A proposal for the West Bank and Gaza Strip
In the deadlocked debate over the future of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there is considerable merit in the arguments on both sides. Israelis have legitimate worries about security, while there is a growing world consensus that the Palestinians have a moral if not a juridical right to a homeland of their own.
TIME herewith offers a proposal for resolving the Palestinian problem that takes into account both Israeli fears and Arab aspirations. The plan, which draws on the views of experts in the U.S., Israel and Egypt, rests on three assumptions. One is that continuing Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza, with their overwhelmingly Arab populations, would prove impossible in the long run. The second is that substituting an imposed Jordanian and/or Egyptian sovereignty over the area, except during a brief transition period, would equally frustrate Palestinian nationalist yearnings, and thus preclude a genuine Middle East peace. The third is that Israel's security needs could be met without its troops occupying the West Bank and Gaza.
The following plan presumably is not acceptable to either side right away, although that does not mean it is ultimately unfeasible. No blueprint can or should be imposed in a single, dramatic act. Instead, it ought to proceed by stages, with each new step contingent upon fulfillment of the conditions required by the previous steps. This process might take years, even decades. The end result, however, could well be a new Palestinian state that could serve as a bridge between Israel and the rest of the Arab world.
The elements of the plan:
Political Structure. Israel would relinquish control over the West Bank and Gaza and withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. As envisioned by the architects of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which clearly seems to call for this withdrawal, there would be minor adjustments in the armistice lines of 1949, which bisected towns and villages and otherwise imposed easily remedied geographic hardships. More extensive border changes favoring Israel would be allowed, of course, with Arab approval. At the end of a predetermined period—perhaps five years—the West Bank and Gaza would be formally incorporated as a Palestinian homeland with transit rights (but not an extraterritorial corridor) guaranteed between the separated territories. Although this Palestinian homeland would have a government and the right to issue passports, there would be certain limits imposed initially on its sovereignty; thus the new country should be described as an "entity" rather than a nation. As a first step toward normalization, Israel and the Palestinian homeland would recognize each other diplomatically and affirm the other's right to exist in peace.
Logically, the capital of the new entity would be East Jerusalem, which is predominantly Arab. But negotiations that threaten to divide the Holy City once more would be long, painful and extraordinarily difficult. Until the Jerusalem question is solved, the new entity would use a West Bank city, perhaps Ramallah, as a temporary capital; it would function much as Bonn does for West Germany.
The new entity would be granted a symbolic presence in East Jerusalem, but no physical division of the city would be allowed.