Recently I’ve been interviewing Israeli and Palestinian scholars and activists about the prospects of alternative voices in the peace process: namely the BRICS countries and whether they might make a difference.
The general impression seems to be no. Last year’s failed talks by US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the re-election of an intransigent Netanyahu government have meant little change. Although the BRICS countries (and the EU) have called for a different, more multilateral response, this is unlikely to happen. Much of this is down to BRICS’ self-promotion and separation of political rhetoric from their prioritisation of economic relations with Israel’s hi-tech and – especially in the case of India – arms industry.
Added to that there’s the asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians, from what Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper has called Israel’s ‘matrix of control’ over the West Bank and Gaza (through checkpoints, roadblocks, parallel road systems, differentiated ‘security’ zones) and Israel’s disproportionate use of force, most notably in Gaza in 2008-09, 2012 and 2014. As for the peace process: Israel opposes anything other than bilateral talks with the Palestinians, mediated by their ally, the US.
So where next? On 27 July Israeli Knesset (Parliament) deputy speaker and secretary general of the Labor Party Hilik Bar presented a plan on behalf of the two-state caucus.
It proposes Israel recognise Palestine as a state before proceeding to negotiations over borders based on the 1967 lines and including land swaps. Jerusalem would be an open city to both while settlers who choose to remain would have the right to be residents or citizens of the Palestinians state. But here’s the catch: Israel would be responsible for their security, aided by the fact that Bar’s plan envisages a demilitarised Palestinian state. And from media reports so far, there’s no mention of Palestinian refugees.
In many ways Bar’s plan reflects Kerry’s initial proposals, which were sympathetic to Israeli concerns but which Netanyahu rejected. So it’s hard to see the government approving the plan. Meanwhile, opposition Labor leader Isaac Herzog has avoided endorsing the plan. And it’s unlikely the Palestinians would accept it in its current format either.
So does this mean it’s a dead letter? Not quite. This is arguably the most significant position on the peace process from Israeli political society (as opposed to civil society’s 2003 Geneva Initiative) in recent years, albeit from the opposition rather than government. And with the peace process restricted to Israel, the Palestinians and the US, Washington could well adopt it as its own as an Israeli initiative.
Herzog is encouraging Bar to take the proposal to the international community and collect feedback. Which is where those of us interested in the conflict can come in. Although the Liberal Democrats are no longer in government, that doesn’t mean that we can’t contribute. Through our internal party groups, Liberal Democrat Friends for Israel and Friends for Palestine, whether we agree with the content or not, we should make our views of the plan known.
* Guy Burton is Assistant Professor in the School of Politics, History and International Relations at the University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus. Between 2010 and 2012 he was a researcher at Birzeit University in the West Bank. Previously he was a researcher for the Liberal Democrats in Parliament and was a GLA candidate for the party in 2004.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Suitably inspired, I return to Suffolk
Lord Bonkers' Diary: My new friends with the webbed back feet and scaly tails
Investment, investment, investment.
Definitely a Lib Dem conference!
Ed Davey tries to name all the Lib Dem MPs while on a roller coaster
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Simon R
Nigel Jones
Roland
Joe Bourke
Matt (Bristol)
8 Comments
The ordinary processes of births, marriages and deaths are gradually changing the demography.
I don’t think this is very different from the Arab Peace Plan put forward years ago, which is supported by a big group of Israeli business men and academics who have been over to Westminster ( Israeli Peace Initiative) a big sticking point I think, would be the security of the settlers which would over ride anything the PA might do?
It is encouraging however that this has come from inside the Knesset and yes, I know that Lib Dem Friends of Palestine would be happy to discuss it with LDFI.
. I do not think the remaining MPs will have much clout however, especially when in Coalition no progress was made. Now, the Peers are a different matter. I for one will continue to pursue the government on this . We should all be ashamed that we have made so little progress, as the party of Human Rights and support for International Law.
The only way that such a peace deal could work for Jerusalem is if there were an international force overseeing things rather than the Israeli settlers and extremest Jews retaining the trump card with Israeli security. To restrict the settlers security to Israel around East Jerusalem as well as the West Bank would be tantamount to giving them free reign to continue their violence towards the Palestinians living there. Palestinians would be unable to defend themselves against the inevitable reign of terror under the ‘Price Tag’ banner, unless they were allowed security forces of their own. I agree it is a problem as it would be essential to avoid armed conflict. Maybe it would require an international force to maintain security within the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem until some longer term agreement could be worked out. That is more likely to be acceptable as they would be seen to be much more even handed in their approach.
There is no mention of Gaza in the proposal as stated above. It would be necessary to find a way or corridor, that was open for West Bank and Gaza Palestinians to work together with free access. That means a huge easing of restrictions on Gaza and help with enabling a Unity government to form that includes Hamas. I would be interested to read more detailed proposals that address these issues.
However, I agree with jenny that it is another good start!
If a two state solution is possible then this proposal would be a good place to start. Israel will not give up its requirement for being responsibility for security for the whole Israel-Palestine area. Also Israel being responsible for the security of the Jewish Settlers that decide to stay in Palestine is problematic. It is a nice idea for Jerusalem to be the shared capital. As Guy Burton points out the Palestinian refugees have to be included, this is why the 1967 borders for me are not an adequate starting position.
According to the Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/mk-moots-peace-plan-that-lets-settlers-stay-in-palestinian-state/) Hilik Bar stated that “the current leadership’s approach will lead to a one-state reality that endangers Israel’s Jewish majority and thus would spell the end of the Zionist enterprise”. He also said that Mahmond Abbas and Khaled Mashaal (Hamas) in the future would be standing in elections in a “bi-national state”.
I wonder if Hamas want a bi-national state? According to Hilik Bar “President Reuven Rivlin and Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely openly advocate … a one-state solution.”
An international force can keep the peace if both sides want that, as in Cyprus. If not it becomes a third party in the fight.
Guy Burton,
Thank you for this article. You remind us that —
“….there’s the asymmetry between Israel and the Palestinians, from what Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper has called Israel’s ‘matrix of control’ …”
It is perhaps impossible for most people in the UK to imagine the situation in Gaza and the rest of Palestine. Imagine what it might be like if county of Kent were cut off by our government by a concrete wall higher than a house, by barbed-wire fences and the full force of the military with the residents there subjected to checkpoints, roadblocks, parallel road systems, differentiated ‘security’ zones. For basic building materials and medical supplies fro outside Kent to be cut off for a decade.
It is impossible to imagine that during the last ten years the UK government would have used ‘disproportionate force’, by which we mean warfare (tanks, bombing by the airforce and all the latest weaponry) against the people of Kent. That is what has appended to the people of Gaza in 2008-09, 2012 and 2014.
Miranda Pinch makes the important point that —
“There is no mention of Gaza in the proposal as stated above. ”
Any step forward is better than a step backwards I suppose but if there is no mention of Gaza one wonders if this is really a step forward.
A lot of the argument is about land, but it is also about water. Water is needed for the Negev. Water in the River Jordan is declining. Water is shipped in from Turkey when politically possible, although a pipeline might be a good idea in peacetime. There may be large quantities of brackish water underground which could be used for watering crops. Solar powered desalination is possible. A land flowing with milk and honey needs water. If access to water is distributed unfairly there may arise another causus belli.
Thank you for the comments on this so far.
Jenny Tonge: I am very pleased to read your comments and I know that you will be actively pursuing the government, even from the opposition benches.
Miranda Pinch: you’re right on Gaza; there’s no mention in the plan at all about it. A Palestinian state has to include Gaza and can’t continue to be besieged as Israel (and Egypt) is currently doing.
Richard Underhill: it’s hard to see Israel allowing an international force. Since Camp David in 1978 they have been consistent in using bilateral talks with the US as mediator; they don’t trust anyone else. They judge the EU as suspect and pro-Palestinian so aren’t prepared to see Europe (or anyone else for that matter – hence my current research on the BRICS here) play a role beyond signing the cheques for the PA.
Personally, I view this proposal with some suspicion, more because of how the international community might approach it. It provides very little for the Palestinians, but I can easily see it being taken up in Washington and European capitals as a way forward, as an Israeli proposal which the Palestinians should accept in lieu of anything else on the table.
Finally, John Tilley: thank you for the comment. It is indeed difficult to sometimes put into words what life is like on the ground here. But please don’t forget that while Gaza is the most visibly egregious aspect of Israeli blockade and siege, the West Bank cannot be forgotten. I am writing this less than 24 hours after settlers stole into a Palestinian village during the night and set fire to a house, critically injuring a couple and killing their 18 month old son. You’ll forgive me if I raise my eyebrows at Israeli claims about fears for their ‘security’ today.