[NOW THAT MOFAZ IS THE LEADER OF KADIMA, I THOUGHT I WOULD REMIND READERS OF HIS PLAN]
A Permanent Palestinian State In Temporary Borders In Advance Of Final Status Talks
BY ISRAEL POLICY FORUM, NOVEMBER 16, 2009
On November 11, 2009, Israel Policy Forum hosted a conference call discussion with General Shaul Mofaz. A former Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff, Mofaz is a Member of Knesset representing the second seat on the Kadima Party list. He recently announced a new proposal for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The following is a summary of the discussion between Mofaz, IPF National Scholar Dr. Steven L. Spiegel and call listeners.
(Please note: The following is a summary – the content has been paraphrased and should not be considered as direct quotes. To listen to the entire discussion, click here.)
Question: Please describe the various aspects of your plan.
General Shaul Mofaz: My proposal is to move in two phases to a peace agreement with the Palestinians. I propose the immediate establishment of an independent disarmed Palestinian state in the West Bank and in Gaza. Simultaneously, we will engage in dialogue with the Palestinians on the final status issues.
I believe that a permanent Palestinian state with temporary borders and simultaneous negotiations on the core issues: borders, refugees and Jerusalem, will allow us to rebuild the trust between the two sides, and totally change the atmosphere in our region. In this process, we must have the support of the moderate Arab countries, the European countries and the leadership of the United States.
The second phase of my plan would be the implementation of the agreements reached between the two sides on the final status issues.
Before implementing final status agreements, the Palestinians must provide a clear statement about the end to demands and end to the conflict. We have to build a mechanism for potential mediation if gaps still exist between the two sides; and I call for a referendum in Israel to approve what was achieved during the negotiations on the core issues before implementing the second phase. I have full confidence that the moment the Prime Minister of Israel adopts this plan, and the moment the President of the U.S. approves of it as the right direction to move forward, we will be able to achieve an agreement in not less than four but not more than six years.
Question: Regarding the concept of temporary borders, how would the Palestinians know that they still would gain additional territory along the lines of the 1967 borders?
Mofaz: Today in Gaza, 100% of the territory and 100% of the population is under Hamas control. In the West Bank, there are three types of areas; Area A, B, and C. Palestinians have security and civilian responsibility in Area A. In Area B, Israel has security responsibility, the Palestinians have civilian sovereignty. Security and civilian issues are controlled by Israel in Area C.
Today, Areas A and B represent 40% of the West Bank territory and 99.2% of the Palestinian population. But there is no continuity between the Palestinians in Areas A and B. I am suggesting adding 20% of Area C to give full continuity to the Palestinian state, with 60% of the territory in the West Bank and 99% of the population.
I can give a guarantee to the U.S. that at the end of the second phase the Palestinians will have most of the size of the 1967 territory, but not the exact borders because they should be based on the settlement blocs: Ma’ale Adumim, Gush Etzion, Efrat, Ariel, etc. These communities will become a defendable, eastern border for the state of Israel.
Question: What do you do about Gaza?
Mofaz: Generally speaking, Gaza is part of the Palestinian state, under one condition: that the elected Palestinian government will control Gaza with one authority, one law and one gun. But this is not a precondition for negotiations and moving ahead with the Palestinians because we no longer have the privilege of waiting.
The potential to reach an agreement on the core issues will be higher when the Palestinian state functions as one unit, both the West Bank and Gaza.
Question: What about Jerusalem? Would you give an opportunity for the Palestinians to have East Jerusalem as their capital in the final status?
Mofaz: The issue of Jerusalem should be discussed in a very sensitive way. There is no chance to divide Jerusalem. It will remain united as the capital of the state of Israel and we have to find a way to handle the daily life of the Jewish and Palestinian people in Jerusalem.
It would be irresponsible to discuss Jerusalem now before we started negotiations. We have to speak about the core issues the moment we begin speaking with a permanent Palestinian state in temporary borders. Then, I believe we will have enough time to discuss the core issues.
Question: And you would talk to Hamas during this process?
Mofaz: No. Hamas is a terror organization, and it is gaining more and more power, preparing themselves for the next round of violence. They are smuggling arms from the sea and from the borders. Today they have long-range missiles, and even more launching positions than they had before the last operation in Gaza. We cannot accept terror organizations living side-by-side with Israel and launching missiles against our people.
But, if Hamas accepts the Quartet requirements: stop terror activity and incitement; accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish democratic country; and implement all the agreements achieved so far, we will sit with them at the negotiation table, if they are elected by the Palestinian people. In my proposal I agree to negotiate with the elected Palestinian leadership. If the Palestinian people vote for Hamas and Hamas wins the election I will respect their decision and will return to the negotiating table with Hamas as a partner.
Question: As part of this plan, would you guarantee to freeze settlements in the West Bank, and also to stop building inside the existing settlements?
Mofaz: We will not freeze the life or building in Ma’ale Adumim, Gush Etzion, Efrat, Ariel and some others, all of which are known as the settlement blocs.
Regarding the areas that will be the future Palestinian state, I believe that we should consider the continuation of the life of the people, but we should not build in this area because it will be under the sovereignty and responsibility of the Palestinian state. This makes it very clear which areas we will continue to build in and which we should allow daily life to continue but without any building.
Question: Who would handle security in the Palestinian state with temporary borders? Would it be Israel? The Palestinians? An international force?
Mofaz: Israeli forces will be on the Israeli side and Palestinian security forces will be on the Palestinian side. Palestinians will be responsible for their security but as Israelis, we would retain the right to defend ourselves. International forces from U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, could be placed within the Palestinian territory to support the security in their first years if the Palestinians would be unable to control the situation themselves. But I believe that with a peace agreement, even in the first phase, it will be in the Palestinian interest to make sure that they are handling security and controlling and governing their state before Israel would take steps against terror groups or other hostile activity from their territory.
Question: What happens to the settlers outside the settlement blocs, once the state is declared in your first phase? Does Israel remove them?
Mofaz: I believe that in the first year we should pass an evacuation-compensation law in the Knesset and to prepare the civilian infrastructure for the people moving from these settlements to the Galilee or the Negev. We cannot predict the size or the percentage of the people that will move by their own will, but I believe that giving them the infrastructure, giving them the time, knowing that the Palestinian state with temporary borders was approved in a referendum in Israel, will make it easier for them to make the right decision. But we cannot predict how many people will stay in any case in their houses, in their settlements. In the end, we should ask them or remove them to other areas.
Question: Why do you think that this peace plan will succeed where others have failed?
Mofaz: The other plans have been based on starting to negotiate without any implementation, and this will not achieve any kind of results. I believe that the moment the Palestinians accept the idea of a permanent state with temporary borders, and at the same time we start to speak about the final status issues, the atmosphere and the trust between the two sides will completely change.
My main idea is to start with a Palestinian state. The state is not temporary, the borders are temporary. The moment they have a state, they could build their economy, law and security apparatuses. They could build a better life for the Palestinian people.
I believe that there is a new atmosphere in Israel. All the leaders of the major parties in Israel agree today to the two-state solution. Prime Minister Netanyahu, the head of the Likud party, said that the vision of the two-state solution should be implemented in his speech at Bar Ilan University. I believe that President Obama has the goodwill to move forward and to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I believe that today in Israel more and more people want to see this conflict having a solution. And the current generation of the leaders of the state of Israel cannot pass the responsibility to end the conflict on to the next generation. We have to take the decision right now, in these years to avoid the continuation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict and to open the horizon and to give hope to our people that we can have peace with our neighbors.
In order to remain in what is left of the West’s good graces and continue to get support from the U.S. in particular for so long as the U.S. remains a leading world power, Israel, whatever changes she makes to her political status, must continue to meet sufficient democratic criteria to still rightly be considered a democracy. Dershowitz’s metric as to what constitutes democracy should not be used to determine that political status.
That takes nothing away from her need to be a Jewish state.
Do we care if Israel is technically a democracy by someone’s definition? It is completely unimportant. Its existence as a Jewish nation is much more important than whether it is defined as a democracy
Thx Eleanor. Few question that Israel should remain a democracy.
The question is if Israel were to abandon some of its current democratic indicia in order to advance her interests and secure herself from her enemies, from within and without, would she still qualify as being a democracy?
Dershowtiz says no.
I say, not so fast, given that there is no fixed universal model as to what constitutes democracy, save in rarefied political science theory. Realty has shown us that working democracies can vary, but do share many democratic norms, including Western values often referred to as Judeo Christian values.
Well said, Bill Narvey. from a fellow Calgarian.
Israel’s Declaration of Independence makes no mention of “Democracy”, let alone a pure democracy that does not exist anywhere in the world. It does, however, incorporate the UN Resolution which anticipated two states with full democratic rights for the citizens, regardless of their religion etc. in each of their respective States. That having been said, the Arabs abrogated every single aspect of that Resolution when it failed to declare its Arab state and, instead, participated in an all out war against the fledgling State of Israel in 1948. The degree of that abrogation can be appreciated only if you read the full text of the UN Resolution. Accordingly, the Arabs of the former Palestine now living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, should not be entitled to cherry pick the UN Resolution and claim the full rights of citizenship in the inevitable event that a Jewish State will be formed on all of the lands West of the Jordan River. I say “inevitable” because of the Jewish Demographics in Israel. The left wing secular socialists are dying out. They have lost their will to survive as evidenced by their low birthrates. Not so the more traditional Jews of Israel whose many children will be voting in greater numbers in future elections.
I support entirely the view expressed by Bernard Ross. Mofaz is a dangerous leftist chameleon… more of an opportunist as are the majority of Kadimists (Olmert, Livni, etc.). These scum are all ego and no brain. It is pathetic that they get promoted in the IDF. With people like Bardak, Mofaz, etc. as head of “Da Fence” Israel remains in constant danger. They prefer to coddle the arab enemy without understanding or caring about the consequences of their actions. Mofaz and the rest of them (Persky,etc.) have not learned from the recent tragedy of the expulsion from Gush Katif and the creation of hamastan. These insane sickos repeat their mistakes with apparent impunity. It is time to get rid of them and rebuild the system from the ground up based on Torah and Judaism as the main pillars.
“My main idea is to start with a Palestinian state.” This says it all: a representative of Israel whose MAIN idea is to create something for the “palestinians”. This is now out of date as in Arutz 7 he states to give them 100% of all they desire. Perhaps his perspective explains his incompetence in his former position: he doesn’t appear to know which side he represents. Only in Israel would it be possible to elect a PM whose main platform is to give the enemy everything it wants. Israel needs a PM whose main idea is to propagate Israels needs and leave the needs of the enemy for them to figure out. After all, isn’t that what the enemy does quite successfully? There are 2 precedents that Israel should pursue and implement unilaterally: that the ethnic cleansing of jews from arab lands, perpetrated post Geneva Conventions and with no international legal action taken by UN, sets a precedent for the transfer of muslims from Israel; that the creation of JEW FREE Jordan, on 77% of former mandate territory, solely for the arab/muslim inhabitants of the former mandate territory implies that the remaining 23% must be solely for the jewish inhabitants of the former mandate territory and that Jordan is thus the implied destination of the former arab/mulim inhabitants. The 2 precedents are that population transferand the creation of exclusive ethnic states and areas is acceptable to the UN. An Israeli pm should be promoting Israels interests in action and in the world fora.
What is wrong with a one Jewish democratic state? That is the type of organization that Japan and Switzerland have and no one is calling them apartheid states, or saying that they are not democracies. Palestinians could have all legal rights except voting rights. This idea was in the Balfour declaration. Also no one complains about the Arab states being Judenrein. Why is it ok for the Islamic states to be Jew-free and oppress Christians but it is not ok for the same sort of arrangement being made by Christian or Jewish states? Why do Jews want to create a state that will exclude Jews? What a monstrous idea to come from the requirement of Jews (usually religiously ignorant Jews) to befriend our enemies? I know Jews say that there is good and evil in everyone, but why support the evil?
If Mofaz were to give the Palestinians all they ask for, he would have to give them all of Israel including Judea and Samaria. A better plan is for Israel to annex Judea and Samaria and give the Palestinians the boot. Jordan is the state of the Palestinians.
Any so called ‘Peace Plan’ that would accommodate the Arab Terrorists would not be able to be reversed, this this as a WARNING!
Once it is implemented and de facto recognized in the world it is going to be like a sword of Damocles on the heads of every Israeli. All Israelis will even be less secure in their daily routine than before the implementation of the so called Mofaz Plan.
This man is not worth to speak of, lest we promote his persona in public. He got his 15 minutes of fame now, so please forget about him now.
Terance, you have me confused with someone else or you have misunderstood my writings outside of Israpundit. I don’t think you are on my distribution list, unless you Terace is a pseudonyum or alternatively one of my many addressees forwards you my letters and articles.
I am not intimidated by Yamit, Laura or anyone on this blog.
2ndly the only views that are not allowed on Israpundit to my knowledge are views that are anti-semitic or which go way beyond legitimate honest criticism of Israel and well into demonizing her.
I have not dealt with the issue of whether Israel is an apartheid state, save to say such an allegation is maliciously evil and mendacious.
I have contended that the 2 state solution is impossible given that Jew-Israel hatred and rejectionism has been, is and likely will be long into the future, deeply ingrained in the Palestinian culture and psyche. How could it be otherwise when Palestinians, Arabs and indeed most of the Muslim Middle East are fed a diet of Jew hatred daily by their political, religious and cultural leaders.
I concur with Sherman’s view generally that the pursuit of the 2 state solution has harmed Israel and giving more concessions to go down that road further with Palestinians will only see Israel repaid for her concessions with more Palestinian empty promises.
Missing from every interim agreement between Israel and the Palestinians appears to be enforceable remedy provisions whereby if Palestinians breach their promise given to induce concessions from Israel, Israel would have the right to take back the concession and seek other remedies as well.
If there are such enforceable provisions in these agreements and Israel has not exercised them, then the big question would be, why not?
That said, short of an all out war that substantially changes the political/social/economic landscape and with that, a brand new, different, realistic and feasible peace paradigm comes to the fore, I do not know what kind of alternate peace paradigm would be preferable to the 2 state solution to bring a stable and enduring peace. I leave that to the brainiacs. If such war does materialize however, Israel must of course win or it is game over and all talk of peace becomes moot.
On the issue of democracy, yes I do hope that Israel remains a democracy where all have the vote. As I noted however, there is no one universal model of democracy that Western nations adhere to. Each, just like Israel have sufficient qualities and values in keeping with democratic norms that they are rightfully called democracy.
I raised a question as regards the seemingly greater value Dershowitz places on Israel’s democratic nature over her Jewish nature, which essentially is:
If Israel, given her particular existential circumstances that no other democratic nation has to deal with, found herself in a situation that the democratic rights and freedoms she allowed her citizens were enabling anti-Israel elements from both without and within to destroy Israel, should Israel abandon democracy to live or sacrifice herself for the sake of being democratic to her last breath?
@ terence:
You are trying to dance around the issue. I have been the recipient of many of your newletters where call for a one state solution with obvious and I underline the word obvious democratic voting RIGHTS FOR ALL INHABITANTS of this state. Now of course, in this forum such a point of view is verboten.Now don’t dither around. One state solution or two state solution? What is it going to be? You stated on numerous occasions that the Israeli population, with a strong democratic ethos will not allow for a South African state of affairs. Why are you so intimidated by the crazies. Yamit, Laura are really pussy cats in tiger suits. A mixed metaphor, their bite is worse than their bite.
No Terrance, I have not advocated anything beyond that the 2 state solution is impossible.
Some on the hard right advocate that J & S be annexed to Israel and all Palestinians be evacuated to Jordan the Palestinian state that has existed since the British parceled out the land then called Transjordan from the mandated territories and gave same to the Hamshemites. Others suggest an annexation, but Palestinians can remain with full citizenship rights, save for the right to vote. I sympathize with these positions and if I could snap my fingers and make it happen I would.
If Palestinians can get away with demanding a Judenrein state, why is it so offensive to say that Israel should have no Palestinians and Arabs within her borders?
I do not however, see how such giant step is feasible given the realpolitik of current conventional wisdom, premised in my view on collective stupidity, ill will and hate towards Israel or a combination thereof.
Annexing J & S and granting Palestinians full citizenship rights, including the right to vote exposes Israel to a future demographic disaster should Palestinian birthrates far exceed Israeli birthrates and Israel were to allow other Arabs to immigrate.
As regards the suggestion of annexing J & S, and granting full citizenship rights to Palestinians, save for the right to vote, Dershowitz damns that thinking as anti-democratic. He contends that if that were to happen, Israel would cease to be a democracy and in so ceasing, its raison d’etre would be lost.
I disagree with Dershowitz on 2 counts.
1st, there is no one universal model for a political democracy. It comes in many forms. For instance America is not a true democracy, but rather a republic that has incorporated many features and values attributed to a democracy based on classical democractic theories. Israel also is not a classical democracy, but still a democracy. The same is true of just about all so called Western democracies.
2ndly, by expressing himself as he has, Dershowitz appears to deny the Jewish character of Israel as a fundamental and equal feature of Israel or at least, he puts Israel’s current democratic nature as more essential to Israel’s raison d’etre than her Jewish character.
A final thought concerning the views advocated by Dershowitz for years that Israel is and must remain democratic by whatever definition he is alluding to, which Dershowitz never does seem to spell out.
If Israel can only survive by becoming less of a democracy than Dershowitz demands of her or even abandoning democracy altogether for another political model, a fundamental question arises:
If Israel’s survival depends on no longer being democratic, is it more important that she should survive as something other than a democracy or is it more important she sacrifice herself for the sake that history records she was and remained a democracy to the end when her unflinching insistence on remaining democractic, did her in?
These are very serious questions that must be answered. Dershowitz, whose views on the matter you wrongly attributed to me, has neither asked nor answered these questions.
They are indeed tough to answer, but we must try.
@ Bill Narvey:
You are quite correct in implying a peace agreement with the Palestinians is definitely a non starter. I further agree that a two state solution is unworkable. Your contention is only proper, that the territories should be absorbed by Israel and every inhabitant, Arab, Jew, Druse, Moslem Christian, and whatever should be allowed to have a vote, like any other normal country. You have stated many times in the past,disallowing voting for anyone other than Jews is rascist discrimination and would not be tolerated by the majority of Israelis. Yes, We are fully in compliance with your democratic views.
Mofaz seems to be totally delusional and incapable of understanding anything about the Arabs. How in the world could this weird creature ever become a high military officer in Israel?
Mofaz’s plan – another exercise in futility. Mofaz says his plan, is:
Be they Gazan or West Bank Palestinians, they have each in their own way stated they will not accept a disarmed state in any way, shape or form and whereas the former have stated outright there is nothing to talk about, the latter have done so in their own fashion by refusing to talk.
Palestinians are not interested in peace, except peace of the grave of Israel they want to possess and trample on.
Since his plan is a non starter for the Palestinians, you would think Mofaz and dreamers for an impossible 2 state peace solution, might have long ago taken the hint and retrenched to another position that sees Israel move forward in her own best interests, which means preventing Palestinians from ever realizing their dream for Israel’s destruction.
If and only if Palestinians can be forced to rid themselves of their Jew/Israel hatred and the genocidal dreams that hatred fosters or they are rendered and made to see themselves as pathetic and weak enuchs who are eating themselves up alive with their Jew hatred, is there any chance some basis for peace might materialize.
Until then, let Palestinians have and revel in all the hate they can handle, but Israel must ensure it is not Israel, but Palestinians who pay the price for their Jew hatred and genocidal dreams for Jews and Israel being eradicated from the region.
Forget the “disarmed” business. The PA has presumably been “disarmed” since 1993, but that fact hasn’t stopped one rocket attack or suicide mission.
When Ariel Sharon created “Kadima”, it was the instant Mecca for every sycophant and unprincipaled politician in Israel. Mofaz held off on joining it, so he could challenge Netanyahu from within Likud. The moment he lost the election — in fact, as I seem to recall, before the returns were even in, and just before the mailings he had distributed, airing his commitment not to quit Likud, got to the mailboxes, he quit Likud and joined his opportunist brothers and sisters in Kadima.
Kadima stands for absolutely nothing, and Mofaz is its natural head. Maybe Tzipi Livni can redeem herself now, by joining Netanyahu in Likud.
Dreamer… There really is no diplomatic solution.