Analysis of an Alternative

Michael Anbar Ph.D.

Several peace initiatives are currently floating. These are the Ayalon -Nusseibeh proposal, Yossi Beilin’s “Geneva accord,” and evidently, the State Department’s “Roadmap”. The Ayalon - Nusseibeh initiative, which is a variation on the Taba initiative of 2000, is just as flawed, and so is evidently Beilin’s “Geneva accord”. Both these “plans” have recently received the blessings of the US State Department, which must consider them complementary to its own “Roadmap”. However, none of those plans guarantees the security of Israel, in addition to implying uprooting tens of thousands of Jewish civilians while giving in to illusionary Arab demands. Moreover, making concessions to the PLO, implied in each of these plans, would encourage them, as well as other terrorist organizations, to intensify their terror campaigns against Israel and the United States.

Consequently, I would like to present here a realistic alternative solution to the conflict. This “outside of the box” solution has many significant advantages over the plans cited above. This solution is likely to be acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians except for extremists on both sides. The essence of my ideas appeared under the title “An alternative to the "Geneva Accord" in the October 24, 2003 issue of Israel Insider. Another, somewhat longer version titled “An Alternative to the Geneva Initiative,” has appeared as the feature article in the November 2003 issue of the Israel Hasbara Committee bulletin. Let me present my suggested plan in greater detail, comparing it with other political alternatives and analyzing its pros and cons.

We will start with the basic assumption that in no practical scenario will the Israelis expel the Palestinians from their villages and towns, and that the Arab desire to eliminate the State of Israel by attrition (i.e., terror) or by a major military assault will never materialize. Just as non-realistic is consent of the Israeli Jews to live in their ancient homeland as a political minority in a country dominated by Muslims. In other words, the solution must be a two-state solution.

The recently unveiled "Geneva Accord" will never work, and neither will the Ayalon-Nuseibeh plan. For such a plan to be acceptable to Israel, the proposed new Arab state must have limited sovereignty. The entwined geography of the proposed new Arab state alongside Israel mandates that the Palestinian state be demilitarized, have limited control of its airspace, have limitations on the entry and exit of people, have limited rights to form alliances with other countries, and be economically extremely dependent on the State of Israel for many decades to come. In addition, there are the cardinal problems of dividing the sovereignty over the ancient Jewish capital of Jerusalem, the Arab acceptance of Jewish communities in Palestinian sovereign territory, the “right of return” of the descendents of the 1948 Arab refugees, and the awkward non-contiguity of the Gaza Strip in the proposed Palestinian state. Arafat’s PLO may accept most of these restrictions for a while, just as they did in 1993, but only in order to gain more ground that will be used to eventually try to dislodge the Jewish state by a combination of renewed terrorism, international political pressure, and military assault.

Even if the Palestinians gave up on their "right of return," which is not very likely, the implementation of any of those “accords” would continue to ferment Arab dissatisfaction, which undoubtedly would be exploited by extramural Arabs to continue to undermine the existence of the Jewish state by incessant terrorism. Such terrorism would continue, even in the unlikely event of the PLO dismantled by force competing radical terrorist organizations, such as Hammas and Islamic Jihad, as required by the "Roadmap to Peace." There is little doubt that the “Conquest” (“Fatah” in Arabic) terrorist movement would sprout daughter terrorist organizations such as the “Al-Aqsa Brigades,” which is officially financially supported by the PA, or the “”Armed Resistance Committees” that were responsible for the recent murderous attack on the American Convoy near Beit Hannon in the Gaza Strip. We saw similar behavior of continued violence in Northern Ireland perpetrated by splinter groups of the IRA, in spite of a political settlement. Continued Islamic terrorism in Kashmir is another example. In brief, neither party would be satisfied. The Palestinian Arabs will not get full political independence, on top of having to give up formally their dream of eradicating the Jewish state, while the Israelis will still face terrorism along a hardened but still permeable long border.

Is there an alternative suggestion? How can one stop the bloodshed and the deterioration of the economy in Israel? How could one eliminate Arab terrorism and improve the atrocious living conditions of the Palestinian Arabs?

I suggest a separate and sustainable coexistence of a predominantly Jewish state and a viable entirely independent Arab state. I suggest the establishment of an autonomous, independent Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, with a possible increase of its area from 360 to say, 600 square kilometers. At the same time, all other PA territories west of the Jordan would be annexed to the state of Israel.

All Palestinians, including those in refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria, will automatically become citizens of the new Palestinian state. However, Arab inhabitants of the "West Bank" territory will be offered full Israeli citizenship pending their acceptance of Israeli nationality (i.e. analogously to naturalized American citizens, they will be required to swear exclusive allegiance to the laws of the democratic State of Israel). Militant religious or nationalistic Arabs amongst them will have the option to remain citizens of the independent Palestinian state of Gaza, whether they move there physically or not. If they choose to stay within the borders of Israel as alien residents, they would have to obey all laws of the land, except for service in the armed forces, but have no voting rights. If such alien residents break the law they may be deported to the Palestinian state (again, as is provided in the US law for resident aliens who would be deported to their country of origin).

While Arab “administrative” detainees will be released, Palestinian Arabs residing in the annexed territories, suspected of lethal terrorist activities in the past, will be detained; if found guilty in a criminal court they would serve appropriate jail sentences in Israeli jails. This would also apply to Palestinian political leaders who ordered indiscriminate lethal terrorist raids against Israeli civilians.

Immigration of Muslims from other countries into the State of Israel would be limited, however, to maintain a demographic balance (similarly to the immigration quotas that used to be enforced in the US). Immigration of Jews will also be controlled, mainly by economic considerations and to keep criminals out, except for Jewish victims of religious or ethnic persecution.

My suggestion offers the Arabs a politically and economically viable Palestinian state, while offering Israel its required long-term security and alleviation of the Islamistic demographic threat.

Let us analyze the features of this suggestion:

1. The historical geopolitical position of Gaza at the crossroad of three continents lends itself to becoming again a commercial and industrial city-state, similar to Singapore or Hong Kong. There is enough land in the Gaza Strip in its current size for a large population with a flourishing economy. The population density in the Gaza Strip is currently 3542 people per square kilometer. Economically flourishing Singapore and Hong Kong have 6667 and 6767 people per square kilometer, respectively. However, the GDP in Gaza is $600 per capita, compared with $24,000 and $26,000 in Singapore and Hong Kong, respectively (the statistics are from the 2003 World Fact Book of the U.S. CIA).

Moreover, unlike Hong Kong and Singapore, the Gaza Strip has commercially valuable natural gas reserves and possibly also oil. Also, the coast of the Strip with its wide beaches could compete for North European Tourists with the French Riviera and the Spanish Gold Coast, as well as with Israel’s Eilat. The Port of Gaza could compete with Alexandria as a cruse terminal for the Eastern Mediterranean, similar to Dubai. Finally, if it became a democracy, free of despotic rule, the new Palestinian state in Gaza could provide financial services for the whole Middle East as well as Europe, taking over the role of Beirut, which has lost its prominent international financial status under the suppressive dictatorial rule of Damascus.

2. Using the 2003 CIA figures, there are at present 1.26 million Arabs in the Gaza Strip and this population could double or triple, given the appropriate political and economic incentives. Adding 240 square kilometers to the Gaza Strip could economically support additional two million people who could live very comfortably in the new commercial-industrial Arab country. The new Palestinian state could, therefore, readily absorb all the Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria who are currently deprived of all civil right.

3. The Gaza Strip does not pose an insurmountable military threat to the state of Israel (even if annexed by Egypt, which is not very likely, or even if Egypt or another Arab country sends hostile troops there). In any case, Israel must maintain its military strength to confront potential aggression from any Arab country in the region or a combination of such.

4. The border between Israel and the Palestinian state may be completely open to commerce (free trade) and to licensed temporary non-resident workers, or it may be hermetically sealed, depending on the political relationship between the two independent countries.

5. On the "West Bank" there are 1.68 million Muslims; while within Israel there are today 905,000 Muslim citizens (US CIA data). Thus if Israel annexed the West Bank, it would include approximately 2.6 million Muslims and more than 5 million Jews plus over 700,000 others. Even if all these Muslims chose Israeli citizenship, they would constitute less than a third of the Israeli electorate. Therefore, the fear of a demographic takeover of the State of Israel by Islamists would be unfounded, especially as the Muslim birth rate is likely to decrease dramatically once their dismal economic conditions improve. The GDP of the Arabs on the "West Bank" is today <$800 per capita compared with >$19,000 of Israelis (this figure includes the GDP of 1.2 million non-Jewish Israeli citizens!) Besides, the State of Israel will outlaw militant radical Islamism, just as it outlawed militant radical Judaism, i.e., Rabbi Kahane’s followers.

The new Israeli Muslim citizens would have plenty of incentives to improve their standard of living rather than sacrifice their livelihood to violent, religion-motivated illusions. The experience of the last decade must have taught them that hatred and terrorism do not improve the standard of living, except for that of the corrupt terrorist leadership. Given a free choice, there is little doubt that the new Israeli Arab citizens will adopt Western democratic values and abandon militant Islam.

Israeli Muslims will have to make the same choice Muslims must make in Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Canada or the USA. Notwithstanding potential abuses by unscrupulous local politicians, if members of Muslim minorities chose to join militant international Islamism to the detriment of their host countries, they would be crushed and expelled. No country will tolerate an ethnic or religious minority that tries to undermine its regime.

This proposed solution would alleviate terrorism while allowing Jews and Arabs to coexist in peace and prosperity in two truly independent states. Terrorism cannot be sustained without the active support of a large segment of the population as well as hefty extramural financial support. Consequently, Arab terrorism will not be maintained in Israel, just as it has not been committed by the overwhelming majority of the current Muslim citizens of Israel, over the last fifty-five years.

Most importantly, while this proposed political solution will allow the Jews in Israel to maintain a separate and sustainable existence as an ethical, democratic society, it will also allow the "Palestinians" in the Gaza Strip to maintain a social and political structure of their choice under entirely unrestricted conditions.

Let us analyze the pros and cons of this suggested solution. First, the pros:

It would allow the coexistence of two completely independent states for two people, living side by side as envisioned by President Bush.
It offers a fair and ethical solution to the conflict, giving the Palestinians unprecedented political and economic opportunities they would never have otherwise.
It would not require the displacement of any Palestinian Arabs. Moreover, it would offer a political solution to the festering Arab refugee problem. Consequently, it would eliminate a sore political dilemma; one of the most contentious spots on earth.
It would not require any “peace agreement” with any Palestinian organization. This is a highly significant advantage of this plan in view of the history of repeated violations of such agreements by the Arabs.
It would allow the Jews to rule 90% of their ancient homeland while offering Christian and Muslims free access and Jurisdiction over their holy places, as has been demonstrated by the Jewish state in the last 55 years.
It would alleviate the arguments about the Jewish villages and towns established beyond the 1948 armistice line, as well about the 261 Arab “illegal settlements” set up in parallel in the same disputed territories since 1967.
It would demonstrate that a fairly large Muslim minority could live in harmony with Jews and Christians (freed from militant Islamistic oppression). The State of Israel could thus offer a model to certain European counties, such a Holland or Germany, even the US, how to maintain a Muslim minority citizenry free of Wahabistic influence.
Considering the unmatched rapid expansion of Israeli technology, this political solution would provide well paying industrial jobs to the new Muslim citizens as well to the citizens of the new Palestinian state. At the same time it would allow Israel to remain economically competitive in the edge HiTech market vis-à-vis the US, Japan and South Korea.
At same time, with an appropriate non-theocratic regime (see Singapore), the Palestinian Arabs could enjoy a booming economy unmatched in the Arab world, surpassing the newly democratized (hopefully) Iraq.
The accommodation of a large Muslim minority is expected to increase the tolerance by the Jewish orthodoxy in Israel toward non-Jews and secular Jews, bringing Israel closer to separation of “Church from State,” following the US model closer. The other “peace plans,” including the American “Roadmap,” are likely to polarize the Jewish population, pitting orthodox against secular Jews. This polarization might end up in a Jewish civil war where both Jews and Arabs might become victims of Jewish extremism.
Israel’s proximity and its national interests would protect the integrity of the new Palestinian state if it becomes affluent and the envy of some Arab neighbor (see Beirut). This would be similar to the “unofficial” protection of Jordan by Israel as a buffer state between Israel and Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
It would deprive the militant Islamic nations of being militant “protectors” of the Palestinian Arabs (without giving them substantial assistance except for arms to kill Jews, salaries for terrorists, and payoffs to their families). Removal of the Palestinian issue might destabilize certain despotic Islamic regimes and eliminate a religious unifying cause among Muslims worldwide (see Mahathir Bin Mohammad of Malaysia). From the political standpoint of the United States, this would be a definite pro.
The US would end up with a strengthened democratic staunch ally in the Middle East. If the Palestinian state became a true democracy (which is likely given the huge economic benefits) the US would acquire another political ally.

Cons:

This plan requires total recapture of Judea and Samaria and arrest of the leadership of the PLO and its allied terrorist organization (no such action would be necessary in the Gaza Strip). I would, therefore, meet violent resistance from the Palestinian Wahabists and other Islamistic clergy whose future would be very dim in the new international constellation. This might result in severe bloodshed of Jews, Christians and Arabs (including many Arab proponents of this solution who would be considered traitors to the Arab cause). However, in any case, Arab international militancy will have to be squelched by decisive force.
Military enforcement of this plan by Israel will require unqualified American political and economic backing, as the French and their allies in the EU, Canadians, and American “liberals” (in brief, all those who would like to see the Jewish state liquidated) are expected to scream murder, and try to undermine this plan, as part of their global anti-American campaign. This would call for a tremendous political determination by the Republicans.
American support of Israel could result in terrorism in the US to dissuade the Americans from supporting the Israelis. However, if Israel was defeated by the Arabs, which would be very likely within 20 years following the implementation of the current Roadmap or its related “peace plans,” the US will be the next victim of the invigorated Arab aggression. By then Europe might be a Muslim satellite, leaving the US, Russia and China as the major adversaries of Islam. If Russia and China remain more dictatorial (which quite likely) and therefore more ruthless, militant Islam may consider the US as a softer spot, where it could at the same time also eliminate Western democracy and its technology.
Israel would have to give up part of its territory to the new Palestinian state, and possibly vacate some Jewish villages, including Kfar Darom, which existed in the Gaza Strip before 1948. However, these “land for peace” concessions would be a small price to pay for a peaceful, long-term coexistence. This would also show the Arabs that creation of their independent state (not a landlocked Bantu-land, as stated in Arab propaganda) was not a one-sided deal.

Naturally, I am biased in favor of my proposed plan. Consequently, I may have overlooked some disadvantages of this plan. I will be glad to receive and respond to objective, constructive criticism. Open-mindedness to criticism is a major advantage of Western culture over current Islam. I do believe that a major reform in Islam, making it compatible with Western civilization, is going to occur still in the 21^st Century, because it is way overdue. However, the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot wait for this to happen. Therefore, my suggested alternative political solution to the current peace initiatives, including the “Roadmap to Peace”, warrants serious consideration.

November 11, 2003