Here's an interesting analysis by Uzi Arad (formerly the Mossad's director of intelligence and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyhu's foreign policy adviser) of some potential land-swapping deals that could form part of an end of conflict deal: Trading Land for Peace.
Land swaps will definitely need to be part of any potential deal because Israel cannot relinquish the major settlement blocs.
| Geographically, these blocs are situated in such a way that they could be attached either to Israel or to a Palestinian state. The various land swap plans proposing a tradeoff of territories aim to increase ethnic homogeneity and to preserve each side's basic territorial reach. In this context, land swaps allow an exchange of sovereignty over contiguous population blocs--Jewish population blocs in the West Bank proximate to the armistice line and Arab population blocs west and north of the armistice line. For example, the Gush Etzion and Ariel blocs and towns in the Jerusalem district could be exchanged for the towns and surroundings of Umm El Fahm, Arara, Bartaa, Qalansuwa, Taybe, Tira, and Kfar Kassem. |
Bill Clinton was thinking along these lines in September 2000 when he proposed the "Clinton parameters". Barak got the Knesset to accept the Clinton proposals which would have ended the conflict and created a Palestinian state - but Arafat rejected.
| He said that the Palestinian state should include somewhere between 94 and 96 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap of 1 to 3 percent and other territorial arrangements to compensate for the land Israel would annex for its settlement blocs. Clinton also said that any deal should allow Israel to annex 80 percent of Jewish West Bank settlers in blocs, preserve territorial contiguity for both sides, and minimize the number of affected Palestinians. |
A final deal will also involve population transfers without land exchanges. I can't foresee the Palestinians allowing the settlers deep inside the West Bank that are not part of the major settlement blocs to remain. Like the Jewish residents of Gaza, these Jews will need to be transferred into Israel proper. The question then remains...in return can Israel also ask for some Arabs living in the Galilee and Negev to be resettled in Palestine?
Although the PA has been willing to consider the land swap proposals there is a moral problem which may thwart the idea. Two thirds of the Arab Israelis do not support the idea. They do not want to trade their Israeli citizenship for a Palestinian one. Ultimately they appreciate the democratic virtues that Israel offers. However a condition upon the creation of a Palestinian state would be that it must be democratic. Israel could also create certain incentives
| Any land swap would likely allow Israeli Arabs assuming Palestinian sovereignty to keep whatever social welfare benefits they had as Israeli citizens, and compensation would probably be offered to offset the costs of the transition. Thus, there might actually be an economic disadvantage to staying in Israel. At present, Israeli Arabs are exempted from military or national service--a substantial economic benefit. Following a final status agreement, however, Israel is much more likely to insist that all its citizens genuinely enjoy and fulfill the state's rights and obligations, including military service. |
The article concludes with an idea that is totally new to me. It talks of a multilateral land swaps - involving Egypt. This initiative suggests that
| Israel transfer to Egypt some 200 to 500 square kilometers in the Negev contiguous to the Sinai Peninsula, along with a corridor across the Negev, creating a land bridge between Egypt and Jordan. In return, Egypt would transfer to the Palestinians an area twice the size of the northern Sinai, contiguous to the Gaza strip, significantly increasing the territory of one of the most densely populated areas in the world. In turn, the Palestinians would agree to Israeli sovereignty over areas in the West Bank of commensurate magnitude. The latter would include not only the contiguous Jerusalem neighborhoods and settlement blocs, but also additional territory with no Palestinian inhabitants along the Jordan River, on nature reserves in the Judean desert, and on the Dead Sea shore. |
Interesting idea - not something I would support but interesting nonetheless. (Arab states can change over night. The idea of relinquishing part of Israel proper to Egypt and creating a corridor between this land and Jordan carries an unacceptable risk.)
Israel maintains maximalist positions on territory - they want to keep as many West Bank settlements as possible. Land swap deals allow Israel to compromise and step back from their maximalist demands. Ultimately none of this matters so long as the Palestinians stick to their maximalist demands on the "right of return". (Although, technically Israel could allow a subtle form of the "right or return" by allowing refugees to settle in the areas that they trade to the PA).
Comments