A LAND FOR ALL

FROM CONFLICT TO
RECONCILIATION:

A new vision for Palestinian-Israeli peace
Draft for discussion

WE ARE MEANT TOLIVE TOGETHER
Both peoples have a profound connection to this land or parts of it, whether
they call it Eretz Yisrael (Israel), or Palestine, and both consider it their
homeland. Jewish-Israelis and Palestinians live side by side, sometimes
intermingled, throughout this land.
Based on this reality we, a group of Jews and Palestinians, offer a vision forreconciliation. Our vision precludes supremacy by one nation over the other.
Our vision is one of equal national and individual rights for everyone living inthis homeland, a vision of true partnership between the peoples of this land.
Partnership is the best guarantee for respecting and promoting the interestsof members of both nations. It is a guarantee for enduring peace and forreconciliation.
There is a deep emotional need for partnership in this land. When Palestinians
say Palestine, they refer to the entire area between the Jordan River and theMediterranean; just as when Israelis say Eretz Yisrael, they refer to the same
space. The homeland is one and the same, even if it is called by different names.
No international borders could change these connections, this identity. No
international borders could sever Palestinians’ ties to Jaffa, Haifa, or Lod any
more than they could sever Jewish ties to Hebron, Nablus or Bethlehem.
We live in a small geographic space. If a river in the West Bank gets
contaminated, the groundwater in the coastal plain is affected. If air quality
is poor on the coastal plain, it will be felt in the West Bank. In the small spaceshared by these two peoples, everyone’s interests would be best served by ahigh level of cooperation.
More than a hundred years of conflict have taught us that no nation can be
the sole lord of this land. Occupation, annexation and denial of rights do
nothing but deepen the conflict and fan the flames of hatred, and the conceptof separation has failed as it ignores the complex reality of two peoples livingin the same land. Unilateral solutions have also failed time and time again.

We boldly say: Mutual recognition that this land is a shared homeland - ahomeland for Jewish Israelis and for Palestinians – is a must. That is why thepolitical solution must reflect this emotional reality and create a frameworkthat allows members of both nations to travel and live throughout the sharedhomeland, without undermining their right to self-determination and theirability to exercise this right.
The solution we are proposing, which has been formulated and honed throughin-depth discussions and hundreds of meetings between Palestinian and
Israeli citizens and public figures, includes two sovereign states in Eretz Yisrael/
Palestine, where both nations can fulfill their right to self-determination, but
without strict physical and demographic separation. In other words: Politicalseparation - yes. Geographic and demographic separation - no. Mutuality,
partnership and equality - yes.
With these shared understandings, we propose a solution based on
three tenets:
Independence: Israel and Palestine will be two independent, sovereignstates with full control over their territory, with a border drawn according to
the June 4, 1967 lines. Both states will be democracies, with regimes basedon the rule of law, recognition for universal human rights as accepted ininternational law, equality, liberty, and respect for the rights of minorities andthe sanctity of human life.
Mutual respect and recognition: Both states will recognize and respect the
deep affiliation of both Palestinians and Jews to the land in its entirety. Bothstates will be committed to the vision of an open land, where citizens of bothcountries have the right to travel, work and live anywhere.
Partnership between the states: The two states will establish a sharedsuperstructure of effective, joint institutions operating on the basis of equality
and agreed upon by both states. These institutions will address security, civil
and socio-economic rights, economic issues, environmental protection,
climate change and more. This shared superstructure will allow the two states
to work together in areas requiring collaboration and individually on mattersthey decide are better run independently.

02

PLATFORM
KEY FEATURES:
Unlike separation or the one state solution, the shared framework weare proposing can resolve some of the key sticking points of the conflict,which are inadequately addressed by other solutions. We do not purport
to provide answers to all these questions in the limited format of thisbrochure. We are well aware that much work still has to be done in orderto present detailed plans and sophisticated systems to help visualize howsuch a partnership could come to life, how it might function and what it
would take to transition both peoples out of the grim circumstances they
are in now into a better future. To start moving, we must first point out
the obstacles that stand in the way today. In the following pages we list
seven of these obstacles and suggest how to overcome them:

1.OPENBORDERS

Having recognized borders is a hallmark ofsovereignty. This explains why so much effort
has been put into outlining the borders of Israel
and Palestine in discussions of a future two-statesolution. After more than a hundred years of conflict and more than fifty yearsof occupation, it is essential to know where the sovereign territory of the Stateof Israel begins and where it ends, and the same for the sovereign territory of
the State of Palestine.
Until now, discussions around borders have been based on two premises. One
was the supposition that only full and clear separation between Israel andPalestine - “we are here and they are there” - could bring peace. The other,stemming from the fact that the evacuation of settlements is a politicallycharged issue for Israel, was the supposition that most of the settlements
would remain within the Israeli state. Put together, these two premises led
the way to the notion of a territorial exchange. Israel would annex “settlement
blocs” and, in return, hand over parts of its sovereign territory to thePalestinian state.

The “territorial exchange” concept has two glaring flaws: For the Palestinianstate to have territorial contiguity, Israel would still have to evacuate at least
100,000 settlers - a serious political obstacle. Secondly, it still leaves thequestion of the final border open, as it depends on the size of the “settlement
blocs,” which incentivizes settlement expansion.
We are seeking a way out of this vicious cycle. Our premise is that the border
between Israel and Palestine will be based on the June 4, 1967, border, notbecause it is somehow hallowed, but because there is solid agreement aroundthis border, partly expressed in UN resolutions. This would not preclude
parties to the negotiations from agreeing on changes to this border, if that istheir wish. However, the border will not be determined by the size or locationof “settlement blocs,” but by mutual agreement.
The borders between Israel and Palestine will not vanish. Each state will havefull sovereignty in its territory. The borders will, however, be open to citizensof both independent states, which will have established a solid partnership.
With borders delineating political separation between the two states, but notdemographic or geographic separation, their ultimate placement will lose its
critical importance, and the question of borders will no longer be the sticking
point it is today.

2. PALESTINIANREFUGEES
RETURN TO THE
HOMELANDIn the fighting that took place in
Eretz Yisrael / Palestine from 1947
to 1949, about 750,000 Palestinians
were uprooted from their homes,
denied re-entry into Israel andbecame refugees.

Tens of thousands more Palestinians were internally displaced within Israel.
Resolution No. 194 of the UN General Assembly stipulates Palestinian refugees
should be allowed to return to their homeland “at the earliest practicabledate,” so long as they “live at peace with their neighbors.”

04

Seventy years have gone by. Today, half the Palestinian people live in thediaspora, outside their homeland. The desire and the demand to return tothe homeland is felt in almost every Palestinian family, wherever it currently
resides. It has also occupied a central role in the Palestinian national narrativein the past seventy years.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not born in 1967. Its roots go back to 1948,
and even earlier. To advance towards settling the conflict, these roots must be
addressed, even if doing so is difficult and painful. Therefore, the resolution
to the conflict cannot ignore or evade the “1948 question”. Genuine, stable
reconciliation has to be based on a recognition that Palestinians in thediaspora have a right to return to their homeland.
From 1948 to this day, Israel has vehemently opposed any sort of return by
Palestinian refugees. Even in unofficial peace initiatives proffered in recent years,
the Israeli side refused to allow any real return and confined itself to offering
compensation or resettlement in the Palestinian state or third countries.
What appears, on the face of it, to be an intractable issue, can be solved in
the framework of an equal partnership between two independent states thatrecognize that members of both peoples belong in the whole land. According
to the plan we are proposing, the State of Palestine will have the sovereign
power to give Palestinian refugees citizenship. Once they receive Palestinian
citizenship, they will be able to travel freely throughout the shared homeland,
both in Israel and in Palestine, for work, tourism and residence.
Citizens of the Palestinian state, including former refugees, would be eligible
for residency status in Israel and have all the rights conferred by such status,
including the right to vote for local authorities.
To avoid inundation, as a first step, agreement would be reached on asignificant number of Palestinian refugees who would be eligible for residency
in the State of Israel.
The vision is that at the end of the process, any Palestinian, including former
refugees, will be able to live anywhere in the shared homeland, within Israel

or within the Palestinian state. The phases leading up to the fulfillment of thisvision will be implemented mutually and by consent.
Such a model would allow, on the one hand, Palestinians to return to thehistorical homeland from which they were exiled or expelled, and, on theother, enable Jewish Israelis to maintain the character of the State of Israel.
Arrangements would be put in place for the restoration of refugee property
lost or expropriated, or compensation for it, without creating new injustices.
The rebuilding of Palestinian communities destroyed after 1948 will beconsidered, as will remedies for Palestinians internally displaced within Israel.
Israel and Palestine will work together to provide adequate compensation toJews who felt forced to leave Arab countries or were expelled from them asa result of the Arab-Israeli conflict and had to leave their homes and otherproperty behind.
This is not an easy solution, either emotionally or practically. It does, however,respect the interests and deep sentiments of both parties, and it ensures thequestion of the Palestinian refugees and the right of return is not swept under
the rug, left to linger, like a ticking time bomb threatening the stability of any
Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
Rectifying the injustice done to Palestinian refugees will also prove that Jewish
nationality and sovereignty in the State of Israel does not have to come at
the expense of the historical rights of the Palestinian people. Rectifying thisinjustice is also the key to equitable and stable neighborly relations between
the two peoples.

3. INSTEAD OF
now live as settlers in the
territories occupied in
SETTLEMENTS,
the 1967 war. More than
ISRAELI RESIDENTS 400,000 of them in theWest Bank / Judea and
OF PALESTINE
Samaria Area, and about

About 600,000 Israelis

06

200,000 in East Jerusalem neighborhoods located in areas annexed to Israel
immediately after the war. According to international law and UN resolutions,
all of these settlements are illegal.
Still, their illegality cannot erase the fact that Jewish tradition sees the wholeof Eretz Yisrael as the homeland, including the Judea and Samaria Area /West Bank. For this reason, true reconciliation and mutual recognition must
include an option for Jews to live in every part of the shared homeland, in
the State of Palestine and in the State of Israel. Prohibiting Jews from living
in some parts of the shared homeland is incompatible with reconciliation.
It is also important to remember that removing all or some settlements andsettlers is a thorny political issue that has made it difficult to reach a solution
involving two independent states - Israel and Palestine.
According to our proposed plan, the settlements will cease to exist as apolitical and legal construct that supports Jewish-Israeli supremacy andprivilege in the shared space and will be converted into ordinary communities
under full Palestinian sovereignty. However, Israeli citizens, including those
now living in the Judea and Samaria Area / West Bank, will be able to freely
and safely live in the independent Palestinian state, provided they accept thesovereignty of the State of Palestine and respect its laws. They will be eligible
for residency status and have all the rights conferred by such status, including
the right to vote for local authorities.
Like Palestinian citizens’ freedom to reside in Israel, Israelis’ freedom toreside in Palestine would be implemented gradually, and by consent, to avoid“inundating” the Palestinian state with Israeli citizens. The ultimate goal is asituation in which every Israeli is able to choose where to live, in the State ofIsrael or in the State of Palestine, as is every Palestinian citizen.
The current process of Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank throughthe expropriation of land from Palestinian owners or the Palestinian public
is extremely injurious to the Palestinian public, and, therefore, must end.
It is worth noting here again that, in any event, under the “A Land for All”
approach, the expansion of one settlement or another would not factor into
the location of the permanent borders between Israel and Palestine.

There will be no Israeli military presence in the Palestinian state, but thetwo states will develop shared, effective and competent security services in
addition to a commitment by each state to guarantee the safety of everyone
in its territory, Jews and Palestinians. The communities where Israeli Jews live
inside the Palestinian state will have self-governance on cultural, educationaland religious matters.
Such an arrangement is not simple, but it also has great promise: mutual
recognition that the space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean
Sea is the shared homeland of the two peoples. Such recognition also
includes Palestinian recognition that Jews are part of this homeland, and,
therefore, have a right to live anywhere in it, whether within the State of Israelor the State of Palestine. Such recognition is a fundamental basis for truereconciliation between the two peoples. Palestinian willingness to contain a
Jewish Israeli minority within its borders could, on its own, be a catalyst forreconciliation between the two nations.

4. JERUSALEM / ALQUDS - A SHAREDCAPITAL DISTRICT

More than any other place,
Jerusalem embodies thefull complexity of theconflict. Both sides see it
as a fundamental part oftheir identity, both feel a
profound historical, and religious connection to it, both demand sovereignty
over it, and both want it as their capital.
The city of Jerusalem was divided during the war in 1948. Most Palestinians
who lived on the side that remained in the State of Israel were forced to leave,
as were most Jews who lived on the side that remained in the hands of theKingdom of Jordan. Immediately after the 1967 War, Israel expanded the city
by annexing areas seized in the war. The annexation remains unrecognizedunder international law. In the years since then, Israel built neighborhoods inthese areas, where now more than 200,000 Israelis, most of them Jewish, live.
Jerusalem poses a serious challenge to the notion of separation. The Clinton
Plan allegedly resolved this issue by dividing Jerusalem’s current urban

08

space along ethnic lines: “Jewish” neighborhoods for Israel, “Palestinian”
neighborhoods for Palestine. In practice, however, dividing Jerusalem along
these lines would produce neighborhoods surrounded by walls and fences,connected by tunnels, bridges or narrow fortified roads.
When it comes to the Old City and the holy places in and around it, thechallenge becomes almost insurmountable, which is why even thestrictest separation plans slate the Old City for joint management, with noseparation, under international supervision, or at the very least, with deep
international involvement.
Jerusalem is not a shared, equal city. Its Palestinian residents, nearly 40% of
the total population, have no citizenship and suffer discrimination in almost
every aspect of life. Despite this, separation in Jerusalem would come at aheavy human and financial cost. It would impede the city’s functioning
and gravely harm its delicate social fabric. It would interfere with residents’
employment, access to holy places, tourism, commerce and the economy,
environmental programs, medical services and more.
We are proposing to keep Jerusalem whole, open and shared rather than carved
by walls and fences. Jerusalem will be the capital of both states, Israel andPalestine. It will have a special governing body to which both countries, Israel andPalestine, will delegate the powers it needs to function properly. Neither side will
have domination or exclusivity over the city, and it will be run jointly to benefit all
its residents, Jews and Arabs. Decisions on running the city will have to be agreed
upon by both communities living in it, Arab and Jewish.
The two countries, Israel and Palestine, will decide how the special governing
body in Jerusalem would run. It may be a single, shared municipal government
elected by all residents, or two independent municipalities, one in the easternpart of the city and one in the west, operating under an umbrella municipality.
The two countries will also decide what policing and judicial powers the
special governing body in Jerusalem would have, and what the boundariesof this joint city would be - the current boundaries, the city as it was prior to1967, the Jerusalem district of the British Mandate, or any other agreed area.

The Old City and the holy sites in and around it will be given special attention,
based on the understanding that they must be freely accessible to membersof all religions. They will be independently managed while observing mutual
respect and cooperation.
Such a bi-national city structure is rare, but not unprecedented. The bilingualarea of Brussels is run jointly by the Flemish and Walloons; the Brčko District,once a stumbling block in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is now a special regime
run jointly by the three national communities that make up the country (Serb
Bosnians, Muslim Bosniaks and Croat Bosnians).
These questions have to be faced starting right now. We are convinced,
however, that the interests of both sides lead toward a free and open Jerusalem
where the connection both sides feel to the city can be expressed and where
everyone can live in equality and free of discrimination. This approach to theissue of Jerusalem could transform it from an impasse to a model for a sharedlife in the whole of Palestine/Eretz Yisrael.

5. SHARED PERIPHERALSECURITY AND A FOCUS ONPERSONAL SAFETY
Any agreement must provide security in the broad sense of the term: bothsecurity for each of the states from external attacks by a foreign military or
armed militias, as well as personal safety for all citizens against harm related
to national, ethnic or religious background. This is a fundamental condition.
Both sides, Jews and Palestinians, need this security.
Many, especially on the Israeli side, believe that full separation will ensure
security. According to this theory, without friction between Israelis andPalestinians, there will be no violence. The prevalent sentiment on bothsides, but particularly the Israeli side, is that the other side cannot be trusted.
Proponents of this approach in Israel sometimes tend to support various
unilateral solutions as part of which Israel, the stronger side in the conflict,10

decides what its borders are and takes care of its own security without relying
on the Palestinian side.
But, any arrangement that seeks to provide sustainable security must be
based on mutual trust and arrangements. This was true for the peace treaty
between Israel and Egypt, as well as the one between Israel and Jordan, andit should certainly be the same for whatever security arrangement is madebetween Israel and Palestine, which have no natural geographic divide andwhose populations and histories are intertwined.
Moreover: security, in the broad sense of the term, cannot be based solely
on the current balance of powers, which obviously favors the stronger party,
but may change in the future. Security, in its profound sense, must dampen
the motivation to harm the other party by creating a shared interest in theprosperity of the shared homeland and the security of all its residents.
This is why we are proposing a platform that combines full security
responsibility by each country in its sovereign territory with security
partnership between the two countries. Under this plan, Palestine and Israel
will have independent security forces. Only Palestinian forces will operate inPalestinian territory, only Israeli forces will operate in Israel. However, the twocountries will cooperate closely on matters of security, intelligence and policing.
Having free movement between Israel and Palestine does not preclude either
country from denying entry to hostile individuals or having border checks
where necessary. The borders will be open, not lawless.
Security cooperation will also apply to guarding the outer borders separating
Israel/Palestine and the countries surrounding them. If the two countries
agree, joint Israeli-Palestinian forces will be deployed to the perimeter of thetwo countries, alongside international forces.
The two countries will sign a mutual defense treaty that will forbid any foreign
military from entering either of their territories without the consent of theother country. They will also sign demilitarization agreements to express thecommitment of both sides to refraining from hostile activities. Finally, they
will also sign extradition agreements to guarantee neither country becomesa “sanctuary state” for individuals who commit crimes in the other country.
Only strong cooperation between two independent states, Israel andPalestine, can provide true security for citizens of both countries wherever
they choose to travel or live. Security partnership is better than unilateralmoves, as we have all learned from the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
Partnership is the key to trust, and trust is the key to stability and security.

6. PALESTINIAN armistice was signed in 1949, about
160,000 Palestinians remained in
CITIZENS OF
Israel and became citizens. About
ISRAEL: TRUE 750,000 Palestinians who hadin the area where Israel was
PARTNERSHIP lived
established were expelled, forced
AND EQUALITY to flee or fled. Most of the lands
When the 1948 War ended and thebelonging to those who remained
were expropriated, and tens of thousands of Palestinians were internally displaced.
Palestinian citizens of Israel lived under a military government until 1966.
Today, the Palestinian population of Israel is about 1.5 million, accounting
for some 17% of the country’s overall population (not including residents ofEast Jerusalem). This is a sizeable national minority by any measure. While
over the years, the status of Arab citizens of Israel has changed, it has always
remained inferior and marginal.
The Oslo process largely overlooked Palestinians living in Israel. To add tothat, many in Israel’s Jewish “peace camp” insisted on keeping Israel “Jewish
and democratic” as the main, if not sole, argument in support of negotiating
for peace and ending the occupation. In the name of maintaining a “Jewish
majority,” proposals have been made to “divorce” the Palestinians, and even“transfer” Palestinian communities to the Palestinian state that would be12established as part of a peace agreement. Today, the term “Jewish state,” whenused to describe the state of Israel, expresses Jewish supremacy, even exclusivity,
in all state institutions - education, culture, land management, security and more.
The Nation State Law is an attempt to cement this supremacy.
The Palestinians living in Israel are part of the Palestinian people, and any
attempt to ignore this is no more than an illusion that stands in the way ofreaching true peace. By turning the relationship between Israel and Palestine
into a partnership between the two countries and two peoples living in thisland, the A Land for All platform will ease the tension between the two nations
and could enhance democratic, civilian space as it relates to the rights of thePalestinian minority inside Israel as well.
Reducing the tension between the two nations and accepting their complex
identities would also help the Palestinian minority in Israel develop its civil
identity within Israel and attain equal status in the country. The outline
proposed here paves the way to a redistribution of power and resources
within the State of Israel, based on agreement, partnership and equality
between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority.
Aside from the substantive transformation the overall arrangement presents,
action must be taken to amend existing discriminatory laws and practices
that prevent equal participation by Palestinian citizens of Israel as equalcitizens in their country. These amendments include equal representation,
the revocation of discriminatory laws and systems, equitable allocationof resources, equitable access to land, planning and development, thelegal resolution of construction including legal recognition for Bedouin
communities in the Negev. Palestinian minority in Israel should have selfgovernance in various fields, and Arabic should be restored as an official
language. Partnership should be a feature of both the relationship between
the two countries and the relationship between the two national groups
within each of them.
The Palestinian minority in Israel already lives in close quarters with the
Jewish majority. Its political, economic and civilian ascent in recent years hascreated a platform for new partnerships with the Jewish public on a moreequal footing. An arrangement based on partnership and mutual respect
between the two nations throughout the geographic space can turn thiscloseness and the experience gained by the Palestinian public inside Israel
into a catalyst for reconciliation.

7. GAZA IS NOTAN ISLAND

Gaza seemingly should not requirea separate section. It is part of It ispart of since the British mandate
Palestine, as well as every agreement
signed between Israel and the PLO. The international community also views it
as part of Palestine. Any agreement signed by Palestinians and Israelis should
apply to the Gaza Strip.
However, the unique conditions in the Gaza Strip do require special attention.
As is known, in 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew its military from the Gaza
Strip and dismantled the settlements it had built there. Two years later,
Hamas set up a government in Gaza that does not accept the authority of
the Palestinian government in Ramallah. These two developments created asense that Gaza is a “special case,” a separate entity.
But Gaza’s case can serve as a lesson on how wrong and ineffective separation
is in the Israeli-Palestinian context. Instead of subduing tension, Israel’s
unilateral withdrawal from Gaza only amplified it, and the Gaza-Israel “border”
has become the worst flashpoint in the conflict.
The Great March of Return protests reminded everyone that about 70% ofGaza’s residents are refugees and their descendants and that they have notforgotten the towns and villages from which they were exiled seventy years
earlier. Gaza has been and will remain part of the Palestinian story. There is
no solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without a solution for Gaza, andthere is no solution for Gaza without a solution for the conflict as a whole.
According to the plan proposed by A Land for All, the Gaza Strip will be partof the Palestinian state, and therefore, part of the partnership between Israel

14and Palestine. The border between the Gaza Strip and Israel will be open,
and Palestinian citizens living in Gaza will be able to enter Israel. In these
conditions, there would be no difficulty building roads to connect between
the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
However, if Gaza is to be included in the agreement, it cannot have agovernment that is separate from the central Palestinian government, andno independent military force or militia that is not subordinate to the central
Palestinian government can operate there. The agreement will preclude any
armed militias - either Palestinian or Israeli.
Like other elements of the conflict that appear to be intractable, the solution
for Gaza will also come from partnership. It may seem out of reach, but those
who remember life before the first intifada, know that there was a time whentens of thousands of Gaza residents worked inside Israel. We can go back tothose days, only this time, in partnership and equality without occupationand oppression.

15

SHAREDINSTITUTIONS
The concept of partnership between two independent states, Israel andPalestine, and between two peoples, lies at the core of the paradigm shift
we are proposing. Instead of a relationship that largely relies on use offorce and violence, as is the case today, we propose a partnership between
two equal sides.
However, cooperation between two states and two peoples cannot takeplace in a void. It needs a structure, rules and institutions to govern it. Sharedinstitutions provide the structure in which differences between the twoparties can be worked out through debate and discussion and settled throughmutual decision making rather than violence.
The notion of partnership between nations has repeatedly proved to be aguarantee for peace and stability. The European Union is built on partnership
between independent countries that fought each other in two world wars. For
all its weaknesses, it has still given Europe the longest peace it has ever known.
The Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland is built on power sharing andparity of esteem between two communities that were locked in conflict for
years and ended the violence. The peace agreement in Bosnia ended a bloody
civil war by creating an intricate system of partnerships between the ethnic
groups in the country - Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats - which persists despite
tensions between these groups.
We are unable, at this moment, to provide a detailed description of what thisshared superstructure would look like exactly, precisely what powers it would
have and how its mechanisms would function. These details still require muchwork. But what we do know now is that to guarantee that the partnership
between the two countries and nations is built on mutual respect, fairness
and equality, this structure must be substantive and must have real powers.
According to the A Land for All platform, the two countries will have toguarantee an array of basic rights for all citizens anywhere they are in either

16

Israel or Palestine and ensure the status of the national minority in eachcountry. An inter-state court will guarantee both countries respect theserights. A system of close collaboration and shared institutions dealing
with security, intelligence and policing will guarantee the personal andcollective safety of citizens in both countries, including defending thecountries’ external borders.
Shared institutions will also be set up to handle socio-economic rights, laborand welfare, economic development, customs and financial institutions,education, tourism, traffic and sea and air travel, environmental protection,
natural resource exploitation and any other area the countries determine
would be better served if managed jointly. The exact nature and scope ofthese institutions will be improved and developed, but one principle must be
adhered to steadfastly: These institutions will be built on equality, partnershipand mutual respect with a view to serving the interests of both parties.
We are aware that to many, the concept we are proposing - a peace basedon partnership between Palestine and Israel - sounds detached from reality
and impossible. Our retort is twofold: First, reality in other places showsa partnership like this can be built, even in places with a history of deeply
entrenched conflict.
Second, unlike the “classic” two state solution, which is rooted in separation,
our platform has four significant advantages. It is more realistic, in that it is
not based on forced displacement or denial of rights; it is more ethical as it isbased on the principles of justice, partnership and equality; it better serves
the parties’ deep interests, primarily the sense of belonging many feel towards
the entire land; and it calls on us - all those who want to live here in dignity,
peace and pride and believe it can be done - to work towards expanding thecommon good.

MOVINGFORWARDThe road to a peace based on partnership between the two peoples andthe two countries is long. After more than a hundred years of conflict, andparticularly after the last twenty years, with repeated failed peace talks
and cyclical violence, trust between the two peoples is at an all-time low.
The A Land for All platform is based on a high level of trust between theparties. The lessons of the near and distant past do teach us, however,that trust can be built and mistrust is not predestined. Trust or mistrust
between nations is not a question of the nations’ characters but of thepolitical arrangements between them.
The very fact that an Israeli-Palestinian movement like A Land for All isbeing formed, bringing together Palestinians and Israelis under a sharedvision for resolving the conflict, is an important step in building this trust.
In the years that we have worked together, it has been shown that Israelis
and Palestinians, despite coming from different backgrounds and political
approaches, can work together.
What we have been doing this far - hundreds of meetings between Israelis
and Palestinians, meetings with politicians, public leaders, religious figuresand diplomats - separate and joint events, conferences, think tanks, working
papers, articles and media interviews in Hebrew, Arabic and foreign languages- all of this should now be scaled up. Our goal is to build an Israeli-Palestinianpolitical force that can push both peoples towards partnership.
We have already succeeded in injecting the concept of PalestinianIsraeli partnership into the political lexicon. We have managed to recruit
supporters with different world views in both Israeli and Palestiniansocieties, inside the political establishment an outside it. We are working
to expand these circles and include as many groups and perspectives
as possible. We are convinced that existing political powers, Israeli andPalestinian, can be mobilized under this vision.

18

Alongside this political work, other paths should be forged to increase
trust between the two peoples. These could include direct joint action forequality and against discrimination and denial of rights, local initiatives onenvironmental, cultural and other issues, joint action to reduce economic
disparities between the two societies and more.
Education could have a decisive impact on advancing mutual familiarity
and creating a basis of trust between the two peoples. One of the goalsof A Land for All is to create a new language that will allow each side tomaintain its identity, while at the same time, becoming familiar with theother side’s aspirations and history, and internalizing them.
Presenting a political vision of two independent states in a sharedhomeland complements existing actions and initiatives working towards
change. It is meant to encourage and support more of these initiatives
in the future. Aside from the importance of each of these initiatives on
its own, they are important steps on the road towards building a broadpolitical peace movement that sees partnership, two independent statesin a shared structure, and the end of the occupation as the right vision for
Israeli-Palestinian peace.
A Land for All is not fantasy. It is rooted in the historical, geographic andemotional realities of the conflict, and it is based on historic precedent.
Nor is it a close-ended solution. On the contrary, it invites discussion,comments, corrections and additions. But to work towards it, we also haveto be able to dream, and mostly, make dreams a reality. It’s in our hands.