INTRODUCTION
This ICG report is one of three, published simultaneously,
proposing to the parties and the wider international community a comprehensive
plan to settle the Israeli-Arab conflict. In the first report, Getting to a Comprehensive Arab-Israeli
Peace Settlement, we argue that approaches that rely on the gradual
restoration of trust, the prior cessation of violence, fundamental Palestinian
reform or various incremental political steps are all inadequate to alter the
underlying dynamic that is fuelling the conflict. As much as we would wish
otherwise, we fear that the appalling resort to terrorist violence against
Israelis, and the large-scale Israeli attacks that are destroying all hope on
the Palestinian side, will not be stopped by these means.
Instead, we recommend an approach that, while persisting in
the effort to reach a cease-fire, improve the situation on the ground, reform
Palestinian institutions and rebuild their shattered economy, seeks to deal
with the ultimate political issues up front. Our conclusion is that the
international community, led by the United States, should now initiate a
comprehensive settlement strategy. This should involve not only the
Israeli-Palestinian track, although this is obviously at the time of
publication the most immediate and serious problem requiring major attention, but
the Israel-Syria and Israel-Lebanon tracks as well, which if left unresolved
will inhibit the necessary comprehensive reconciliation between Israel and the
Arab world. What in ICG’s judgment is needed to settle these latter problems is
the subject of the third companion report, Israel,
Syria and Lebanon – How Comprehensive Peace Settlements Would Look.
In the present report, the second of the three, How a Comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian
Settlement Would Look, we spell out in detail our proposals for the content
of both a bilateral agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, and an
associated multilateral agreement whose signatories, in addition to the
parties, would be the core international players – the U.S., EU, Russia and UN
“Quartet,” and the key regional supporters of the bilateral agreement, the
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan “Trio” – with others as appropriate.
As to the elements of the bilateral settlement, ICG has been
engaged in intensive discussions with Israelis, Palestinians and others in the
international community for a number of months. The terms of the settlement
outlined here reflect our best assessment of what both sides can accept as
fair, comprehensive and lasting and what, ultimately, their agreement more or
less will have to look like. We propose that a U.S.-led international Contact
Group, whose core members would be the signatories mentioned above, present
these bilateral settlement terms to the parties. There would be no question of
them being imposed on Israel and the
Palestinians, but they would be publicly and forcefully advocated to both their
leaders and their publics.
ICG’s proposals are far-reaching, and may prove
in the short term to be more than the present international policy market can
bear. But the unhappy truth is that no lesser alternatives seem remotely likely
to bring to an end the death, injury, destruction and misery that have been
associated with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for far too many years
already.
Amman/Washington/Brussels, 16 July 2002
