The Palestinians are divided between an 'Ethos of Struggle' and the 'Principle of Historic Compromise.' The struggle between the two schools will continue even after a Permanent Status Agreement is reached. Israel should prepare accordingly.
There are two polar Palestinian narratives regarding their national aspirations: the "Palestinian Ethos of Struggle" (hereinafter "Ethos of Struggle") and the "Principle of Historic Compromise."
The core principles of the Ethos of Struggle are: Aspiring for a Palestinian state in place of the State of Israel ('One-State Solution') while negating the Jewish Right to Self-Determination. This ethos strives for the full realization of the Palestinian's Right of Return and more...
BTW, it is important to distinguish between the 'Ethos of Struggle' and the 'Doctrine of Armed Struggle'. The goal may be the same: a Palestinian State in place of Israel. The difference is that according to the Ethos of Struggle, armed struggle may be combined with political measures, while according to the Doctrine of Armed Struggle, there is no place for political measures.
The Principle of Historic Compromise is based on acceptance of the Two-State Solution within the area of Mandatory Palestine. In other words, implicit or explicit recognition of the Jewish Right to self-determination as embodied by the State of Israel. Hence, the Palestinian right to self-determination will be realized in a Palestinian state, whose borders will be based on the JUne 4th 1967 borders and will include the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem as its capital.
BTW, it should also be pointed out that the perception that these principles represent a 'Historic Compromise' is rooted in the fact that the 1967 borders represent a division of Historic Palestine at a ratio of 22:78 in favor of Israel. This solution embodies a renunciation of 78% of Historic Palestine compared to their initial claim of 1948 (when they claimed everything) or 26% in comparison to the 1947 Partition Plan (UNGAR 181) which allocated 48% to the Palestinian side and 52% to the Jewish side.
Consequently, the faction of the Historic Compromise has no room for further territorial compromise within the West Bank or Gaza. Any recognition of Israeli sovereignty within these areas in favor of settlement blocs must be compensated territorially on a ratio of 1:1 or equivalent thereof.
The Palestinians have not yet settled the debate between the Ethos of Struggle and the Principle of Historic Compromise. This debate involves Palestinians, Arabs and international organizations. It continues in the Palestinian public arena and is apparent in every founding document of the PLO and PA, as well as in the battle over the interpretation of any document or article related to Israel. States, organizations and individuals who constitute part of the 'Resistance Network,' also join this battle in order to promote the Ethos of Struggle.
One example for this tension is in the evolution of UNGAR 194. The Palestinians view Resolution 194 as the basis to their claim for a Right of Return and demand that it should recognized as part of the basis for the political process with Israel, similar to UNSCR 242 and 338. Israel has repeatedly refused. Therefore, the Palestinians developed the interpretation that the concept 'just settlement', which appears in resolution 242 regarding the issue of refugees, actually means the implementation of resolution 194. In this way, the Palestinians brought resolution 194 back to the negotiation table, even though it had theoretically already been dealt with. Another example of this issue is the process which developed around the question of the Shaba Farms.
The following table details the approaches of the Ethos of Struggle and Principle of Historic Compromise in relation to a number of Outstanding Issues. Israel must assume that the forces of the Ethos of Struggle (with the support various international parties) will unite around any point in an agreement which leaves room for interpretation.
My key assumption is that Israel has a strong political interest to affect the content of the agreement and its interpretation, so as to ground the Principle of Historic Compromise in the clearest way possible. In any event, we can expect a difficult struggle over the interpretation of the agreement, where the Ethos of Struggle faction will try and erode Israel's achievements.
Therefore I recommend the following: (a) to clearly phrase the agreement and define as many issues as possible in the spirit of the Principle of Historic Compromise; (b) for those issues that can not be worded in such a way, Israel should coordinate its position with the US and other third countries, so that the interpretation of the agreement will be in the spirit of the Principle of Historic Compromise.
Click here for a comparative table between the Ethos of Struggle and the Principle of Historic Compromise.
Gidi Grinstein is founder and president of the Reut Institute. The views expressed in this blog are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Reut Institute.
For additional information regarding BloGidi see his original post: A Link in the Chain.