of evidence that during the years of British restriction on Jewish immigration to Palestine, there was large scale unrestricted Arab migration/immigration to Palestine.

Over time, the attitudes of the Israeli people have changed somewhat. According to polls, the majority of Israelis have now come to accept the likelihood that a Palestinian state will eventually be created.

[edit] Arab views

Many Arabs have supported and some continue to support the creation of a united Arab state encompassing all Arab peoples including Palestine, so that no independent Palestinian state would exist, but this became a minority view amongst Palestinians during the British Mandate and after 1948 became rare. It is still an opinion expressed regularly in the Arab states outside Palestine (especially Syria due to its attachment to the Greater Syria Movement which was launched in 1944 to establish a "Syrian Arab" state that would include Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine.) However, it is generally recognised that such a development has become implausible under current political realities and even those who might favor it in some circumstances support an independent Palestinian state as the most achievable option.

Syria joined Egypt in founding the United Arab Republic (UAR) in 1958 during a period of Pan-Arabism as the first step toward the recreation of Pan-Arab state. The UAR was to include, among others, Palestine. The UAR disintegrated into its constituent states in 1961.

Egypt held Gaza and Jordan annexed the West Bank between 1948 and 1967. During those years, Egyptian President Nasser created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964 to help to destroy Israel. In 1968 Fatah was formed in Damascus, Syria with similar aims.

[edit] Declaration of the state in 1988

A declaration of a "State of Palestine" (Arabic: دولة فلسطين) took place in Algiers on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The proclaimed "State of Palestine" is not and has never actually been an independent state, as it has never had sovereignty over any territory in history.

Currently, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), along with the United States, the European Union, and the Arab League, envision the establishment of a State of Palestine to include all or part of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, living in peace with Israel under a democratically elected and transparent government. The PNA, however, does not claim sovereignty over any territory and therefore is not the government of the "State of Palestine" proclaimed in 1988.

The 1988 declaration was approved at a meeting in Algiers, by a vote of 253-46, with 10 abstentions. The declaration invoked the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in support of its claim to a "State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem". The proclaimed "State of Palestine" was recognized immediately by the Arab League, and about half the world's governments recognize it today. It maintains embassies in these countries (which are generally PLO delegations). The State of Palestine is not recognized by the United Nations, although the European Union, as well as most member states, maintain diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority, established under the Oslo Accords. Leila Shahid, envoy of the PNA to France since 1984, was named in November 2005 representant of the PNA for Europe.

The declaration is generally interpreted to have recognized Israel within its pre-1967 boundaries, or was at least a major step on the path to recognition. Just as in Israel's declaration of independence, it partly bases its claims on UN GA 181. By reference to "resolutions of Arab Summits" and "UN resolutions since 1947" (like SC 242) it implicitly and perhaps ambiguously restricted its immediate claims to the Palestinian territories and Jerusalem. It was accompanied by a political statement that explicitly mentioned SC 242 and other UN resolutions and called only for withdrawal from "Arab Jerusalem" and the other "Arab territories occupied."^[5] Yasser Arafat's statements in Geneva a month later were accepted by the United States as sufficient to remove the ambiguities it saw in the declaration and to fulfill the longheld conditions for open dialogue with the United States.

[edit] Obstacles to establishing a Palestinian state

Main article: Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Major issues between the two sides

Image:Text-x-generic.svg

This article or section seems to contain embedded lists that may require cleanup. To meet Wikipedia's style guidelines, please help improve this article by: removing items which are not notable, encyclopedic, or helpful from the list(s); incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article; and discussing this issue on the talk page.

Imported material (to stay) ==Major issues between the two sides==

See also: Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Since the Oslo Accords, finalized in 1993, the government of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) have been officially committed to an eventual two-state solution. However, there are many major issues which remained unresolved between the two parties.^[6][7][8]

[edit] The status of the occupied territories

See also: Israeli-occupied territories, West_bank#Status, and Positions on Jerusalem

The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem—territories which Israel conquered from Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War—are the subject of contentious legal, ethical and political dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. ^[9][10]

Occupied Territories is the official term used by virtually all actors in the conflict.^{[citation needed]} The Israeli government uses the term Disputed Territories, to indicate its position that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967. ^{[11] [12]} The area is still referred to as Judea and Samaria by some Israeli groups, based on the historical regional names from ancient times.

Jerusalem is a prominent site of dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel demands that Jerusalem be recognised as their official capital^{[citation needed]} (the very name "Zionism" is derived from Zion, one of Jerusalem's names),^{[citation needed]} whereas Palestinians demand that East Jerusalem be recognized as their official capital,^{[citation needed]} calling for Jerusalem as a whole to be an open city.^{[citation needed]} A border passing inside the Old City is likely to displease both Jews and Arabs, since in addition to not settling the two sides' claims for the city, it would lead to difficulties in everyday life. Israel agrees to a compromise in Jerusalem, in which Israel has sovereignty over East and West Jerusalem but civil administration of the city's east is in Palestinian hands.^{[citations needed]} Some groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, favor giving the city a special international status independent of either Israel or a Palestinian state, as was proposed by the 1947 UN Partition Plan.^{[citations needed]}

In 1980, Israel outright annexed East Jerusalem.^[13] The United Nations rejected this annexation on August 20 of that year. ^[14] Israel has never annexed the West Bank or Gaza Strip, and the United Nations has demanded the "[t]ermination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" and that Israeli forces withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict" - the meaning and intent of the latter phrase is disputed. See United Nations Security Council Resolution 242#Semantic dispute.

It has been the position of Israel that the most Arab-populated parts of West Bank (without major Jewish settlements), and the entire Gaza Strip must eventually be part of an independent Palestinian State. However, the precise borders of this state are in question. In 2000, for example, Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat an opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian State composed of the entire Gaza Strip and 92% of the West Bank. Due to security restrictions, and Barak's opposition to a broad right of return, Arafat refused this proposal.^[15]

Some Palestinians claim they are entitled to all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Israel says it is justified in not ceding all this land, due to security concerns, and also because the lack of any valid diplomatic agreement at the time means that ownership and boundaries of this land is open for discussion.^[16] Palestinians claim any reduction of this claim is a severe deprivation of their rights. In negotiations, they claim that any moves to reduce the boundaries of this land is a hostile move against their key interests. Israel considers this land to be in dispute, and feels the purpose of negotiations is to define what the final borders will be.

Other Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, insist that Palestinians must control not only the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem, but also all of Israel proper. For this reason, Hamas views the peace process "as religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable."^[17]

[edit] Holy places

Main articles: Western wall and Temple mount

Israel has grave concerns regarding the welfare of Jewish holy places under possible Palestinian control. When Jerusalem was under Jordanian control, no Jews were allowed to visit the Western Wall. In 2000, a Palestinian mob took over Joseph's Tomb, a shrine considered sacred by both Jews and Muslims, looted and burned the building, and turned it into a mosque. There are unauthorized Palestinian excavations for construction on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which could threaten the stability of the Western Wall. Israel, on the other hand, has seldom blocked access to holy places sacred to other religions, and never permanently. Israeli security agencies routinely monitor and arrest Jewish extremists that plan attacks, resulting in almost no serious incidents for the last twenty years. Moreover, Israel has given almost complete autonomy to the Muslim trust (Waqf) over the Temple Mount.

Palestinians have grave concerns regarding the welfare of Christian and Muslim holy places under Israeli control. They point to the several attacks on the Al-Aqsa Mosque (Masjid al Aqsa) since 1967, including a serious fire in 1969, which destroyed the south wing, and the discovery, in 1981, of ancient tunnels under the structure of the mosque which some archaeologists believe have weakened the building structures on the Al Aqsa (Haram ash-Sharif). In the ensuing confrontations, more than 70 Palestinians died [3]. Some advocates believe that the tunnels were re-opened with the intent of causing the mosque's collapse. The Israeli government claims it treats the Muslim and Christian holy sites with utmost respect (see previous paragraph).

[edit] Mutual recognition

The Oslo peace process was based upon Israel ceding authority to the Palestinians to run their own political and economic affairs. In return, it was agreed that Palestinians would promote peaceful co-existence, renounce violence and promote recognition of Israel among their own people.^[18] Despite Yasser Arafat's official renouncement of terrorism and recognition of Israel, some Palestinian groups continue to practice and advocate violence against civilians and do not recognize Israel as a legitimate political entity.^[6][8] Simultaneously, at the time of Hamas's victory in the 2006, polls indicated that 66% of Palestinians supported mutual recognition and a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.^{[citation needed]}

It is widely felt among Israelis that Palestinians did not in fact promote acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Palestinians respond that their ability to spread acceptance of Israel was greatly hampered by Israeli restrictions on Palestinian political freedoms, economic freedoms, civil liberties, and quality of life. Many feel that their own opposition to Israel was justified by Israel's apparent stifling of any genuine Palestinian political and economic development.^[19]

Israel cites past concessions, such as Israel’s disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August, 2005, which did not lead to a reduction of attacks and rocket fire against Israel, as an example of the Palestinian people not accepting Israel as a state. Palestinian groups and Israeli Human Rights organizations (namely B'tzellem) have pointed out that while the military occupation in Gaza was ended, the Israeli government still retained control of Gaza's airspace, territorial water, and borders, legally making it still under Israeli control. Practically, they also point out that mainly thanks to these restrictions, the Palestinian quality of life in the Gaza Strip has not improved since the Israeli withdrawal. Furthermore, given that the Israeli army has run incursions into the Gaza Strip on various occasions, closed off its borders, and placed an embargo on the region, the Gazan economy has since gone into free fall. This has led and continues to result in warnings of the Palestinian population becoming more radicalized unless conditions improve.

Many significant Palestinian militant groups refuse to recognize Israel's existence, based on their belief that Israel has repeatedly taken Palestinian resources and violated their perceived rights. Based on this, they seek to destroy Israel at some point in the future. It is unclear how much popular support they have. In response, some Israeli groups and individuals oppose any territorial or political concessions to Palestinians.

[edit] The question of Palestinian refugees

See also: Palestinian Right of Return, Palestinian refugee, and Palestinian Exodus

The number of Palestinians who fled Israel following its creation and their descendants now stands at around four million.^[20]

Palestinian negotiators^[who?] have so far insisted that refugees, and all their descendants, from the 1948 and 1967 wars have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967, including those within the 1949 Armistice lines, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 as evidence.

The Arab summit of 2002 declared that it proposed the compromise of a "just resolution" of the refugee problem, to include the option of compensation in lieu of return.^{[citation needed]} It is not currently understood what is meant by "just resolution"; a similar concept was offered by the Israeli government, but rejected outright by the Palestinians in the Summer 2000 Camp David negotiations.

Left-wing Israelis are open to compromise on the issue, by means such as the monetary reparations and family reunification initiatives offered by Ehud Barak at the Camp David 2000 summit. However, the majority of Israelis find a comprehensive right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable. The HonestReporting organization listed the following grounds for this opposition:

• Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled, but voluntary. After seven Arab nations declared war on Israel in 1948, many Arab leaders encouraged Palestinians to flee, in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state. This point, however, is a matter of some contention. Certain actions on the part of Jewish militias were considered to provoke Palestinians to leave Israel. Eye witness accounts from Ain al-Zeitoum and Er-Rama, for example, record that the Palmach assembled all of their residents following the villages' surrender. The Jewish militia then demanded that all Muslim residents depart for Lebanon, and leave their possessions behind, under pain of death.^[1] Still, such cases were relatively rare, and the vast majority of Palestinians fled of their own accord.^[21] Since most Palestinians chose their status as refugees themselves, some argue that Israel is therefore absolved of responsibility.^[21] In fact, a 1952 memorandum submitted to the League of Arab States by the Higher Arab Committee reveals that Arab states officially agreed to take responsibility for these refugees at the height of the Palestinian exodus, until such time as Israel would be destroyed:

Arab leaders and their ministries in Arab capitals ... declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine.^[22]

• There is no legal basis to demand repatriation of Palestinian refugees and their descendents. No international legislation, UN resolutions or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians require this.^[23]
• Historical legal precedent from the Middle East supports this contention. Since none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders—a precedent has been set whereby it is the responsibility of the nation which accepts the refugees to assimilate them.^[24]
• Most Israelis hold^{[weasel words]} that the inflow of millions of poor refugees (almost none of whom were properly integrated by the surrounding Arab countries) will simply exceed the region's dwindling resources.^{[citation needed]}
• Although Israel accepts the right of the Palestinian Diaspora to return into a new Palestinian state,^{[citation needed]} their return into Israel would be a great danger for the stability of the Jewish state; an influx of Palestinian refugees would lead to the destruction of the state of Israel.^{[citation needed]} Because a right of return would make Arabs the majority within Israel, this would essentially seal the fate of the Jewish state. As Fatah explains: “To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state.”^[25][24]

Palestinian and international authors have justified the right of return of the Palestinian refugees on several grounds^[26][27][28]:

• Several authors included in the broader New Historians assert that the Palestinian refugees were chased out or expelled by the actions of the Haganah, Lehi and Irgun^[29]. A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948 affirms that:

"At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases...^[30][31][32]

• The traditional Israeli point of view arguing that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian Arabs to flee has also been disputed by the New Historians, which instead have shown evidence indicating Arab leaders' will for the Palestinian Arab population to stay put^[33] .
• The Israeli Law of Return that grants citizenship to any Jew from anywhere in the world is viewed by some as discrimination towards non-Jews and especially to Palestinians that cannot apply for such citizenship nor return to the territory from which they were displaced or left^{[34][35][36][37]}.
• The strongest legal basis on the issue is UN Resolution 194, adopted in 1948. It states that, "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." UN Resolution 3236 "reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return". Resolution 242 from the UN affirms the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem," however, Resolution 242 does not specify that the "just settlement" must or should be in the form of a literal Palestinian right of return^[38][39].

[edit] Israeli settlements

Main article: Israeli settlements

In the years following the Six-Day War, and especially in the 1990s during the peace process, Israel re-established communities destroyed in 1929 and 1948^{[citations needed]} as well as established numerous new settlements on the West Bank.^{[citation needed]} These settlements (which Palestinians and most international observers regard as illegal)^{[citations needed]} are now home to about 350,000 people.^{[citation needed]} Most of the settlements are in the western parts of the West Bank, while others are deep into Palestinian territory, overlooking Palestinian cities. These settlements have been the site of much intercommunal conflict.^{[citations needed]}

Insistence by some Palestinians^{[weasel words]} that all Jewish communities within the territories to be part of a Palestinian state be removed. This includes ancient communities (Hebron), communities destroyed in 1948 and since re-established (Gush Etzion), and settlements established since 1967. The Palestinian position on the Jews of the Old City of Jerusalem is unclear.^{[citations needed]}

The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and, until 2005, the Gaza Strip have been described as an obstacle to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, by the international media;^[40][41] as well as the international political community (including the US^[42], the UK^[43], and the EU^[44]). These actors have also called the settlements illegal under international law,^[45] however Israel disputes this.^[46] Furthermore, the ICJ^[47] as well as international and Israeli human rights organizations^[48] consider the settlements illegal. Whilst several scholars and commentators disagree, citing recent historical trends to back up their argument, ^[49][50][51] it has not changed the view of the international community and human rights organizations.

As of 2006, 267,163 Israelis lived within the West Bank and East Jerusalem.^[52] The establishment and expansion of these settlements in the West Bank and (at the time, the) Gaza Strip have been described as violations of the fourth Geneva Convention by the UN Security Council in several resolutions. The European Union^[53] and the General Assembly of the United Nations^[54] consider the settlements to be illegal. Proponents of the settlements justify their legality using arguments based upon Article 2 and 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 242.^[55] On a practical level, some objections voiced by Palestinians are that settlements divert resources needed by Palestinian towns, such as arable land, water, and other resources; and, that settlements reduce Palestinians' ability to travel freely via local roads, owing to security considerations.

In 2005, Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, a proposal put forward by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was enacted. All Jewish residents in the Gaza strip were evacuated, and all residential buildings were demolished.^[56]

Various mediators and various proposed agreements have shown some degree of openness to Israel retaining some fraction of the settlements which currently exist in the West Bank; this openness is based on a variety of considerations, such as: the desire to find real compromise between Israeli and Palestinian territorial claims, ^{[57] [58]} Israel's position that it needs to retain some West Bank land and settlements as a buffer in case of future aggression, ^[59] and Israel's position that some settlements are legitimate, as they took shape when there was no operative diplomatic arrangement, and thus they did not violate any agreement. ^{[11] [12] [60]}

President George Bush has stated that he does not expect Israel to return entirely to the 1949 armistice lines, due to "new realities on the ground. ^[61] One of the main compromise plans put forth by the Clinton Administration would have allowed Israel to keep some settlements in the West Bank, especially those which were in large blocs near the pre-1967 borders of Israel. In return, Palestinians would have received some concessions of land in other parts of the country. ^[62]

[edit] Israeli security

Further information: Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Without the West Bank, Israel would be only nine miles across at its narrowest point, close to its greatest population center.^[63] Many fear that this would leave it vulnerable to any future attacks by an Arab alliance. Moreover, such an army would be fighting from the higher ground of the West Bank,^[64] and would find its invasion made easier, since it would not have to cross the Jordan River.^{[citation needed]}

The threat of Qassam rockets fired from the Palestinian Territories into Israel is also of great concern. In 2006--the year following Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip--the Israeli government recorded 1,726 such launches, more than four times the total rockets fired in 2005.^[65] Many Israelis see this as evidence that greater Palestinian autonomy necessarily comes at the expense of Israel's ability to defend itself against threats from the Palestinian territories.^[66]

Contrarily, many maintain that Israeli concessions will result in reduced friction between Israelis and Palestinians, and that this will in turn bring about a reduction of violence.^[66]

[edit] The division of resources

Further information: Water Politics in the Middle East

Palestinians note, as one of their most central concerns, that their society must be given land and resources with enough contiguity to give them a viable society, and that they must therefore not be forced to give up too many resources to Israel, as this may cause economic collapse.

In the Middle East, water is a resource of great political concern. Since Israel receives much of its water from two large aquifers which are sprawled across Green Line, the use of this water has been contentious in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since some of the wells used to draw this water lie within the Palestinian Authority areas, there are many who question the legality of using their water for Israeli needs.^[67][68][69]

But critics of this argument point out that even though Israel withdraws some water from these areas, it also supplies the West Bank with 40 MCMs--77% of its consumption. While Israel's consumption of this water has decreased since it began its occupation of the West Bank, it still consumes the vast majority of it: in the 1950s, Israel consumed 95% of the water output of the Western Aquifer, and 82% of that produced by the Northeastern Aquifer. This water was drawn entirely on Israel's own side of the pre-1967 border. By 1999, these numbers had declined to 82% and 80%, respectively.^[67][68][69]

Finally, Israel cites the Oslo II Accord. In this treaty, both sides agreed to maintain "existing quantities of utilization from the resources." In so doing, the Palestinian Authority established unequivocally the legality of Israeli water production in the West Bank. Moreover, Israel obligated itself in this agreement to provide water to supplement Palestinian production, and further agreed to allow additional Palestinian drilling in the Eastern Aquifer. Many Palestinians counter that the Oslo II agreement was intended to be a temporary resolution, and that it was not intended to remain in effect more than a decade later. Indeed its name is "The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement."^[70]

This agreement also established the right of the Palestinian Authority to explore and drill for natural gas, fuel and petroleum within its territory and territorial waters. It also delineated the major terms of conduct regarding regulations on the parties' facilities.^[70]

[edit] House demolition in the occupied territories

Main article: House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

A factor in the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is the demolition of homes in the areas conquered in the 1967 Six-Day War. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have demolished and continue to demolish Palestinian homes in the occupied territories. The reasons for these demolitions are a subject of heated dispute.^[71]. Israel justifies the demolition of Palestinian homes on the grounds of deterrence against alleged terrorists and their families and as a means of counter-terrorism and as self-defense to protect Israeli citizens.^[72][73] Human Rights groups such as Amnesty International oppose the demolitions claiming they are in violation of international law, and accuse the Israelis of Collective punishment against innocent Palestinians and annexation of Palestinian land for the benefit of Israeli settlements^[74][75].

Old material (to be merged into above material)

Note that the materials in this section are mainly based on the Israeli ([4], [5]) and Palestinian ([6],[7]) positions during the ill-fated Camp David negotiations.

[edit] Trust

The violent conflicts and massacres of the period before the founding of the State of Israel and the decades of terrorism or political violence (most of it against civilians) and living as refugees under foreign governments has left both sides with little trust that the other will fulfill any commitments undertaken in an agreement.

[edit] Borders and international status

In the past Israel has demanded control over border crossings between the Palestinian territories and Jordan and Egypt, and the right to set the import and export controls, asserting that Israel and the Palestinian territories are a single economic space.

Palestinians insist on contiguous territory which will in turn rupture the existing territorial contiguity of Israel. In the interim agreements reached as part of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority has received control over cities (Area A) while the surrounding countryside has been placed under Israeli security and Palestinian civil administration (Area B) or complete Israeli control (Area C). Israel has built additional highways to allow Israelis to traverse the area without entering Palestinian cities. The initial areas under Palestinian Authority control are diverse and non-contiguous [8]. The areas have changed over time because of subsequent negotiations, including Oslo II, Wye River and Sharm el-Sheik. According to Palestinians, the separated areas make it impossible to create a viable nation and fails to address Palestinian security needs; Israel has expressed no agreement to withdrawal from some Areas B, resulting in no reduction in the division of the Palestinian areas, and the institution of a safe pass system, without Israeli checkpoints, between these parts. Because of increased Palestinian violence to occupation this plan is in abeyance. The number of checkpoints has increased; resulting is more suicide bombings since the early summer of 2003. Neither side has publicized a proposal for a final map. (Some maps have been leaked. These are reputed to come from the Israelis [9] and the Palestinians.[10]

[edit] Government

Israel declares that the current Palestinian Authority is corrupt to the bottom, enjoys a warm relationship with Hamas and other Islamic militant movements, and seems at times to call for the destruction of Israel. This makes it, in Israeli perception, unfit for governing any putative Palestinian state or (especially according to the right wing of Israeli politics), even negotiating about the character of such a state. Because of that, a number of organizations, including the ruling Likud party, declared they would not accept a Palestinian state based on the current PA. (Likud's former leader Ariel Sharon, publicly declared that he rejected this position as too radical). A PA Cabinet minister, Saeb Arekat, declared this would mean Israel is waging a "war" against Palestinians to maintain its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza [11]. Israel has not recognised a Palestinian state, and has resorted to extrajudicial killings of subjects within the West Bank and Gaza as a means to suppress resistance to the expansion of Jewish settlements within these area's. Some international observers argue that negotiations and internal Palestinian reform can be undertaken simultaneously.

[edit] Airspace

The West Bank and Israel form a strip only up to 80 kilometers wide. Israel has insisted on complete Israeli control of the airspace above the West Bank and Gaza as well as that above Israel itself. A Palestinian compromise of joint control over the combined airspace has been rejected by Israel.

[edit] Palestinian army

Israel does not wish Palestine to build up an army capable of offensive operations, considering that the only party against which such an army could be turned in the near future is Israel itself. Israel, however, has already allowed for the creation of a Palestinian police that can not only conduct police operations, but also carry out limited-scale warfare. Palestinians have argued that the IDF, a large and modern armed force, poses a direct and pressing threat to the sovereignty of any future Palestinian state, making a defensive force for a Palestinian state a matter of necessity. To this, Israelis claim that signing a treaty while building an army is a show of bad intentions.

[edit] Plans for a solution

There are several plans for a possible Palestinian state. Each one has many variations. Some of the more prominent plans include:

• Creation of a Palestinian state out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with its capital in East Jerusalem. This would make the 1949 Armistice lines, perhaps with minor changes, into permanent de jure borders. This long-extant idea forms the basis of a peace plan put forward by Saudi Arabia in March 2002, which was accepted by the "State of Palestine" and all other members of the Arab League. This plan promised in exchange for withdrawal complete recognition of and full diplomatic relations with Israel by the Arab world. Israel claims its security would be threatened by (essentially) complete withdrawal as it would return Israel to its pre-1967 10-mile strategic depth. Moreover some claim that the Palestinians had rejected very similar offers made during and after the Camp David 2000 Summit. The plan spoke only of a "just settlement of the refugee problem", but insistence on a Palestinian "Right of return" to the pre-1967 territory of Israel could result in two Arab states, one of them (pre-1967 Israel) with a significant Jewish minority, and another (the West Bank and Gaza) without Jews.
• Other, more limited, plans for a Palestinian state have also been put forward, putting parts of Gaza and the West Bank which have been settled by Israelis or are of particular strategic importance remaining in Israeli hands. Areas that are currently part of Israel could be allocated to the Palestinian state in compensation. The status of Jerusalem is particularly contentious.
• A plan proposed by the Israeli tourism minister Binyamin Elon and popular with the Israeli right wing advocates the expansion of Israel up to the Jordan River and the "recognition and development of Jordan as the Palestinian State". Palestinian residents of Gaza and the West Bank would become citizens of Jordan and many would be settled in other countries. Elon claims this would be part of the population exchange initiated by the mass exodus [12] of Jews from Arab states to Israel in the 1950s. See Elon Peace Plan. A September 2004 poll conducted by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies reported that 46% of Israelis support transferring the Arab population out of the territories and that 60% of respondents said that they were in favor of encouraging Israeli Arabs to leave the country. However, the plan caused significant outcry and has been almost universally condemned by other countries.^[76]
• RAND has proposed a solution entitled The Arc in which Judea and Samaria are joined with Gaza in an infrastructural arc. The development plan includes recommendations from low level civic planning to banking reform and currency reform.

Several plans have been proposed for a Palestinian state to incorporate all of the former British mandate of Palestine (pre-1967 territory of Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank). Some possible configurations include:

• A secular Arab state (as described in the Palestinian National Covenant before the cancellation of the relevant clauses in 1998). According to the Covenant, only those "Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians", which excludes up to 50% of the Jewish population of Israel.
• A strictly Islamic state (advocated by Hamas and the Islamic Movement). This arrangement would face objection from the Jewish population as well as secular Muslim and non-Muslim Palestinians.
• A federation of separate Jewish and Arab areas (some Israelis and Palestinians). It is not clear how this arrangement would distribute natural resources and maintain security.
• A single, bi-national state (advocated by various Israeli and Palestinian groups). Palestinian and Israeli critics of this arrangement fear that the new state is likely to give the two sides an asymmetric status (though not necessarily an unequal one). Others say that such a state is likely to fail, as was seen in places where similar things were tried, like Yugoslavia and Lebanon.^{[citation needed]} Strong nationalist sentiment among many Israelis and Palestinians would be an obstacle to this arrangement.^{[citation needed]} After what he perceived as the failure of the Oslo Process and the two-state solution, Palestinian-American professor Edward Said became a vocal advocate of this plan.

[edit] See also

1922 Text: League of Nations Palestine Mandate 1947 UN Partition Plan 1948 Arab-Israeli War 1949 Armistice Agreements 1967 Six Day War 1978 Camp David Peace Accords between Egypt and Israel 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Palestinians and Israel Arab-Israeli conflict Balfour Declaration 1917 British Mandate of Palestine Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel

Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948 Geneva Accord Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israel Mandate for Palestine Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan One-state solution Palestinian Authority Seam Zone Yom Kippur

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• A Comparison Of Three Drafts For An Israeli-Palestinian Peace Agreement
• Full text of George Bush's speech on Israel and a Palestinian state
• British Foreign & Commonwealth office on Palestine
• Examination of Palestinian Statehood
• Institute for Palestine Studies
• Israel: The Alternative (Tony Judt, NY Review of Books)
• Israel, Palestine, and the Bi-National Fantasy (response to Judt by Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic)
• Auld Lang Syne, Scots Nationalism, and Palestinian Fraud by Michael Medved
• Rand Corporation Palestine Project
• Reut Institute Analysis on Israeli - Palestinian Negotiations
• Joel Kovel, Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2007)