Special to WorldTribune.com

By Norman Bailey

All diplomatic efforts having failed, perhaps it’s time to look at a new solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Kerry and Clinton and Indyk and Erekat and God knows how many others have failed. The ‘Process’ is finally dead; life-support has been withdrawn. Neither the two-staters nor the one-staters have managed to carry the day.

Israel now has three choices:

• 1. Do nothing.

• 2. Try the same approaches over and over again and expect different results (often referred to as ‘insanity’), or

• 3. try something different. So here is a proposed third alternative for Israel and its Arab cousins: creation of an autonomous entity at first on the West Bank only, under Israeli suzerainty, which controls its own domestic policies and programs, but with Israel in charge of foreign relations and defense.

This proposal might be called the “Caribbean Solution”, since it is inspired by the example of Puerto Rico.

In 1898, the United States conquered, occupied and annexed the Caribbean island, a colony of the Spanish Crown since the fifteenth century. In 1952, the people of Puerto Rico adopted their own constitution, turning their island from an unincorporated territory of the United States to an “Estado Libre Asociado” (Associated Free State), referred to in English as the “Commonwealth” of Puerto Rico.

Executive power is vested in a governor, legislative power is exercised by an independent legislature and judicial power wielded by a separate judicial system. Puerto Ricans cannot vote in U.S. presidential or congressional elections, except for a non-voting “delegate” to the House of Representatives. However, they are exempt from U.S. taxes. This arrangement has been ratified in three periodic referenda, in which the inhabitants were given the choice of opting for statehood or independence.

Obviously no two historical/geographic events are identical. But the parallels are striking:

Puerto Rico, the West Bank and Gaza were all conquered militarily.

The victorious countries, United States and Israel, have demonstrated willingness to concede substantial internal autonomy to the respective territories.

Puerto Ricans and the majority in the Palestinian territories are ethnically, linguistically, and religiously different from most of the populations of the United States and Israel respectively.

• 4. There is a fourth consideration, however, which differentiates Puerto Rico from the areas claimed by the Palestinians: The West Bank is not ethnically homogeneous. This situation requires respecting the different demographic makeup of the areas now called A, B and C and a fourth in Gaza when and if the arrangement is extended to that territory. The populations are substantially homogenous within the districts.

We (this columnist) propose that Israel allow the residents of the territories to choose their own status. Separate referenda would be held in each of three West Bank districts and eventually in Gaza, (with boundaries reconfigured to the extent necessary to facilitate effective government). The residents of each district would vote for either Commonwealth status, (called the Palestinian Autonomous Region — PAR) or to become part of Israel. Commonwealth status would vest internal authority and responsibilities in a PAR-government — elected by PAR residents who become PAR citizens, in return for disarmament of all militia groups of whatever nature and the ending of anti-Israel indoctrination in the schools. Residents in districts choosing to become part of Israel would become Israeli citizens.

The political status of the areas would therefore not be on the basis of government fiat, but on the basis of democratically-held referenda. Any political party advocating the destruction of Israel will be outlawed and banned from participating in PAR elections. Districts selecting commonwealth status (i.e becoming part of the Palestinian Autonomous Region) could participate in international sports and cultural events under the banner of the PAR, as does Puerto Rico. Conversely, they would not be able to enter into separate agreements with foreign countries and would not be allowed to join international organizations except as observers. Arab countries, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states would be invited to support the PAR in peaceful economic and social development.

Israel would maintain military and security forces in the Palestinian Autonomous Region to ensure its security, but public order will be secured by a PAR police force armed with small arms and crowd-control devices. PAR residents would pay only PAR taxes and would not vote in Israeli elections, except for a non-voting delegate to the Knesset (as is the case with the District of Columbia in the US). Thus PAR taxes would be used exclusively for domestic purposes (health, education, etc) and protect it from being diverted to defense or diplomatic expenditures. With Commonwealth status, the claim of “apartheid” fails.

Before the idea of a Jewish Homeland was entertained by the British, the Zionists were required to establish to the satisfaction of Lord Balfour and Prime Minister Lloyd George the economic and demographic viability of the proposed state. Certainly the Palestinians should be held to the same standard.

What has been tried so far has manifestly failed. It is high time to consider alternative solutions. It may be that none can be implemented until the current leadership of the West Bank changes, but if and when it does, Israel should already have in place a meaningful and feasible alternative.

Norman A. Bailey, Ph.D., is Adjunct Professor of Economic Statecraft at The Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C., and a researcher at the Center for National Security Studies, University of Haifa. This column was also published by Globes, the Israeli business daily.

  Why not a ‘Caribbean solution’ for the Israel-Palestinian issue?, WorldTribune.com