Finding Peace through Democracy in Israel and Palestine

 

Rationale

 

Fresh ideas are needed to find a just and fair peace in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.  The concept described here is to re-energize and harness democratic processes to create an ongoing dialogue to find solutions to divide the land fairly between the two societies.

 

While justice and restitution are important components of a sustained peace, this proposal starts with an acceptance of current ground realities and moves forward from there, without being bound by the past, bogged down in blame and counter blame.  The paradigm is that the land be shared along the current demographic realities, with Israel and Palestine co-existing with as high a degree of autonomy as possible, but with joint structures where necessary or mutually beneficial.  How that land be shared will be negotiated by the elected representatives of the two peoples, these representatives elected on an equal one person one vote basis.

 

Democratic Processes

 

1. Voter Registration.  The Government of Israel (GoI) and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) agree to hold synchronized fresh elections across Israel and Palestine, based on individual’s registration as either a voter for the Israeli Knesset or a voter for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), no matter where they live.  The map shows one possible outcome, hence referred to as the model scenario, where Druze, Bedouin and Christian Arab Israelis tend to register for the Knesset elections, while Moslem Arab Israelis tend to register for the PLC election. Pink indicates LGA’s that the majority register for the PLC, and blue for the Knesset.  Jerusalem City as the future bipartisan capital is shown in purple.  (This map assumes all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza register for the PLC, and Jews including West Bank settlers opt for the Knesset). 

 

2.  Formation of a Joint Electoral Commission.  The commission along with international observers would oversee the conduct of the two parliamentary elections.  The elections would be carried out based on the methods currently used in Israel.  Thus, all Israeli registered voters would form a single electorate, and similarly all Palestinian registered voters would form another single electorate with proportional representation and one vote one value.  Based on current population figures, while Arab Israelis as defined by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) and Palestinians make up a majority of the population of Israel – Palestine, Jews and Others (as per CBS) make up a majority of the electorate.   This is because the Jewish population is considerably older, so that a larger proportion of the population are eligible to vote ie aged 18 years and over.  Moreover in the model scenario, the Israeli Knesset would retain considerable numbers of Arab voters.  If the total number of elected representatives is set at 240 for the two parliaments, then there would be 147 Members of the Knesset (MK), and 92 Members of the PLC (MLC) with one additional representative of Golan, based on the voter numbers in the model scenario.

 

3. National Elections.  Following an election, the Knesset would continue to choose its Prime Minister and Cabinet to govern Israel and Israeli laws would continue to govern all citizens irrespective of their voter registration, and the reinvigorated PLC would choose a Prime Minister and Cabinet to govern the Palestinian Territories and make laws for the Palestinian people.  Jewish settlements would continue to exist under Israeli law. 

 

4.  Establishment of a Joint Assembly for Peace.  The two political bodies would continue to operate in their respective roles as national parliaments.  However, together this body of 240 elected representatives would form a Joint Assembly for Peace in Jerusalem.  The Joint Assembly would sit as two chambers, the Israeli chamber and the Palestinian chamber, the assent of both being required to pass proposals into Israeli and Palestinian laws.  While any party could be elected to the respective parliaments according to Palestinian and Israeli law, to be able to participate in the joint assembly members of parties would need to recognize the rights of the Jewish people to a homeland in Israel, and the rights of the Palestinian to self determination in their homeland, borders yet to be defined. If the more extreme elected representatives refuse to agree to these two pre-conditions, then they would be excluded from the Joint Assembly for Peace.  Hopefully this would deter voters who want peace from voting for such parties.

 

5.  Establishment of a Joint Peace Council.  At the first Joint Assembly meeting, a joint sitting would be held to vote for the Joint Peace Council, the executive leadership of the Joint Assembly.  The Council would be elected on the basis of proportional representation.  This means the Council would not only be bipartisan, it would be pluralistic as well, so that the executive would include Jews and Arabs, religious and secular, right and left wings, depending on their relative strength across the assembly and therefore across the two societies.  In the model scenario, if the joint executive consisted of nine members, five or six would be Israelis, including at least one non-Jewish Israeli, and three or four would be Palestinians. 

 

The Council members would provide collective leadership in negotiating areas of government functions that need to be mapped out for a sustainable peace.  Each councilor could take on a portfolio such as:

·         Presiding Officer of the Council, and Councilor for Jerusalem as a joint capital and for status of Golan.

·         Co-Presiding Officer of the Council, Councilor for Gaza Special Economic Development

·         Councilor for Joint Defense

·         Foreign Affairs and Trade Councilor

·         Councilor for Joint Internal Security

·         Councilor for Economic Policy

·         Councilor for Population and Migration Policy

·         Councilor for Human Rights and Religious Freedom, to protect minorities

·         Councilor for Transport, Communications and Water Resources

 

It is likely that the Prime Minister of Israel would generally be elected as Presiding Officer based on the assumption that the Prime Minister would have the biggest bloc of votes in the Joint Assembly.  However, this could be enshrined in the rules of the Joint Assembly, and if so, it might be desirable to enshrine the Palestinian Prime Minister as Co-Presiding Officer.  The Presiding Officer’s role would be to chair Council meetings and would not have presidential powers, such as allocation of Council portfolios, which would instead be chosen by consensus or by voting within the council. 

 

6. Affirmation of the Peace Settlement by Popular Vote.  After four years, these elected representatives would be expected by their respective electorates to have devised a comprehensive solution to the conflict, with the possibility of a confederation for a Joint Government in areas of bipartisan mutually shared interests such as defense, economic development and foreign relations and trade.  The next election would hold these elected representatives accountable for what they collectively achieved and failed to achieve, both as members of their respective parliaments and as joint assembly members.

 

The underlying paradigm is that both people want peace and security, although not under-estimating the risk from extremists of uncompromising positions and resorting to violence.  Assuming those who seek peace are in the majority, then involving democratic processes such as legislative elections and referenda should be used to guide the process.

 

After the Peace Is Made

 

At the end of the process, then either the Palestinian State is born and the two societies continue as two separate states, or alternatively the two societies become one state through confederation.  How key issues could be resolved by each outcome are briefly summarized below.

 

Jerusalem

-          In either a one or two state solution, the City of Jerusalem could be under a shared governance, where both the PLC and Knesset could both be located.  Claims to exclusive control seem to preclude any peace settlement.

 

Jewish West Bank Settlements

-          Similarly, a Confederation with free movement and freedom of choice for residency potentially allows Jewish settlements to remain.  If the two state model is adopted, the situation of Arab Israelis being politically represented in the PLC but residing in Israel would seem untenable.  LGA’s with majorities opting to be represented in the PLC could be ceded to the Palestinian Territories, in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Jewish West Bank settlements as legally part of Israel. 

 

Golan

-          In the eyes of nearly the whole international community, Golan is not legally part of Israel.  However handing it back to Syria would seem to increase instability as long as that country remains turbulent and undemocratic, and could easily lead to bloodshed.  In a confederation as an interim measure Golan would become a Joint Government administered district until a sustained peaceful solution with Syria and Lebanon is found.  Until its status is resolved, Golan voters would elect a representative to sit in the Joint Assembly.  Its final status could be determined by a plebiscite after a fixed period of at least 10 years of peace.  In a two state solution, the Golan would be an issue to be resolved by the GOI and not relevant to the Palestinian government.

 

Empowerment of Women

-          In both the Knesset and the PLC female under representation is significant, with only about a quarter and an eighth of members in the two legislatures respectively being female.  Almost the entire political leadership that has led to the current impasse is male.  Consideration of requiring a minimum of 40% of a party’s candidates for election be female may address this. 

-          According to unwomen.org, women’s direct participation in peace negotiations increases the sustainability and the quality of peace. A study investigating 82 peace agreements in 42 armed conflicts between 1989 and 2011 found that peace agreements with women signatories are associated with durable peace, and that peace agreements signed by women show a higher number of agreement provisions aimed at political reform and a higher implementation rate of these provisions.