Getting to the Territorial Endgame

of an Israeli-Palestinian

Peace Settlement

A Special Report by the Israeli-Palestinian Workshop of the Baker Institute’s Conflict Resolution Forum

chaired by Edward P. Djerejian, Founding Director

http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/BI-pub-IPTerritorialEndgame-020210.pdf

The Israeli-Palestinian workshop is part of the Baker Institute’s Conflict Resolution Forum. Learn more about the Baker Institute’s conflict resolution work, including previous reports from the Israeli-Palestinian Working Group and the United States-Syria Dialogue, at http://www.bakerinstitute.org/programs/conflict-resolution.

Foreword

For the past year and a half, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University under the aegis of its Conflict Resolution Forum hosted an Israeli-Palestinian workshop to explore the possible contours of a final status agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians on the territorial components of peace. The Baker Institute convened two teams of experts, each representing Israeli and Palestinian points of view.

The focus of this workshop is to provide policymakers in Washington, Jerusalem and Ramallah with the results of a Track II bottom-up approach highlighting the differences and areas of possible agreement between the Israeli and Palestinian positions on key issues, including Israeli settlements, borders, land swaps, territorial contiguity, safe passage and other relevant issues. A primary assumption of all of the parties is that the territorial component of peace cannot be negotiated and addressed in isolation from the other final status issues, including Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and security, as well as significant issues such as the normalization of relations and the economic components of peace.

Nevertheless, the purpose of this exercise is to concentrate on the territorial component with the assumption that if progress could be made on this critical issue, it could facilitate forward movement in Track I negotiations on the other final status issues. The Israeli and Palestinian teams were able to establish some common criteria and guidelines for assessing the territorial issues and the Israeli settlements.

Accordingly, the two teams provided narratives and submitted different maps containing territorial swap scenarios. An initial Israeli map suggested a territorial swap of 7.03% each, accepting the 1:1 provision laid down in the Arab Peace Initiative. The teams also referred to reported positions put forward by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. An initial Palestinian map suggested a territorial swap, on the basis of a 1:1 exchange, of 1.9%, reflecting reported positions put forward by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Under the aegis of the Baker Institute, three territorial options in between these positions of the parties were discussed. The conceptual maps with these three territorial options were reviewed in the course of our discussions and are included at the end of 6 Getting to the Territorial Endgame of an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Settlement this report. The Palestinian and the Israeli teams discussed, also, the important need to differentiate between “space and time” — namely, exploring the concept of phasing the dismantlement and relocation of settlements over various periods of time.

Drawing on the deliberations of the Israeli and Palestinian participants in this workshop and the proposed options for a final territorial agreement, the report finds that a United States bridging proposal on the territorial component of peace could be introduced at the right time and, depending on actual political circumstances, serve as a guide to enable gradual progress, step by step. The contours of a territorial bridging proposal are outlined in this report, as well as the need to prepare the necessary planning tools to achieve a successful outcome.

It is evident that the Israeli settlements are one of the most contentious issues in any final Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The sensitivities of the Israeli and Palestinian teams during the course of the discussions in the Baker Institute’s workshop underscored this reality and the hard challenges that official negotiators will face. Serious differences between the parties remain, and they are reflected in the report and the appendices outlining Palestinian and Israeli considerations and concerns. Therefore, this report does not represent a consensus reached by the Israeli and Palestinian teams. Nevertheless, specific points of convergence were reached during the deliberations and some differences were narrowed.

In actual negotiations, strong political will on the part of the leadership of all the parties and a viable and sustained negotiating process will be necessary to help bring the parties to a final agreement. Indeed, no real progress will be made without the direct and sustained involvement of President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George J. Mitchell.

In their capacities as members of the working group, the Israeli and Palestinian participants, who are well connected to their respective leaderships, did not represent officially their governments. They are former officials both civilian and military, academics, experts from various organizations, and individuals from the private sector. Due to the present status of prospective negotiations, the participants are constrained in their ability to publicly identify themselves. In this respect, the proposed territorial options involving a possible United States bridging proposal are put forward by the Baker Institute and do not necessarily commit the Israeli and Palestinian teams and individual participants to specific outcomes.

Edward P. Djerejian

Founding Director

James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy

Rice University

February 2010

Contents

Foreword, 5

Executive Summary, 7

Chapter 1: The United States’ Role in Negotiating the Israeli-Palestinian Territorial Issue, 15

Chapter 2: Guidelines for a United States Strategy to Get to an Israeli- Palestinian Territorial Agreement, 35

Appendix I: Palestinian Narrative, 45

Appendix II: Israeli Narrative, 53

Appendix III: Maps - Israeli and Palestinian Territorial Proposals, 61

Appendix IV: Maps - Contested Areas, 71

Appendix V: Maps - Territorial Options, 99

Acknowledgments, 107