Former Foreign Ministry director-general Avi Gil recently emphasized the urgent need for Israel to establish a permanent eastern border, arguing that this issue should not be deferred until a final resolution regarding the territories is reached. His insights coincide with the 33rd anniversary of the Oslo Accords and the 10th anniversary of Shimon Peres’s passing.
Understanding the Oslo Accords’ Legacy
Avi Gil identifies the shortcomings of the Oslo process as stemming from various factors, including Hamas violence, the fragility of Palestinian leadership, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and the prevailing policies of right-leaning Israeli governments. Despite these setbacks, he contends that the fundamental rationale behind the agreements remains valid: Israel cannot maintain governance over a significant Palestinian population if it intends to preserve its identity as both a Jewish and democratic nation.
Gil points out that Shimon Peres was initially skeptical about establishing an independent Palestinian state, favoring alternatives such as the Jordanian model or a confederation. Notably, the term “Palestinian state” is absent from the original Oslo Accords, highlighting the underlying complexities of the agreements during that era.
Setting Boundaries for Sovereignty and Security
In his proposal, Gil advocates for dissociating the designation of Israel’s permanent borders from any prospective political settlement concerning adjacent territories. He believes that establishing a border of sovereignty is crucial to ensure a Jewish majority and uphold the democratic essence of Israel. Alongside this, he argues for a security border that extends to the Jordan River, depending on prevailing circumstances.
Gil envisions a mutually agreeable solution anchored in the 1967 lines, with potential land swaps to accommodate growth on both sides. He suggests that the political climate, particularly during Donald Trump’s presidency, presents an opportunity to garner support from the United States, Arab nations, and the international community for this type of border arrangement. This solution would include significant settlement blocs remaining under Israeli control while also addressing national security.
The former director-general clarifies that establishing a border of sovereignty should not imply a withdrawal of security measures. Additionally, it does not pre-determine the future of the areas beyond this border—whether that means a confederation with Jordan, a demilitarized Palestinian state, or an entirely different governance structure. Nevertheless, he emphasizes that executing this strategy necessitates capable Israeli leadership, which he perceives to be lacking at present.
Gil’s arguments underscore the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, asserting that decisive steps must be taken to formulate a sustainable and equitable solution. By drawing on historical context and current realities, he advocates for a forward-thinking approach that acknowledges both sovereignty and security concerns, aiming for a balanced resolution in an increasingly volatile region.