Mapping Mideast Peace |
|
By David Makovsky, New York Times
11.9.2011
via New York Times (click here for original)
A New York Times Op-Ed contribution by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's David Makovsky outlines three potential land swap scenarios, and compares them to the Geneva Accord map.
EXCERPT
This map was conceptualized in the 2003 Geneva discussions, conducted by former Israeli and Palestinian officials. Each of the first three options would entail a larger land swap than envisioned in this proposal.
The Proposal
This smaller swap proposal would have allowed only 166,429 settlers - barely more than half of the total settlement population – to remain in their current homes and be annexed into Israel. This would have required uprooting 132,599 settlers in 101 settlements — 38,373 more than the number called for in option 3, and 72,817 more than in option 1.
An Evaluation
Proposals modeled on the Geneva approach of uprooting much larger numbers of settlers could prompt serious social unrest in Israel, in addition to giving far fewer settlers a stake in supporting a peace agreement. The scenarios outlined in options 1, 2 and 3 could sharply decrease societal turmoil in Israel while maintaining the same 1:1 land swap ratio that characterized the Geneva exercise. However, grass-roots efforts promoting the Geneva initiative are continuing, as it remains the only land-swap proposal that already has both Israeli and Palestinian signatories.
|
|
|
|---|
