ISRAEL/PALESTINE
TERRITORY
The solution should provide for Palestinian sovereignty over 94-96% of West Bank territory, with a land swap of 1-3% to partially compensate for the land Israel annexes for its settlement blocs. Other territorial arrangements such as permanent Safe Passage will need to be worked out (the swap of leased land could also be considered). The final maps should include 80 percent of the settlers in blocs, contiguity of territory for each side, minimize annexation and the number of Palestinians affected.
Jerusalem
On Jerusalem, the most promising approach is to follow the general principle that what is Arab in the City should be Palestinian and what is Jewish should be Israeli. This would apply to the Old City as well. Regarding the Haram/Temple Mount issue, there are two approaches that could formalize Palestinian de facto control over the Haram while respecting the convictions of the Jewish people. Under each, there could be an international monitoring system to provide mutual confidence: (1) Mutual agreement could provide for Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram, and for Israeli sovereignty over either “the Western Wall and the space sacred to Judaism of which it is a part” or “the Western Wall and the holy of holies of which it is part.” There would be a firm commitment by both not to excavate beneath the Haram or behind the Western Wall. (2) Alternatively, the agreement could provide for Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram and Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall and for “shared functional sovereignty over the issue of excavation under the Haram or behind the Western Wall.” That way, mutual consent would be required before any excavation takes place in these areas.
Refugees
The issue of Palestinian refugees is no less sensitive than Jerusalem. In 2000, Clinton believed that Israel was prepared to acknowledge the moral and material suffering caused to the Palestinian people as a result of the 1948 War and the need to assist the international community in addressing the problem. He also believed that the Palestinian side was prepared to join in such an international solution. The fundamental gap seems to be how to handle the concept of the right to return. Because of the history, it would be hard for the Palestinian leadership to appear to be abandoning the principle. At the same time, the Israeli side cannot accept any reference to a right of return that would imply a right to immigrate to Israel in defiance of Israel’s sovereign policies on admission or that would threaten the Jewish character of the State. Any solution will have to address both of these needs. It will also have to be consistent with the two-state approach that both sides have once accepted as the way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If these parameters are revived, a new State of Palestine will about to be created as the homeland of the Palestinian people, just as Israel was established as the homeland of the Jewish people. Under this two-state solution, the guiding principle has to be that the Palestinian state will be the focal point for the Palestinians who choose to return to the area, without ruling out that Israel will accept some of these refugees. Both sides should adopt a formulation on the right of return that will make clear there is no specific right of return to Israel, itself, but that does not negate the aspirations of Palestinian refugees to return to the area. There are two alternatives: (1) Both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to historic Palestine. (2) Both sides recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to a homeland. The agreement would define the implementation of this general right in a way that is consistent with the two-state solution. It would list the five possible homes for refugees: 1) The State of Palestine, 2) Areas in Israel being transferred to Palestine in the land swap, 3) Rehabilitation in host country, 4) Resettlement in third country, 5) Admission to Israel. In listing these five options, both sides would make clear that return to the West Bank, Gaza, or the areas acquired through the land swap would be a right for all Palestinian refugees, while rehabilitation in their host countries, resettlement in third countries, or absorption into Israel would depend upon the policies of those countries. Israel could indicate in the agreement that it intended to establish a policy so that some of the refugees could be absorbed into Israel, consistent with Israel’s sovereign decision.
Source: Dennis Ross. "The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace." New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2004