One-Hundred Percent Land; One-Hundred Percent Peace (March 28, 2006)
Resolving the territorial dispute is the key to bring about an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this context, Israel's new government can achieve significant gains by stating its intent to resolve the borders dispute by delineating a border between itself and the Palestinian State that will be based on the June 4, 1967, line with modifications and territorial swaps equal in size. Hence, the Palestinian state will enjoy the equivalent of 100 percent of land that Israel seized in 1967.
Why 100 percent? - Because an Israeli "100 percent" offer constitutes a fair, just and therefore sustainable solution to the territorial dispute by Israeli, Palestinian and International standards.
Throughout conflict and ultimate peace negotiations with our neighbors, we have learned that any successful agreement must include the withdrawal from the full extent of occupied territories. Such was the case with Egypt in the late 1970s, and with Jordan in 1994 (where land swaps were introduced). During the unilateral retreat from South Lebanon, Israel honored the U.N. standards and withdrew troops from all Lebanese land, and similarly, it withdrew from the Gaza Strip exactly to the 1967 line. The common denominator? - Indeed, 100 percent.
A "100 percent" offer constitutes a political and diplomatic quantum leap for Israel, and grants it a myriad of benefits. First and foremost, it will motivate the emergence of a Palestinian partner. Those Palestinians who supports a two-state solution could no longer be criticized for "selling-out" on their rights and land. Israel's open declaration will demonstrate to the Palestinians its sincere intent to end the occupation and conflict in a fair and just way, and would put on the table an honest offer that awaits Palestinian performance, mainly on security. In other words, a viable and tangible agreement-based alternative will be presented to the Palestinians. Henceforth, they would know what they miss as longs as they turn away from reconciliation: independence and self-determination based on a just and respectable principle of 100 percent of territory.
The momentum created will put the Hamas-led Palestinian leadership under domestic, international and Arab pressure to decide between its stated ideology and the stated position of the Palestinians and indeed the entire Arab World.
Second, within the context of the "100 percent" offer, the international community is more likely to support Ehud Olmert's 'consolidation plan.' Once Israel's intentions are made clear and public, the international community's concerns with unilateral steps will have been met. Israel will no longer be accused of trying to evade permanent peace agreement, instead opting to unilaterally grab Palestinian lands.
A Palestinian refusal to negotiate on these terms will grant Israel the flexibility to engage in security adjustments in areas to which it holds strategic importance, such as the area east of the Ben-Gurion airport or parts of the Jordan Valley. According to the "100 percent" concept, of course, the Palestinians will be compensated with land equal in size elsewhere once an agreement is achieved.
Third, the Israeli offer opens opportunities for flexible arrangements in terms of security and sequencing. Applying the "100 percent" concept will transform the territorial negotiations from a Bazaar-like bargaining to principle-based negotiations. No longer will Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have to do the percentage-dance. Instead, with a clear final status principle, negotiators will be able to discuss flexible security arrangements such as Israeli presence or observance of the Jordan Valley for an agreed-upon time frame.
Finally, the "100 percent" offer elevates Israel to a higher moral ground and allows it to capitalize on the political gains. A declared intent to fully end the occupation will strengthen Israel's moral stature in the international community. In return, Israel can request international aid for security purposes and financial aid that would help with costs of evacuees' resettlement. Furthermore, Israel will be able to engage the Arab world in normalizing relations based on the Arab League's own initiative that was adopted in the Arab League Summit in Beirut, 2002.
So how realistic is it for Israel to provide the Palestinians with a "100 percent" opportunity? Surprisingly, we are already very close. Based on the ever-evolving route of the security barrier, Ehud Olmert's consolidation plan would free 92 to 95 percent of the West Bank of Israeli sovereignty claims. The remaining land could be addressed through an array of realistic options for land-swaps (see attached maps), which will only occur once a negotiated peace treaty is signed.
Two things are clear: first, achieving a negotiated comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians is better for Israel than implementing a unilateral consolidation plan. Second, implementation of the consolidation plan as part of an overall Israeli political initiative that articulates its wish to reach a final status agreement based on a "100 percent" concept is better for Israel than doing so as a stand-alone event.
By stating its intent to resolve the territorial dispute using the "100 percent" concept, Israel improves its prospects to achieve both of the above. Israel will thus advance toward a reality of peace and security - a reality much-needed in order to live up to Israel's great potential: economic prosperity, social unity, and indeed an exemplary and admirable nation.