re conventional proposales israel palestinians the latest israeli proposal first proposed in february of contains the following assumptions concerning the nature of any interim status refering to the wb and gaza the palestinians implemented by negotiations it states that israel will remain the existing source of authority until final status is agreed upon israel will negiotiate the delegation of power to the organs of the interim self government arrangements isga the isga will apply to the palestinian inhabitants of the territories under israeli military administration the arrangements will not have a territorial application nor will they apply to the israeli population of the territories or to the palestinian inhabitants of jerusalem residual powers not delegated under the isga will be reserved by israel israelis will continue to live and settle in the territoriesd israel alone will have responsibility for security in all its aspects external internal and for the maintenance of public order the organs of the isga will be of an administrative functional nature the exercise of powers under the isga will be subject to cooperation and coordination with israel israel will negotiate delegation of powers and responsibilities in the areas of administration justice personnel agriculture education business tourism labor and social welfare local police local transportation and communications municipal affairs and religious affairs several question do come to mind concerning the success we all hope for in the ongoing negotiation process these arrangements certainly seem to be essentially a rejection of any palestinian interim self control without exposing itself to unwarranted risks and creating irresversible vulnerability can israel reasonably put forward at later points in the negotiating process more relaxed proposals for this interim period how should proposals from either side be altered to temper their maximalist approaches as stated above how can israeli worries and desire for some interim control be addressed while providing for a very real interim palestinian self governing entity tim later comment there seem to be two perceptions that have to be addressed the first is that of israel where there is little trust for arab groups so there is little support for israel giving up tangible assets in exchange for pieces of paper expectations hopes etc the second is that of the arab world palestinians where there is the demand that these tangible concessions be made by israel without it receiving anything tangible back given this the gap between the two stances seems to be the need by israel of receiving some tangible returns for its expected concessions by tangible is meant something that provides israel with comparable protection from the land it is to give up in some way ensures that the arab states and palestine will be accountable and held actively not just diplomatically responsible for the upholding of all actions on its territory by citizens or visitors israel is hanging on largely because it is scared stiff that the minute it lets go gives lands back to arab states no more buffer zone gives full autonomy to palestinians any and or all of the arab parties could and would if not controlled somehow easily return to the traditional anti israel position the question then is how to really ensure that that will not happen tim clock ph d graduate student uci tel department of politics and society fax university of california irvine
