Freedom of Movement is the Key to Any Agreement by Dan Goldenblatt

Freedom of Movement is the Key to Any Agreement Israel after a peace agreement should be an integral and important part of the Middle East, contributing to the sustainable development of the entire region.

By Dan Goldenblatt | Sep. 11, 2013 After three years of stalemate, it’s time to start negotiating with the people we’ll have to live with and alongside, whether we want to or not. The Israeli government and its leader, one can hope, have formulated some vision of neighborly co-existence.

However, what is the overarching objective? Is it the consolidation of Israel in its 1967 borders? As a state facing the West, serving as a protected and armored aircraft carrier in the midst of Arab barbarism? As a Western enclave surrounded by a fence and by anti-missile defense systems? As one big prison, with only one exit at Ben Gurion airport?

Or, perhaps it will be an integral and important part of the Middle East, a country interested in sharing its physical and human resources in order to improve the socio-economic, political and environmental situation in the whole region? A country that would be a supportive pillar of a sustainable space; that has to contend with existential threats that do not consist of bombs or armored columns, but rather of food shortages, drying up of water resources and the creeping desertification.

Until now, for the first 65 years of its existence, Israel has chosen to isolate itself; aiming to transform itself into a Switzerland or Singapore of the Middle East, separate from the region. It is thus not surprising that the vision of the ‘villa in the jungle’ (coined by former prime minister Ehud Barak) was not warmly received by our neighbors, near and far.

It may come as a surprise to some that it was actually thinkers on the right, such as Ze’ev Jabotinsky, who developed a vision of a multi-national region, recognizing its importance. Not a region in which the Jewish nation is subsumed, but one in which it peacefully integrates with countries around it. It was the Labor Party throughout its generations that glorified, in theory and in practice, a separation from the surrounding region.

There is now an opportunity for common action that can be exploited by all those seeking an end to the conflict. This includes the Zionist left and anyone supporting a shared space between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, in which two nation-states will co-exist, with freedom of movement between them.

Mahmoud Abbas’ declaration that a Palestinian state would be free of Jewish soldiers and civilians is a clear and definitive statement. One could, and perhaps should, relate to it with some skepticism. The solution he refers to may relate to defining the borders of the two states. Clearly, the start of negotiations must be accompanied by a complete halt to construction in the settlements. There cannot be negotiations about dividing the land while Israel incessantly reduces the size of the cake to be divided. However, the separation Abbas talks about does not meet the needs of the two peoples for freedom of movement in their joint space. More than 90% of places that are sacred to Jews are located in Judea and Samaria, and nearly all Palestinian refugees come from villages whose ruins lie in Israel.

In order to prevent Abbas’s statement from becoming fact, innovative ideas are required; ideas that have not yet been seriously discussed. One such idea is to allow partial repatriation of refugees into Israel itself, in exchange for leaving some or most of the settlements intact. A formula allowing settlers to remain as residents of Palestine, but citizens of Israel, while settling Palestinians, who are citizens of Palestine, in new settlements in Israel will not change the demographic balance, which is so close to Israeli hearts.

Furthermore, in any final agreement, 350,000 residents of East Jerusalem will become residents and citizens of Palestine, as its sovereignty is extended to Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, with Israeli sovereignty extended to Jewish neighborhoods there.

This will demand some changes in the lives of most settlers, not to mention the small but violent minority among them. But if Jews want to continue living in the whole region, including maintaining shared access to the Tombs of the Patriarchs in Hebron and access to Rachel’s Tomb, Joseph’s Tomb, Beit El and Shilo, there will be a price to pay. One can hope that they will be willing at least to hold serious and substantive discussions on the issue.

Some people joke that a perfect solution would be to move all Jews to the mountain crest of the West Bank and all Palestinians to the coast. The fact is that both peoples have strong sentiments regarding the entire region between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. The chances of finding a solution that will bar freedom of movement from both sides are slim. Undoubtedly, the United States can force both sides to the table and even to sign an agreement, but no-one can make the agreement last. Signing is only 1% of the peace process.

Current buzz words are innovation, creativity and thinking outside boxes. These are the precise qualities we must demand of our leaders, in order to reach a historic and sustainable agreement - one that will end the most complex conflict in the Middle East.

Dan Goldenblatt is the Israeli co-Director of The Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information