Brig. Gen. (res.) Udi Dekel
Moderator: Dr. Kobi Michael
The Hon. Philip Gordon | Brig. Gen. (ret.) Michael Herzog | Mr. David Makovsky
INSS Plan
The goal is for Israel to be a Jewish, democratic, secure and moral state, with recognized borders and that enjoys international legitimacy.
After studying various options and scenarios, INSS came to the conclusion that the only long term option involves separation from the Palestinians, toward two political entities. This is not achievable now. The INSS plan comes to prevent the slide into one state.
69% of the Israeli public favors separation from the Palestinians. Even though this plan may not lead directly to two states, it will set a process in motion and leave future options open.
The INSS Plan – what Israel can do no. Involved is a 3-stge plan:
- Transitional / interim arrangements, preferably in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority.
- Separation steps – without ceding any security aspects or any operational freedom of operation. The IDF retains this entirely.
- The pragmatic Arab states are engaged in a regional arrangement.
The INSS Plan will halt the slide into one state, and preserve options to decide future arrangements. This is not a solution – this is a path for the future. It establishes that Israel initiates, and doesn’t just respond. It denies the Palestinians the veto option regarding any / every plan, and it frees Israel from a demographic and moral burden.
According to the plan, 40% of the West Bank is in full Palestinian control (subject to IDF security freedom of action). Up to an additional 25% will be given to the Palestinians for economic development. There will be no evacuation of settlements, but settlements outside the blocs will not be funded or granted additional resources. The Jordan Valley will remain in Israeli hands. All these ideas correct the mistakes of the Gaza disengagement.
Panel
Mike Herzog:
The INSS Plan is an important step, as it has Israel take the initiative, and not only respond to negative initiatives by others (.g., the Palestinians going to the ICC). This is not an auspicious time for the Trump plan, given all the problems in the Palestinian sector and given the opposition of the Israeli right. The INSS plan keeps the window open, and it reflects initiative; allows for Palestinian economic development; works to avert collapse of the PA; leaves room for Arab engagement; allows improvement in a arrangements for Jerusalem.
In the familiar pattern of all or nothing – Israel ends with nothing. It is time to find room for flexibility and make adjustments on the ground.
The Prime Minister will likely wait for the Trump Plan. It will be hard for the Prime Minister to say no to the plan. He would be able to say yes to the plan as a basis for negotiations (but will not need to embrace the entire plan). Abu Mazen needs to be in a situation where he cannot say no – e.g., if there is a strong enough international coalition aligned in favor of the Trump plan, where he can’t say no. The INSS Plan might be a Plan B. after the Trump plan fails.
Gaza – is a a conundrum or Israel. Israel needs a ceasefire with humanitarian terms.
David Makovsky:
The Palestinians will not like the INSS plan. It is indeed important to see what can be done in cooperation. If the alternative is all or nothing – Israel does not want nothing. The INSS Plan is very important because in its retention of security in Israeli hands, delinks security and the settlements. This plan is important because it is not an endpoint – but a path ahead. Any leader will have to go to Washington to engage support for the plan – the plan cannot be executed entirely independently. The INSS Plan might be a fallback plan if the Trump plan fails.
It is possible that if the Trump plan is presented immediately after the April 9 elections but before a coalition is formed, Netanyahu will seek coalition partners who can accept the Trump plan - who will support him, even after an indictment. This will be an “Etrog effect.”I t is Israel’s interest that Abu Mazen’s legacy not be one that demonstrates the worthlessness and futility of non-violence.
Phil Gordon:
The INSS Plan is important as an Israeli initiative - but it is not at all clear that the Arab world will support this initiative. A genuine strategic alignment exists between Israel and the pragmatic Arab states, but this does not mean that there will be normalization or support for a peace plan. The Arab states are not interested in support for Israeli peace initiatives being a public issue – which is what Israel would like. The Plan must be an Israeli initiative, and not build on public Arab support.
Due to various US political measures, the United States has limited political influence over the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not likely to embrace either the INSS Plan or the Trump plan. No plan will likely be enough for the Palestinians. It is possible that the Palestinians might be more interested in the INSS plan than in the Trump plan. There might be something in the plan that they see is in their interest, and therefore there might be a window for some quiet cooperation.
A resolution in Gaza is not likely until the situation in the Palestinian arena is clearer.