Lieberman Plan

Lieberman's main argument for the plan is that it is not a population transfer, since the plan does not call for any forcible removal of anyone from their home. The plan, instead, simply redraws the border between Palestinian and Israeli communities to make them more homogeneous (i.e., nearby Arab communities are redrawn to be included in the Palestinian Territory, while nearby Jewish territories are redrawn to be included in Israel).

In an open Q&A with Haaretz, Lieberman noted that it is of great importance to have a partner in the Arab side and stated that he communicated his plan to the Palestinians and the Arab states prior to making it public in Israel. Lieberman stated his belief that the Arab world understands that his plan would be in the benefit of the region and cited that there were no denunciations from either the Palestinians or the Arab world to this plan.[1]

Generally speaking, land transfer, as opposed to population transfer, is legal under both International and Israeli law. The Israeli precedent was exemplified in 1979 when Israel agreed to transfer the Sinai Desert in exchange for peace with Egypt. The issue that arises with this plan is the transfer of populated territories and the revocation of citizenship for those in the transferred areas.[6] Even this, in principle, seems to be legal under international law.[12]

A number of legal experts questioned by The Jerusalem Post in 2006 argued that stripping Israeli Arabs of citizenship as part of a population and territorial swap with the Palestinian Authority would "run counter to Israeli and international law".[13] They stated that Israel could decide that the "Triangle", which is populated mostly by Israeli Arabs, is no longer part of Israel but that she could not revoke the citizenship of the people living there. However, others questioned in the same report, including parliamentary and constitutional law teacher, Suzie Navot, argued that the legality of the plan was unclear, and would likely need a ruling from the High Court of Justice to determine its legality.[13] Yisrael Beiteinu's legal adviser Yoav Many believes the plan is legal and "would be accepted not just in Israel but also within the international community".[13]

Timothy Waters writes that the plan, contrary to many arguments, is not an example of ethnic cleansing nor apartheid since it does not move any Arab from their land. He writes that states have the right to transfer (or withdraw from) territory, even against the wishes of the population, or to revoke the citizenship of inhabitants.[14] The Lieberman Plan advocates the affected Arab Israelis to become citizens of Palestine, not stateless, and hence doesn't violate 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.[14] Waters also argues that while a state cannot strip an entire ethnic group of their citizenship, it may practice some forms of ethnic discrimination "because ethnicity plays an accepted role in constructing citizenship". He points to the expulsion of black Senegalese from Mauritania, the stripping of northern Muslims of their citizenship by Côte d'Ivoire and the denationalization of Germans from Czechoslovakia (whose legality, he says, was later upheld in courts).[15] Waters also argues that while the transfer of Israeli Arabs to a Palestinian state would harm their interests (e.g. reduction in standard of life) it doesn't violate any of their human rights.[16]

While there are international precedents for the idea of populated land exchange, and international law seems to be favorable, there is no such precedent under Israeli law. Scholars tend to agree that the plan is, at best, questionable under Israeli law. Currently, there is no Israeli law which would deal with this issue.[13] In order for it to be implemented, the Knesset would have to enact legislation, and the High Court of Justice would rule on its legality. It is unlikely that either International or Israeli law would allow revocation of citizenship without a bilateral agreement with the Palestinian Authority.[17]

Individuals who would prefer to remain in Israel instead of becoming citizens of a Palestinian state would be able to move to Israel. All citizens of Israel would be required to swear a loyalty oath to retain citizenship. Those who refuse could remain in Israel as permanent residents. The loyalty oath would apply to all citizens regardless of ethnicity. According to Timothy Waters "the loyalty oath almost certainly violates international law." The rationale behind this is that international law sees citizenship as an automatic right. Furthermore, those who refused to take the oath would be stateless, unlike those transferred under the population exchange part of the plan.[18]

Timothy Waters writes that while Israel does have the right to unilaterally withdraw its borders from Arab territory, it cannot unilaterally take territory in the West Bank (in particular the Israeli settlements there). While it would be legitimate for a sovereign Palestine to transfer territory to Israeli control, Palestine would be under no obligation to do so. Waters bases this on the argument that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, constitute occupied territory.[14]

Most criticisms of the plan focus on the undesirability of separation as opposed to its infeasibility. Many Arab citizens of Israel have criticized the plan as being racist and are, in general, opposed to it.[19] While the plan would not require them to leave their homes, Arabs in Israel argue that they are native to the region and insist that as Israeli citizens, they deserve equal rights within the state, and should not be singled out by ethnic or religious background. Various polls show that Arabs in Israel in general do not wish to move to the West Bank or Gaza if a Palestinian state is created there.[3]

Several Israeli left-wing commentators have argued against the plan as well. Jewish critics sympathetic to the idea of exchanging populated territories have argued that it would be preferable to do this as part of a comprehensive peace agreement. They point out that while Arabs under the plan would still be allowed to retain Israeli citizenship if they take an oath of allegiance, no reciprocal possibility exists.

Akiva Eldar of Haaretz has said that the plan undermines the moral high ground of Israel.[20] Haaretz has argued that the plan "is nothing but polite packaging that does not succeed in concealing its real aspiration: delegitimizing all the Arab citizens of Israel".[21]

Daniel Gordis wrote that the plan's implementation would be highly demoralizing to those Arabs who would not be removed and might give them the sense that Israel does not want them. Gordis argued that this could set back any attempt to build better relations with the Israeli-Arab community. However, he acknowledged that they may already believe that Israel doesn't want them and are unlikely to embrace Israel as a Jewish state, and that nothing Israel does will convince them otherwise.[22]

Other pro-Arab commentators have expressed skepticism that such a land-and-population transfer would result in the withdrawal of Israeli settlers and, hence, IDF soldiers, from areas of Israeli residence in the Lieberman-envisioned Palestinian state.[23] Another concern is that Israeli zones within the West Bank would be subject to a security threat, putting the IDF at high risk to defend them.