1
: Text wording: 2008-5.-5.
The PIF-Plan (englisch)
(Palästina-Israel-Friedensplan)
Palestine-Israel-peace plan
In Germany, the institute for international law submitted the peace plan
to the Ambassador of Israel, Mr. Shimon Stein, and to the chief
representative of the Palestine people Mr. Abdallah Frangi in 2002
already. No response was received.
The violent clashes between Israeli and Palestine people continued to
escalate. In Israel the political forces who supported a peace agreement
that would consolidate and secure the status quo were gaining. On the
Palestinian side Hamas – an organisation that Israel and the Western
world consider to be terrorist – won a majority in the elections for the
parliament of the autonomy government. In the Gaza strip they gained
exclusive power through violence. Aim of Hamas is not only to set up a
Palestinian state, but also to abolish the Israeli one.
What might appear to be the culmination of an anti-peace could also
mean that this climax of violence cannot be topped any further and the
consequence to follow is that the only doors to be opened hereafter are
the ones towards peace. The Israeli army finds itself already defending
the Palestinian government and people against acts of terrorism or violent
attacks by Hamas.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the president of the autonomy
government Mahmud Abbas both expressed their commitment to peace at
the conference in Annapolis where it appeared both politicians agree on
the necessity of a Palestinian state. Both politicians have little power. But
neither side can provide any other politician to defend a peace plan
against political fundamentalists within their own ranks. A peace plan
must be executed in a way that both sides win because it needs to
convince at least part of the extremists as well, so that the rest will follow
a clear majority and allow peace to happen.
My own concepts:
All peace concepts to date have not established peace. There is no
way that this conflict will be eliminated by simply giving the
Palestinians a state consisting of the Gaza strip and the West
Jordan territory. A plan like that is – like all before it – not
comprehensive enough. Terror and violence since 1949 suffice to
show to all inhabitants of Palestine that the ultimate object cannot
be the establishing of a Palestinian state, but peace between the
two peoples so that they can co-exist without constant violent
clashes, so that they both profit from one another. The reason for
no permanent peace solution to date bases on aims in the past that
2
did not embrace permanent peace between the people but only
concentrated on securing and increasing their respective positions
of power. Israel was only interested in protecting its people from
outside and inside violent dangers and not to lose any more
territory while the sole Palestinian purpose was to establish a state
with a maximum size territory free of Israeli settlers, in complete
independence from Israel and the return of all refugees into the
Israeli territory. These agreements could not lead to a lasting peace
even where there was a cooperation of the two sides concerning
the economy and the infrastructure detailed and partially agreed
upon. Both parties of the conflict did not consider in detail how the
opposite party should survive politically and for real in case of
consolidating their own ideas of peace. Each party needed to be
separate from the other. A clean separation of the two states
without permanent organisational connections is not viable due to
the limits of space, the limits of resources and the population
density. This connection must be established in a way that in future
any disadvantage but also every advantage will be shared between
the two people. With a strict separation and a separate “next to
one another” of the two states the result will always be that one
party will feel disadvantaged or cheated. Each part of the
population will feel displaced, disadvantaged and disturbed in their
peace by the other and that will be even if the open questions
about Jerusalem as capital of which state, the administration of the
Holy places, water distribution and the return of the refugees are
answered. The reason for all agreements to date not to lead to
pacification at all is that they did not offer a perspective to a lasting
peace. The plans drawn up so far always looked like permanent
regulations and never offered any hope of ending the violent fights.
These plans could only have been agreed upon with a view to the
future as changing the situation anyway towards more agreeable
conditions. Such a positive perspective could be offered by none of
the parties involved because either of the people would have
agreed to a maximum of concessions thinkable already. So any
later demands of the other party would be rejected as unacceptable
and contrary to the agreement regardless and all possible
improvement of situation for the other party would be hindered for
an indefinite time. To end the crisis in the near east region the only
aim to head for is to secure a peaceful future for Israeli and
Palestine people on the relatively small territory that they both
occupy. For all future talks this means that the Palestinian
suggestions will have to consider the Israeli interests as well and
vice versa putting themselves consciously into the position of the
other partner as if taking their side. If the overall aim is to provide
a basis for a prosperous co-existence of all the people, of all
religions and of all citizens it would not be considered a treacherous
move to partake in talks like this since given the political situation
3
there is no other constructive way of conduct. That is the way in
which crises between persons are often successfully handled
through mediation. Such a procedure would require a great
strength of character on the parts of the participants in talks. A
generous granting of one side would not be considered a weakness.
Each party has already demonstrated its potential to act tough and
relentless.
The most important problems arising out of a possible solution to
the conflict are as follows:
1.) Establishment of a state for the Palestinian people with
clearly defined borders
2.) Relations of such a state to Israel
3.) Water supply for the new state
4.) Regulations concerning minorities in both states (e.g. Israeli
people in the new state (settlements) and the Palestinian
people in Israel),
5.) the Problem of the Refugees
6.) Talks about avoiding social segregation between the peoples
7.) Planning of equal infrastructures
8.) Talks about abolishing deeply rooted hostilities (hatred,
grief, anger)
9.) Question of status of Jerusalem and of administration of
holy places
10.) Compensation for acts of injustice
Among the main prerequisites of a peace concept offered by the institute
are:
1. The Palestinian as well as the Israeli people have a right to self
determination
2. Both people should be able to heed this right by establishing a
territory according to their respective population sizes – with Israel
already having gained this aim and Palestine acknowledging this.
3. The territory of a Palestinian state should at least contain the Gaza
strip and the West Jordan territory.
4. Both states will be inhabited by minorities of the other ethnic and
religious people. To these people minority rights will be awarded in
both states – to at least the extent given by the International
Agreement on Civil and Political Rights (19.12.1966)
The European Anti Discrimination law could also serve as a model.
Both states should be constituted in a way that the Israeli and the
Palestinian people both head the government and the majority of
delegates in their own state.
4
5. Both states should be constituted with a local self government so
that the Jewish settlements would belong to the Palestinian territory
and therefore lose their Israeli citizenship
6. The borders between the states remain open.
7. Both states establish a federation that takes responsibility for the
following
a. foreign security (military)
b. foreign policy
c. main transport routes (waterways/road network)
d. postal services
e. currency
f. last resort jurisdiction of all law suits and jurisdiction of
constitutional law
g. for the next 20 years the government and head of government
are formed of equal numbers of Israeli and Palestinian people
(parity). In case of a tie cast a die.
h. The federation should be formed of two chambers. A parliament
with delegates of the two states (both states with equal numbers
of elective areas, majority rule).the second chamber filled with
delegates of the two governments in equal numbers.
A lot of the problems arising from pacification would be self effacing with
this peace concept:
1. The return of the Palestinian refugees to Israel. The Israeli people
will keep the majority of delegates in Israel even if the Palestinians
should turn out to be the majority of the population. It is to be
expected that the refugees would not primarily opt to move to
Israel but into the new Palestinian state – be it named Palestine
hereafter. To counter the possible threat of overpopulation it is to
be envisioned that talks with Libanon about the purchase of extra
territory can be started.
2. Jerusalem would be the capital of all three states – Palestine, Israel
and the Federation.
3. Administration of the holy places would lie with the Federation
4. The actual borderline is of minor importance since all citizens are
entitled to citizenship of the Federation. The Wall should be retained
as symbol of horror and be turned into a piece of art – in places
where it is not blocking roads.
5. The settlers could remain in West Jordan. They should be given the
choice of citizenship. If they opt for the Palestinian one, they gain
all political rights of Palestine, e.g. they vote in elections on local
level and for the Palestinian Government. If they opt for the Israeli
one they do not gain the political rights of Palestine, but neither the
Israeli ones because they do not live in the state. They may vote in
elections on the Federation, though. Regardless of their decision
they gain equality of rights with Palestine people and minority
5
status. The Institute regards it as extremely important that the
Israeli settlements remain part of Palestine. Both states will have
minorities of the other within their borders. Both states can
compete in the amount of minority ruling and protection allowed.
The other problems of water supplies and social segregation can be left to
the Federation for future positive development.
This peace plan cannot be presented to the people without preparations.
Through long periods of violence on both sides, of killings, humiliations
and destruction and the following pauperization the hatred between the
two people is so great that before any attempts at a peace pact are
undertaken this hatred needs to be addressed and possibly reduced so
that the communal idea can grow of a peaceful long term future for both
of them.
There are methods in psychology developed that help free a person of the
hatred for another. This Institute is not aware of any methods being
scientifically proven to help in the case of collective hatred between
people.
According to ethnology and to history as well there is an option of
reducing hatred between people through contests or other communal
projects. The conductor and pianist Daniel Barenboim has established one
such project. He formed an orchestra with musicians from both Israeli and
Palestinian origin and held concerts in Israel as well as in the autonomy
regions. Sportive contests offer themselves as well given they are
conducted fairly and in the true spirit of sportsmanship. Further options
would be sports teams with members of both nations.
Both people should engage in a peace institution. Its sole purpose would
be to find methods to eliminate hatred between the two people. It would
be run by psychologists of both states. They would be in talks with the
most important religious leaders but also all of the political parties and
groups, including the Israeli orthodox and members of Hamas. All of
these need to be included as they represent the hatred, the evil that
needs to be overcome. If they succeed in convincing these
representatives the peace would be almost won.
Hinrich Bartels