A "Kosovan Solution" for Palestine
On 8 December 2007 Secretary Rice stated that since negotiations with Serbia had failed, the US would recognize Kosovo without waiting for Serbia’s agreement. In February 2008 Kosovo declared its independence. On that occasion the US showed it can act decisively. It should take similar action to establish a state of Palestine—if possible with Israel’s support, but, if necessary, without waiting for Israel’s agreement.
The war in Gaza and the outcome of the Israeli elections seem fatal to the prospects of agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The many failed attempts to resolve the Palestine problem—the Madrid conference, the Oslo process, Camp David, the roadmap of the Quartet, the Annapolis negotiations—have all been framed as bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The world has delegated to Israel the decision whether, when, and subject to what conditions, there should be a Palestinian state. Israel has never given the green light, and it never will. Israel cannot or will not carry out the responsibilities of an occupying power, but does not dare to allow the Palestinians to govern themselves. The Palestinians are living in what John Locke would have called a “state of nature,” without an effective government to serve their common good.
Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have often been carried on in response to outside urging, especially from the US. Reluctant negotiators develop a repertory of “deal-breaking” demands; reasonable-seeming demands that the other side cannot accept. Thus Israel demands an end to violence, which gives extremists a veto, and recognition of “Israel’s right to exist,” which to Palestinians sounds like acknowledgement that their dispossession was just; on the other side, the Palestinians demand removal of West Bank settlements, which is probably beyond the political power of any government of Israel, and a right of return for the refugees, which would threaten the Jewish character of Israel. Even when leaders really want agreement, they must eventually make the usual demands or be replaced by rivals. Many Palestinians and many Israelis would compromise, but their leaders cannot close the deal. Extremists on both sides can abort negotiation by provoking violence.
The cycle of negotiation, painful progress, violence, breakdown, despair, tentatively renewed negotiation, etc., can be broken through by the President of the United States. As the case of Kosovo reminds us, the president has constitutional power to recognize a foreign state. There aren’t many situations in which one individual can significantly change the course of history, but this is one. President Obama could announce tomorrow that the US will recognize Palestine, with the “green line” as its border, and subject to three conditions.
First, there should be fresh elections of a Palestinian parliament and the formation of a government responsible to parliament. Attached to the parliament there should be a “citizens’ jury” to speak for ordinary citizens, but otherwise, constitution-making can wait. The US should pledge beforehand to cooperate with whatever government the Palestinians elect, provided the other conditions are met.
Second, the government of Palestine should explicitly accept the obligation every state has not to attack other states and not to allow its territory to be used to mount attacks. The US, Britain and their allies should guarantee both Israel and Palestine against attack by regular military forces and should provide money to help the Palestinian government establish control over its territory. To do this Palestine may need to hire police, soldiers, judicial officers, etc., from other countries, but they should be hired as individuals answerable to the government of Palestine—a peace keeping force of foreign national contingents is not likely to work well.
Third, Palestine should guarantee the safety, human rights and basic interests of minorities, including Jewish settlers. Dismantling the West Bank settlements should not be demanded. Money should be provided to help West Bank settlers to move to Israel if they wish, but those who stay will become citizens of Palestine. There are Arabs in Israel, there will be Jews in Palestine, in all countries there have always been mixtures of ethnic and religious groups. However, Israel should not be asked to accept return of the refugees. Apologies and generous compensation in some form should be given to people who have been displaced, including both the Palestinian refugees and the Jews displaced from Muslim countries.
In view of recent history, the Palestinian government should explicitly acknowledge the obligation not to make or allow attacks on other states, but they should not be required to explicitly recognize Israel’s “right to exist.” The phrase may mean that Israelis have a right not to be driven out or murdered, which is true, but it may mean that the course of events begun by the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations mandate was substantially just and right, which is false. Israel’s existence is secured by its military force and the force of its allies, backed by enforcement of international law by the international community generally. Peace would enhance Israel’s security, but an ambiguous formula spoken without conviction by Palestinian leaders would not. It would be foolish to lose the chance of peace by insisting on that formula.
After independence there would still be much for Israel and Palestine to negotiate about. Parts of the Wall will have to be relocated, within a negotiated time frame. There may be proposals to redraw boundaries, to allow return of refugees and to facilitate population movements from one side of the border to the other. Negotiations on these subjects may go nowhere, but Palestine’s independence and peace between the two states will not be at stake. In due course there should be negotiations to integrate the economies and societies of the two states, perhaps aiming eventually at a “one-state” solution—for example along the lines proposed long ago by Shimon Peres and more recently by Mathias Mossberg, according to which there would be integration of territory and functions but distinct citizenships, as in the European Union.
The “two-state solution,” as it is usually called, is not automatically a solution, but there are good reasons for hope. The Palestinian factions are in conflict, but the immediate prospect of establishing an independent state should motivate them to cooperate, at least for that purpose. Electors would be less likely to vote for extremists, since they would be choosing a government that countries formerly seen as hostile have pledged to support. An actually existing state committed to rebuilding the community, with effective security forces, and with jobs to offer, would have a good chance of winning the cooperation of its citizens for peace with Israel.
Those who emphasize the influence of ideology may think that there can be no solution. According to one theology, God gave the whole of the ancient land of Israel to the Jews forever. According to the other, God requires that no part of any land ever ruled by Muslims be surrendered to non-Muslim control. But let’s not over-estimate the influence of theology. Jews and Arab Muslims are not all in the grip of incompatible religious world-views. Meeting secular grievances and aspirations should be enough to establish at least a truce. A truce is better than nothing, and if it lasts the theologies may change. On both sides there are people of more liberal views who would make more headway during a time of peace.
To be well-governed by a regime dedicated to its citizens’ welfare is a basic human right, recognized in the European tradition since at least William of Ockham in the fourteenth century. According to Locke a people ungoverned or misgoverned have a natural right to establish a government to secure their common good. According to the Declaration of Independence, if a government becomes tyrannical “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” For a long time the Palestinians have not had the benefit of the basic right to be well-governed. This injustice ought to be remedied without delay. If the Kosovan precedent is followed, the implementation of the “two-state solution” could take a matter of months, instead of forever or never.
