The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is dead, but there is a solution

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/israeli-palestinian-peace-process-dead-solution

Version 0 of 1.

I'll start with the bottom line: despite the goodwill and idealism, a final status agreement to put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be signed in the current context.

The peace process as we know it is dead, and the international community is divided between those who are in denial and those who are torturing the corpse. It is time to stop grieving and find an alternative.

I speak not as an enemy of peace, but as a pragmatic Israeli. In January 2012 I was sent by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take part in peace talks in Amman, Jordan. Most of the participants knew each other from previous peace talks, the food was good, the coffee was strong but the process was weak.

The Palestinians spoke of history, what was the case in 1948 and what could have been. They could not bring themselves to talk about the present. As soon as talks started, each side began its own blame game. The gaps were huge, not just because of demography but because of democracy. The Israeli interest is to preserve its status as a Jewish democratic state. By contrast, the Palestinian interest is, undeniably, to preserve honour. This is how millions of Palestinians in exile live 66 years on from the establishment of Israel, with the belief that one day all the territory (of both Israel and Palestine) will be theirs.

The most significant problem since the signing of the Oslo Accords is the search for an end to the conflict. Anyone serious about a peaceful resolution has to acknowledge that doing so means both sides recognise each other as equals. If Israel recognises an Arab Palestinian state, the Palestinians have to recognise a Jewish state. Similarly, anyone interested in long-term coexistence should not accept that a Jewish minority would be barred from living and enjoying equal rights in a Palestinian state, like Arab citizens do in Israel. Neither should they accept a reality where the Palestinians are not able or willing to maintain a peaceful and secure border, which they are certainly not doing in Gaza. As long as the Palestinians are not ready to acknowledge the reality, a conflict-ending agreement will remain beyond reach.

The world is a stage, but regarding the peace process it is the same show every time: discussions, talks collapsing and the blame game. The international community has a crucial role in this. Dogmatically sticking to an outdated peace plan without allowing changes to reflect the reality on the ground halts progress at any given opportunity.

Since 2005 there have been two potential Palestinian states. One, in the Gaza Strip, is under the control of the radical Islamist Hamas, and the other in the West Bank is under the control of the Palestinian Authority. These separate entities have yet to make peace with each other, let alone with Israel. So in reality any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would require a "three states for two people" solution. An additional obstacle is the international community's attitude to territories Israel holds beyond the 1967 borders, treating them as a single entity. Products and services from the Golan Heights, captured from Syria, are subject to calls for boycott and sanctions, even though the Golan Heights have no connection whatsoever to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Does anyone in Europe think the residents of the Golan Heights are in a hurry to be returned to Syrian sovereignty and become part of the slaughter and civil war, or that there is a realistic partner for a peace agreement in Syria?

Over the past two years I have met many diplomats and representatives who come to Israel. They all want to hear differing opinions about the conflict. Most understand that the conflict is at a dead end, but politely explain that they cannot publicly change their official policy. Their stubbornness is our restriction.

For the international community to remain relevant it must understand the restrictions and the available options. The most realistic practical option in the current circumstances is the drawing of borders along demographic lines. Most Palestinians (98%) in the West Bank live in Areas A and B, under the control of the Palestinian Authority. These areas are spread over 40% of Judea and Samaria. Most Israelis live in 12% of the West Bank in large settlement blocks.

The remaining 48% of the territory has 100,000 Israelis and an equal number of Palestinians. The Palestinians' territories should be upgraded to the status of demilitarised state with interim borders and continuity based on A and B. The large settlement blocks can be annexed to Israel, and as result of that the disputed territory would be immediately halved.

It is not a permanent solution, but it would be progress. If the money from the various pro-peace organisations were to be invested in the Palestinian education system, encouraging support for democracy, it would be possible to restart negotiations in a generation. If the international community can let go of its attachment to the phrase "an end to the conflict" who knows – maybe we will have a glimmer of a practical peace on the ground, which would improve the chances for a comprehensive peace in the future.