Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


A Map Is Worth a Thousand Words

A think-tank fantasy depicts a real-life impasse

Print Email
Land-swaps around Jerusalem in Makovsky’s “Option 1.”(Washington Institute for Near East Peace)

Does anyone have less lucky timing this week than David Makovsky? The respected Mideast expert (he has appeared on The Scroll in this capacity) and director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy late last week released three maps for what the boundaries of two future states, Israel and Palestine, could be. The rules under which he came up with them, he is at pains to stress, are “principles that the parties themselves have apparently discussed with each other”: Specifically, that land-swaps should involve a one-for-one exchange of territory in terms of area; that land on the Palestinian side of the Green Line containing somewhere between roughly 70 to 80 percent of Israeli West Bank settlers would end up in the final Israel; that Israeli security concerns are addressed; and that the Palestinian state would be contiguous.

Put another way: In 2008, both sides proposed maps based on these principles, and where they couldn’t agree was on how much of the West Bank the swaps would involve Israel annexing (Olmert wanted a little over six percent, Abbas wanted a little under two percent). So we are quibbling over details, not first principles. The point of this exercise? To convey to everyone that, as the map-makers put it, “ The impossible is indeed achievable.” Italics theirs.

Of course, if last week we already knew this, this week, with the release of the Palestine Papers, we really know this. (Although, truly, we did know it all last week: I actually wrote the bulk of this blogpost Sunday in the hours before the Papers were published). Among the Papers’ revelations, after all, is that the Palestinians agreed to land-swaps that would have given Israel most of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel turned this down but remained open to negotiating.

Yet if the only obstacle were that the two sides were quibbling over small percentages of land and the settler population, it really would seem weird that a deal hadn’t yet been reached. But of course, that isn’t the obstacle at all.

And as all good maps do, they reveal what is. Look closely: See he swap that would take place around Gaza? Isn’t that weird—considering that the authority in Gaza, Hamas, was not at all involved in and in fact actively opposed the negotiations on which Makovsky’s maps are based? The reason a deal hasn’t been reached, as the maps inadvertantly demonstrate, is not the question of borders, but a political climate—including instransigent actors on both sides—that is extremely infertile to a deal acceptable to the majorities of both sides.

Which, actually, is the key takeaway from the Palestine Papers. Maybe Makovsky’s timing wasn’t so bad after all.

Trying to Break Logjam, Scholar Floats an Idea for a Palestinian Map [NYT]
Imagining the Border [Washington Institute]
Earlier: Leaks Show Huge, Secret Jerusalem Concessions

Print Email
A.L. Bell says:

One obvious problem with the map is that the blobs of settlements connected to the main part of Israel with skinny little road strips probably can’t be defended very easily. If the Palestinians blew up a chunk of highway, a settlement would be in big trouble.

Another problem, from the Palestinian point of view, is that, if the Israelis were really tough about Palestinians crossing the road strips, Palestinians would have a terribly hard time traveling to friends, schools, mosques, shops, doctors, etc. just a few miles away. They’d have to travel far out of their way, around the settlement blobs, to get to their destinations. How’s that for winning the war to drive potentially otherwise peaceful Palestinians up a tree.

But the big, big problem is people being jerks. If Israelis and Palestinians could just sort of get along, and live, work and shop wherever they wanted, as long as they were peaceful, this map would be irrelevant.

Very few people know exactly where the boundary between one U.S. state and another state really is; the boundary between Palestine and Israel should be just as pointless.

Really, give Israelis a map that shows they control every bit of whatever King David wanted to conquer, in theory, and give Palestinians a map showing them that they control the Solar System, in theory. Then put everything that matters under the control of a new, reformed, non-bankrupt European Union, or the Netherlands, Sweden or some other nice country that really has its act together.

It’s a non-starter. After Gaza, Lebanon and the Egyptian “peace” agreement no Israeli in their right mind would agree to “land for peace”. Especially since the PA is very weak and Hamas will be in control within 6 months.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

A Map Is Worth a Thousand Words

A think-tank fantasy depicts a real-life impasse

More on Tablet:

Brandeis President Fred Lawrence to Resign

By Stephanie Butnick — Will step down at the end of the university’s school year