To the Editor:
I recently read Norman Podhoretz’s brilliant and incisive article, “Israel: A Lamentation From the Future” [March], as well as the letters in response to it [July]. I agree fully with Mr. Podhoretz about refraining from advocacy of solutions to Israel’s security needs unless one is a citizen of the country and one’s own life is on the line. I further agree with him about the dangers of a PLO state. Nevertheless, I would like to offer a proposal for the Middle East which, so far as I know, has never been aired before, though some of its provisions have been included in other proposals. I hope this does not smack of high hubris—I believe that all possible solutions should be considered.
There is little doubt in my mind that at some point, deplorable though it may be, Israel will be pressured into granting the Palestinians some geographically viable region. . . . I believe, therefore, that Israel should take the initiative and agree to grant the Palestinians their own territory, modified for security reasons, in the region of the West Bank and Gaza. The arrangement could be either a confederation with Israel and Jordan (if this is still possible) or else an independent autonomous region, canton, or (as a last resort) a Palestinian state. Needless to say, this calls upon the Israelis to make a monumental compromise and a gut-wrenching leap of faith. Yet if one takes the Palestinians at their word, such an arrangement would answer their major grievance.
This new region would necessarily be a demilitarized area, presenting no threat to Israeli security, and would remain so for a stipulated period—let us say fifty years or more (precedents for this exist)—allowing time for hatreds to cool, mutual confidence to build, economies to grow, and allowing also for each side to evolve its own ultimate political intention—whether for peace or for confrontation.
Aside from the prohibition against a military force, all other security functions of a non-military nature—e.g., a local police force, etc.—would be permitted in this territory. Israeli settlers living there would remain, but they would be subject to laws of the region. This too would be a difficult compromise for Israel, but it would be mandatory that no movement of population could take place except by choice.
Most critically, as soon as the new region were established, every Israeli Arab would automatically switch passports and acquire Palestinian papers, thus acknowledging what we have learned in the past year and a half. If nothing else, the intensity of the intifada and the strong support it has elicited from Israeli Arabs have clearly demonstrated that their loyalty is to the Palestinians and their struggle, and not to the Jewish need for a secure national home. Despite the change in citizenship, the Arabs living in Israel would, of course, go on living there in their ancestral homes, conducting business as before and being accorded full civil liberties, except that they would now be voting in their own Palestinian popular assembly rather than in the Knesset.
For Israel, such an arrangement would finally remove the demographic threat represented by the Arab population. For Arabs living in Israel, it would mean the achievement of a popular assembly that would heed their voices and attend to their grievances—as well as plan their future—thereby helping to bring the Israeli-Palestinian relationship to a new level, a more formal, diplomatic one.
Just as Israel would be expected to maintain the economic upkeep of the settlements, so this new “region” would similarly be expected to contribute to the financial support of Arab neighborhoods within Israel. Finally, as for Jerusalem, it is not in my opinion a negotiable issue. Israeli sovereignty would prevail. . . .
It seems to me that the plan I have outlined would give each side a chance to fulfill its stated goals and long-held dreams and, further, would allow each side to live in some measure of day-to-day harmony. . . .
Every peace proposal that has been offered to date has met with some objection or other, and mine, if it ever got that far, would undoubtedly meet the same fate. Yet it does seem to meet the essential demands of . . . those concerned and could be a basis for further discussion. It contains a built-in symmetry that will not, unfortunately, dissolve mutual suspicion and hatred (only time will do that), but will at least keep these feelings in check. It allows for an exchange of papers rather than an exchange of people, whether Arabs or Israelis, something that no one wishes to see. Finally, it allows roles to be defined unambiguously for the first time. This kind of clarity should bring about a decrease in opportunities for violence and better assure a good existence for all.
Benjamin Fass
Los Angeles, California
_____________
