Is This the Peace Plan for Israel and Palestine That Will Work?

By Mona Ali Khalil

 A new peace plan proposed by a former Israeli prime minister and an ex-Palestinian foreign affairs minister presents a “potentially significant development” that deserves more attention to end the war in Gaza, the essayist asserts. 

Israeli newspapers recently reported that the country’s former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the former Palestinian Minister for Foreign Affairs Nasser Al-Kidwa “agreed to work together to promote the achievement of peace between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples and peace in the Middle East in general.”

International media has largely ignored this potentially significant development. Polls indicate that Israelis increasingly oppose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the hostage crisis and his failure to “crush Hamas.” Meanwhile, Gazans are also growing wary and even angry with Hamas. As the war fever subsides among majorities on both sides, two trajectories are emerging: one defined by violent extremism seeking victory and vengeance and the other driven by a desire for peace by pursuing compromise and coexistence.

Olmert and Al-Kidwa are plausible peacemakers; the fact that they are joining forces for peace deserves the world’s attention.

Since neither Olmert nor Al-Kidwa holds office in their respective states, they are unable to represent the will of the Israeli or Palestinian people. At a minimum, however, the two former leaders coming together so publicly and so concretely could offer a peaceful alternative to the genocidal rejectionism of the Israeli state and Israeli settlers as well as to the violent extremism of Hamas and other Palestinian militants.

The importance and impact of the two former leaders’ vision for the future will be determined by the extent it can be accepted by most Israelis and Palestinians. Here is Olmert and AI-Kidwa’s proposal for peace:

Two States and a Shared Capital

The first and oldest element of the peace plan relates to the vision of “a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel on the basis of 1967 borders living in peace and security.” This is an end goal envisioned in successive resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and UN Security Council as well as by the International Court of Justice. It has been explicitly and consistently accepted by the Palestinian Authority as well as implicitly and more recently by Hamas. It is consistently rejected by the Israeli regime and, more recently, overwhelmingly rejected by the Israeli Knesset.

According to the vision of Olmert and Al-Kidwa, the greater City of Jerusalem would be divided into Israeli and Palestinian parts along the lines of the 1967 status quo ante (subject to the land swaps mentioned below). Neither state would have exclusive political sovereignty over the city, and both states would have their capitals located in greater Jerusalem. The Old City of Jerusalem would be administered by a trusteeship of five states, including Israel and Palestine as well as Jordan, given its special historic role.

Their recommendations resurrect a territorial proposal previously presented by Olmert during his tenure as prime minister, including swapping 4.4 percent of the total territory of the West Bank for territory of equal size from Israel — the latter including the long-promised corridor linking the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The 4.4 percent to be annexed by Israel includes Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and Israeli settlements that are illegal under international law as recently confirmed by the International Court of Justice.

A Much-Overdue Ceasefire

A second, relatively new element of the proposal relies on a three-phase ceasefire plan introduced by United States President Joe Biden in his so-far failed attempt to end the violence in Gaza — a David and Goliath scenario arising from one nightmarish day and its aftermath for Israelis and 57 years of occupation and nearly a year of hell for Palestinians. In June, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2735, welcoming the so-called Biden ceasefire plan and urging Israel and Hamas to implement it immediately. Neither party has done so.

The first phase of the ceasefire plan provides, inter alia, for the gradual release of most of the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza as well as the release of an agreed number of Palestinian detainees from Israeli prisons; and the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the “populated areas of Gaza.” Phase 2 relies on the success of negotiations for a permanent end to hostilities in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Phase 3 marks the start of a major multiyear reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased Israeli hostages to their families.

Resolution 2735 explicitly states that Israel has accepted the ceasefire plan, when in fact Israel had not accepted the plan. Since then, Prime Minister Netanyahu has confirmed his intention to resume bombing at the end of Phase 1 –notwithstanding the Security Council’s clear, unequivocal mention that “if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one — the ceasefire will continue as long as negotiations continue.”

Moreover, the US and the Security Council “rejected any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the Strip’s territory.” Statements by Netanyahu confirm his government’s intention to hold onto large swaths of Palestinian territory in Gaza and to exploit the gas and oil recently discovered off the coast of Gaza which under international law belong to the Palestinian people.

Meanwhile, Hamas purports to agree and then seeks clarifications and guarantees regarding the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the impact on the transition between Phases 1 and 2 if a permanent ceasefire is not agreed upon within the six weeks of the first phase.

Palestinian Commissioners and Arab Peacekeepers

One of the newest elements of Olmert and Al-Kidwa’s plan is the proposal for a Council of Commissioners, consisting of professional Palestinian technocrats organically linked to the Palestinian Authority to shepherd the transition in Gaza and to oversee general elections within two to three years. Immediate elections may play into the hands of extremists and rejectionists in Israel or in Palestine. The incremental approach allows time for life to be restored and civilian infrastructure to be rebuilt before elections are held: restored and rebuilt with the support of wealthy nations and the convening power of an international donors’ conference.

Olmert and Al-Kidwa also agreed on the need to deploy a Temporary Arab Security Presence (TASP) coordinated with the withdrawal of Israeli forces. As envisioned, the TASP would be mandated to prevent attacks against Israel from Gaza and to assist a Palestinian security force to be established by the Palestinian Council of Commissioners to stabilize the Gaza Strip.

With more than 45,000 Palestinians killed in the last 11 months, of which more than 70 percent have been women and children, it is disturbing that Olmert and Al-Kidwa do not make an explicit reference to the role of the TASP in protecting the civilian population of Gaza. In calling for an otherwise nonmilitarized state, Olmert and Al-Kidwa fail to accord the State of Palestine the sovereign authority it needs to defend itself or the Palestinian people against the array of threats it faces from the Israeli state, Israeli soldiers and Israeli settlers.

The proposal falls short in two other respects. It fails to address one of the most critical rights and tragic realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. While past peace plans have considered setting limits on the exercise of the right of return, they recognized it as a matter of customary international law, a right that has been denied repeatedly to Palestinians since the Nakba in 1948.

The proposal also neglects to call for criminal accountability for all those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity on the Israeli side and for all those responsible for war crimes and terrorist crimes on the Palestinian side.

Nonetheless, one should not underestimate the courage of these two men. Olmert could face death threats from Zionist zealots who oppose the return of any land to the Palestinians, especially any part of Jerusalem. Al-Kidwa may face a similar fate for accepting illegal Israeli settlements to remain not only in the West Bank but in East Jerusalem itself. This is a particular historical irony not only because Al-Kidwa led the first request for an advisory opinion from the world court but also because the court has recently called for the immediate dismantlement and evacuation of those very settlements.

Olmert and Al-Kidwa offer the world hope that peacemakers dwell among the warmongers. They offer a peace that may succeed in ending the violence but is not likely to succeed in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.