Proposed peace plan has no wings, say experts

With Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza dragging on relentlessly and no deal to free the hostages captured on 7 October within grasp, a kernel of a new peace proposal has emerged.

Put forward by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Palestinian Foreign Minister Nasser Al-Kidwa at the end of August, it both covers familiar territory and breaks new ground.

Although mentioned briefly in the Israeli media, the joint proposal gained prominence when the two statesmen were interviewed by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Sunday, 8 September. Analysts the SA Jewish Report spoke to, however, don’t think these ideas would go anywhere in the current climate.

The Olmert-Al-Kidwa proposal calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza; the return of the hostages and release of selected Palestinian prisoners; and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the borders before the June 1967 Six-Day War. We’ve heard all that before. It proposes that Israel annexes 4.4% of the West Bank – mostly the areas where Jews live across the Green Line – swapping this for land that would go to a Palestinian state, including a land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank. This echoes the failed peace plan put forward in 2008 by Olmert when he was Israel’s 12th prime minister.

The proposal calls for “a full withdrawal of Israeli forces and the creation of a Palestinian entity to administer and rebuild the Gaza Strip in the form of a council of commissioners composed of professional technocrats and not political representatives”. This council shall be “organically linked” to the Palestinian Authority (PA), and prepare the Gaza Strip and West Bank for elections in two to three years. The two leaders also called for a temporary Arab security presence “to stabilise the situation” and prevent attacks on Israel from Gaza.

The proposal, controversially, calls for the redivision of Jerusalem that would serve as the capital of both states, with no restriction of worship or movement in “the Holy basin”, which includes the Temple Mount precinct.

Larry Benjamin, a Middle East expert at the University of the Witwatersrand said, “I have always considered [Olmert] to be the prime minister who together with Ehud Barak was most likely to implement the essence of the Oslo Accords and chart a way to a two-state solution. The latest proposal, while laudable, is in my view totally at odds with where popular sentiment in Israel is anchored.

“The Saudi peace plan of 2002 remains the most realistic basis for a political solution on paper. However, attitudes on both sides have hardened, and it seems highly improbable that this latest proposal will have any traction at least in the short-to-medium term.”

Dr Glen Segell of the University of Cambridge said, “Two former politicians suffering from their lack of achievement in office have paraphrased elements of previous proposals, including and since the 1947 partition plan. In doing so, they have highlighted the stumbling points for negotiations.

“Hopefully the ploy will work in that their joint statement will provoke current leaders to discuss their viability or negotiate better. Notwithstanding that, there are many points that wouldn’t be acceptable to the Israeli defence establishment. The other side still wants us dead. Independence isn’t the solution.”

The proposal will also be judged by the profile of its proponents. Olmert is far from a revered and respected figure in Israel. Segell said, “Olmert went to jail for crimes when he was mayor of Jerusalem. No-one trusts him. Security guards in supermarkets joke that they follow him to make sure he doesn’t shoplift.”

Not much is known about Al-Kidwa, besides him being a moderate and the nephew of the former president of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat. His profile on Wikipedia is sparse.

“Right now, any conversation about two states is really remote,” said journalist Rolene Marks in Israel. “The focus is on the hostages and the best way to attain our war goals. So this hasn’t stirred much interest and the reception has been lukewarm, if any. A Palestinian state is seen as a reward for terrorism, there is zero trust between Israelis and Palestinians, and we have a trust deficit with our own government. Benjamin Netanyahu’s approval rating is in the doldrums, 70% of the country want him out, and in Gaza, all we think of is getting our hostages back and defeating Hamas. Having said that, we do have enormous empathy for the terrible and untenable suffering.”

And, “the proposal is certainly interesting,” Marks said, “until you get to Jerusalem. Israelis won’t agree to any division or ceding of parts of Jerusalem.”

Professor Hussein Solomon at the University of the Free State said, “It’s an important step. First of all, to point out the positives. It’s an Israeli and a Palestinian, and there’s no political ‘day after’ coming from Netanyahu and his moribund cabinet.”

Solomon said the proposal was short on details about land swaps and the composition of the Arab force, for example. “What about Netanyahu’s viewpoint about not giving up the Philadelphi Corridor? And would the existing right-wing Israeli government actually accept this, given the fact that the West Bank is considered by it to be Eretz Yisrael? They talk about elections and a council headed by the PA, which has been notably absent in this entire crisis. When you hear about Palestine, you link it with Hamas, not [PA president Mahmoud] Abbas. There’s a big question about who succeeds him, given his advanced age. There are polls suggesting that Hamas might win the elections, then what happens?”

History will judge whether this proposal sparks a sustainable solution or is just another damp firework in the elusive quest for peace in the Middle East.