Alternative Palestinian Agenda

APA Home

Member Contributions

 

Territorial Distribution

Territorial sovereignty is the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is no line to be drawn on the map without touching nerves on both sides. However, both peoples will learn that territorial distribution will become less of an issue once the stabilization of the two states under a Federal Union is achieved and both peoples are granted access to all the territories of the country Palestine-Israel, free of any intimidation or harassment. The following recommendations for territorial partition are based on feasibility and the necessity for such partition in order to facilitate resolution of major issues of the conflict.

In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan allocated 54% of Mandate Palestine to the Jewish state and 46% to the Arab state (see map 2). What is proposed here is not far from this distribution. However, it has been re-configured based on the current demographic map.

The recommendations for partition presented here are for future arrangements and are intended to enable the country to accommodate the Palestinian returnees with respect to land, employment as well as the social and cultural transition of that population. Individuals’ (Palestinians or Israelis) right to their properties Should be settled legally and any due compensation for losses Should be furnished by those parties found responsible or a special commission to established for such claims.

In what follows, the methodology of the basis for territorial distribution is presented, followed by analysis of the territories region by region and the basis for allocation of each region. Then a comprehensive analysis of the resulting overall territorial distribution and its capacity to address the issues of conflict is presented.

The boundaries of each state are clarified, described and illustrated with various maps. Then a detailed boundary description is documented in Appendix A. The boundaries were not drawn arbitrarily, but after a prolonged study of the area through physical survey, various maps (see Appendices) and satellite images of the area. This feasible partition was drawn after careful analysis of the various areas and took into consideration the current demographic makeup of the country, including its resources and the historical traditions of the various communities with respect to their relation to the land.

Although the UN proposed a Partition Plan in General Assembly Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, changes in the demographics on the ground after 53 years make it less feasible to implement that exact Partition Plan today. It is important to note that this territorial configuration is drawn for two states in union, and not at war. Boundaries are drawn following natural features Such as along valleys, plains or desert frontiers or major highways avoiding abrupt cuts in the land as much as possible, thereby maintaining continuity of natural regions.

UN proposed a Partition Plan, November 1947

click on map to enlarge

Territorial Configuration

Methodology

The new territorial configuration proposed here is designed to respond to all the concerns that are required to be resolved in order to neutralize the struggle and implement the political arrangements that will carry both societies towards healthy relation. What is intended from this new territorial configuration is to arrive at a workable solution. The new territorial configuration needs to accommodate:

This study represents a thorough analysis of the territories region by region considering all the territories in what is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Four criteria guided the analysis in determining allocation of sovereignty by region to one state or another: (1) current population density and distribution, (2) territories and their capacity to sustain population, (3) security and sociopolitical concerns, and (4) territories under international law.

Current Population Density and Distribution

The main principle that guided the research stipulates that areas currently predominantly inhabited by Israelis should be allocated for Israeli sovereignty and areas that are currently predominantly inhabited by Palestinians should fall under Palestinian sovereignty and areas with an overall low population density that can sustain a substantially higher population density should be allocated for Palestinian sovereignty in order to address the need to accommodate Palestinian refugees.

Territories and Their Capacity to Sustain Population

The geography of each region is considered with respect to its capacity for urban, agricultural, and industrial development, taking into consideration the current socioeconomic nature of Palestinian and Israeli society. Each region was studied to determine to what extent the existing or returning population is able to lead productive lives.

Security and Sociopolitical Concerns

Each region was considered in terms of the current makeup of the population. The concern here is that a Palestinian refugee community that grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan or Lebanon will not be expected to live in an area that is predominantly populated by Israelis overnight. That would make that community subject to great cultural shock and would raise concerns about the security and safety of both communities. Even though the intention of this proposal is to end exile and continuous confrontation and promote greater integration, this transitional semi-segregation will lay the grounds for healthy coexistence.

Territories under International Law

Special consideration was given to each region as far as its current status under international law. Israel currently occupies all of historic Palestine. Under international law, Palestine was partitioned into two states according to UNGA Resolution 181, November 29, 1947. All of the territories allocated to the Palestinian state are now occupied by Israel, some of which were occupied in 1948 and others in 1967. In this research, the current borders of the West Bank and Gaza are considered results of war and cease-fire lines. The researched areas are not confined by these lines. Priority is given to each region to maintain its status under international law as configured by UN Resolution 181. However, for the purpose of addressing all issues of concern for resolution of the conflict, the new configuration is not limited to those lines either. After 53 years of Israeli control over these territories, the current demographics of these areas have changed. Thus, wherever it is in the interest of serving the solution to swap territories, such a swap is proposed.

Allocatio

The territories of the country are considered in three main sections: (a) the North Region, (b) the Central Plains in the West Bank, and (c) the South Region. Each region is then divided and considered separately according to the natural subregions of these areas.

North Region

The North Region is broken down into three natural areas: (a) the Galilee, (b) the Bisan Plateau, and (c) the Marj ibn Amer Plateau.

al Jalil (The Galilee)

The al Jalil region is the largest natural region in what is now Israel that has an overall majority Palestinian population. This region has been occupied by Israel since 1948 from those territories that were allocated to the Palestinian state according to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. al Jalil has a population density averaging 400/km2. It is fairly rich in its natural resources; it contains many fields and most of the hills are utilized or can be utilized as orchards. Consequently, this region has the capacity to sustain a fairly high population density. The Palestinian population is spread out through the Galilee with the vast majority in the central Galilee. Most of the Israeli population in this area is concentrated in two cities, Natsrat Ilit and Karmi’el.

Palestinian returnees could be accommodated in the central Galilee since it meets all the conditions outlined above. The returnees would live among the Palestinian population and would have job and entrepreneurial opportunities. Configuring the al Jalil region under Palestinian sovereignty would address two major outstanding issues of the conflict in that it would greatly contribute: (1) to the issue of the right of return and (2) to solving the concerns of the Palestinian population in what is now Israel, since the majority of this population lives in that region. However, not every area of al Jalil and its surroundings meet all the parameters set as guiding principles. Israelis make up the majority of the population in the Nahariyeh area. The same applies to the Safed area and most areas surrounding Lake Tabaria (Sea of Galilee/Kinneret).

To allow for a majority of Israelis to stay under Israeli sovereignty and for the majority of Palestinians to fall under Palestinian sovereignty and at the same time accommodate the greatest number of Palestinian returnees possible in the region, a new configuration is proposed for the Galilee whereby the Nahariyeh area, the Safed area, and most of the areas around Lake Tibariyeh would remain under Israeli sovereignty as well as the two Israeli cities in the central Galilee, Natsrat Ilit and Karmi’el. The central Galilee area extending to include the city of Akka (Acre) to the West as well as the area of the destroyed village of Hattin to the east connecting to Lake Tabaria is proposed to be reconfigured under Palestinian sovereignty (see map 3).

The al Jalil region is the largest natural region proposed to fall under Palestinian sovereignty that is part of what is now Israel (approximately 1100 km2). This region was allocated to the Arab state in the 1947 UN Partition Plan in UN Resolution 181. The reconfiguration from the UN Partition Plan of this region includes three adjustments. The first to the north, which is the area north of Akka, is proposed to fall under Israeli sovereignty because it is largely populated by Israelis today even though it was allocated to the Arab state in the UN Partition Plan. This area, which will be referred to as the Nahariyya district, includes two Palestinian populated towns, al Mazra’a and Aramsha. The second adjustment from the UN Partition Plan is to the south and constitutes the area around the village of Basmat Tabu’n which was allocated to the Jewish state in the UN Partition Plan but proposed for the Palestinian state here since it includes a cluster of populated Palestinian villages. The third area lies to the east where the boundary extends a little further east than under the original Partition Plan to the east of Jabal Tabur (Har Tvor) and then northeast of the village of Eilabun.

The boundaries of the two Israeli cities of Karmi’el and Natsrat Ilit that are proposed to remain under Israeli sovereignty should be drawn at the limits of the developed areas of each city. Moreover, the suburbs of the city of Akka (Akko) would remain under Israeli sovereignty, although the city itself would fall under Palestinian sovereignty due to the high population of Palestinians within the city limits.

 

Map 3 – The Galilee

Table 2 shows all Palestinian towns and their populations that are included in this region that would fall under Palestinian sovereignty. Table 3 shows all Israeli towns and their populations in the region that would fall under Palestinian sovereignty. These tables clearly show the vast majority of the inhabitants of this region are still Palestinians.

Table 2. Palestinian Towns and their Population in the al Jalil Region

Town	Population	Town	Population
Iksal	9,100	Basmat Tabu’n	5,020
Ein Mahil	8,600	Bi’ni	6,000
Kofor Kanna	14,200	Mii’lya	2,370
al Mashhad	5,800	Shaikh Dannun	1,880
Reina	12,900	Tura’n	9,170
Shaab	4,870	Salama	1,370
M’ghar	16,400	Ka’abiye	3,010
Eilabun	3,590	Ras Ali	374
Deir	7,100	Nahaf	8,080
Araba	15,800	Tarshiha	5,000
Sakhnin	20,400	al Makr	14,400
Kabul	7,700	Julis	4,600
Kaukab	2,310	Rumane	690
Kofor Manda	12,100	Rumet al Heib	1,300
I’bllin	9,000	Ilut	5,320
In’Nujeidat	6,200	Jat & Yanuh	4,340
Turan	9,200	Ein al Asad	699
Bir El-Maksur	5,800	Rama	7,100
Shibli	2,700	Sajur	2,990
Dabburiyi	6,800	Deir al Asad	7,300
Um al Ghanam	1,100	Majd al Krum	10,200
Rehaniya	847	Tamra	21,300
al Jesh	2,410	Hurfessh	4,400
Beit Jan	8,660	Fasuta	2,680
al Bukae’a	4,340	Kisra & Sumea’	5,500
Abu Snan	9,800	Uzeir	1,960
Yirka	10,400	Shafa Amr	26,300
Kofor Yasif	7,220	Yafa (Nazareth)	13,600
Nazareth (Palestinians)	57,200	Akka (Palestinians)	11,600
Total	282,547	Total	188,553
Grand Total			471,100

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities,

Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1998.

 

 

Table 3. Israeli Towns and their Population in the al Jalil Region

Town	Population	Established	Town	Population	Established
Baram	463	1949	Zuriel	272	1950
Matat	136	1979	Hosen	396	1949
Elkos	343	1949	Me’ona	452	1949
Masad	337	1949	Ga’aton	394	1948
Beit Rimon	157	183	Yekhiam	394	1946
Ilanyia	433	1977	Amqa	515	1949
Hosha Aya	957	1902	Khaluz	251	1985
Eskhar	337	1981	Zviyya	221	1979
Mikhamin	221	1986	Adi	1,410	1980
Moran	114	1980	Harduf	229	1982
Khazon	415	1977	Alon ha-Galil	822	1980
Lotem	313	1969	Giva’t Ela	1,610	1988
Tfahot	238	1980	Beit Keshet	263	1944
Segev	614	1953	Ha-Solelim	281	1949
Manof	440	1980	Oshrat	569	1949
Rakefet	518	1981	Elkosh	343	1949
Shakhanya	988	1980	Zurie’l	272	1950
Qoranit	535	1982	Kafar Varadim	3,690	1984
Moreshet	350	1981	Karem Ben Zimra	343	1949
Yodfaat	252	1960	Harashim	190	1980
Mitspe	161	1908	Klil	175	1979
Hararit	195	1980	Hanton	95	1984
Avtalyon	238	1987	Kamon	436	1988
Mitspe Aviv	460	1981	Ein Yaa’kov	413	1950
Sa’sa’	397	1949	Tal El	552	1980
Kafr Yehezqel	605	1921	Lavon	n/a	1980
Tsiv’on	72	1980	Pelekh	36	1980
Dovev	397	1963	Tuval	110	1980
Biqi’in Hadasha	303	1955	Gilon	751	1980
Safsufa	510	1949	Zurit	569	1981
Meron	745	1949	Shorshim	281	1949
Timrat	1,670	1983	Ya’ad	459	1975
Lapidot	165	1978	Yuvalim	953	1982
Gita	216	1980	Gineigar	470	1922
Shefer	251	1950	Tsipori	425	1949
Shazor	362	1953	Kafr Hahoresh	441	1933
Matat	136	1979	Hosen	396	1949
Total	14,908			18,261
Grand Total				33,169

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities

Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1998.

After 5 years of Israeli control the total Palestinian population of these areas is 471,100 versus 33,991 Israelis excluding the populations of Karmi’el and Natsrat Ilit. The total population of this region is 505,091. Thus, the Palestinian population is 93.3% and the Israelis of these areas constitute only 6.7% of the total population. This region also includes the sites of 33 destroyed Palestinian villages (see Table 4). These villages can be redeveloped and used to accommodate Palestinian returnees.

Table 4. Destroyed Villages Sites in the Territories Proposed for the

Palestinian State in the al Jalil Region.

Destroyed Village	Population in 1945	Destroyed Village	Population in 1945
Amqa	1,240	Suhmat	1,130
Fara	320	Khirbat al Rihan	n/a
Kufor Biri’im	710	Khirbat al Samra	n/a
Al Ras al Ahmer	620	Khirbat Jaa’toun	n/a
Saa’saa’	1,130	Al Ghabsiyeh	690
Al Mansura, Deir Al Qasi,& Fasuta	2,300	Shaikh Dannun & Shaikh Dawud	550
al Rihaniya	150	Kufor Anan	360
Qaddita	240	Meyran	290
Safsaf	910	Al Sammu’i	310
Ghabbatiyya	60	al Birwa	1,460
Sablan	70	al Damun	1,310
Mia’r	770	al Royas	330
Jiddin	1,500	Masha	n/a
Maa’lul	690	Saffuriyyeh	4,330
		Samouna	n/a

Source: All that Remains, Walid Khalidi, 1992.

District of Tabaria (al Jalil Region)

The majority of the areas surrounding Lake Tabaria are currently populated by a majority of Israelis except the area of Wadi Hamam on the western shores of Tabaria. To give Palestinians access to the lake, which represents one of the main natural resources the country has to offer, an area that is overall lightly populated by Palestinians is proposed to fall under Palestinian sovereignty (see map 4). This district of Tabaria that is proposed to fall under Palestinian sovereignty is a small area on the eastern shore of Lake Tabaria and connects to the al Jalil region (approximately 65 km2). This area was allocated to the Jewish state in the 1949 UN Partition Plan. Tables 5 & 6 show the current demographics of this area whereby the Israelis compose a majority of 68% of a small total population of 3,368. However, the Israelis depopulated and destroyed four Palestinian villages in that area in 1948 with a total population of 4660 (see Table 7). The total Palestinian population in the area in 1948 was more than the combined Israeli and Palestinian population of the same area today.

Map 4 – Tabaria District

click on map to enlarge

 

Table 5. Palestinian Towns in the Territories Proposed for the Palestinian State

in the District of Tabaria

Town	Population
Wadi Hamam	1,060
Total	1,060

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities

Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1998.

 

Table 6. Israeli Towns in the Territories Proposed for the Palestinian

State in the District of Tabaria

Town	Population	Established
Migdal	1,370	1910
Ginsoar	514	1937
Livinim	385	1982
Ravid	39	1981
Total	2,308

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities

Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1998.

 

Table 7. Destroyed Villages Sites in the Territories Proposed for the

Palestinian State in the District of Tabaria

Town	Population in 1945
al Majdal	360
Ghuwayr Abu Shusha	1,240
Hittin	1,190
al Wa’ra al Sawda	1,870
Total	4,660

Source: All that Remains, Walid Khalidi, 1992.

This area meets the criteria to accommodate Palestinian returnees. It contains the sites of four destroyed villages which could be redeveloped to accommodate more Palestinian returnees. In addition, two other aspects of this area were considered in allocating Palestinian sovereignty: (a) it offers the Palestinians access to Lake Tabaria, one of the main natural resources Palestine has to offer, and (b) it offers the Palestinians sovereignty over the destroyed village of Hittin, the site of the Hittin battle where the Crusades were defeated. This site holds a great deal of importance in Arab and Islamic history the way the site of Masada is important to Israelis and Jewish history.

Bisan Plateau (Yisakhar Plateau)

The natural region between the city of Bisan, the village of Zyra’in, Jabal Ta’bour (Mount Tavour), and Lake Tabaria is lightly populated with an overall population density of 100/km2. This area is mostly fertile fields and can sustain a higher population density than the Galilee region. The current demographic distribution in this area has a concentration of Palestinian villages around the hills that separate the Bisan Plateau from Marj ibin Amer (Izre’el Plateau). The Israeli population is concentrated along the Harud Valley at the southern edge of the plateau and along the Jordan River at the eastern edge of the plateau. The center of the plateau is, for the most part, now vacant, but used to host a number of Palestinian villages prior to 1948.

A new configuration is proposed whereby the majority of the Israeli population in the Harud Valley including the city of Bisan along with the population along the Jordan Valley would remain under Israeli sovereignty. The vacant areas, which are naturally split by Sadi al Bireh (Tvor Valley), are proposed to be split into two areas. The area north of Wadi al Bireh which is naturally connected to the southern Taberias area that is populated by Israelis, is proposed to remain under Israeli sovereignty. The area south of Wadi al Bireh along with the hills between the Bisan Plateau and the Marj ibin Amer region is proposed to be reconfigured under Palestinian sovereignty (see map 5).

This reconfigured area can accommodate a substantial number of Palestinian returnees. It is approximately 220 km2. This area was allocated to the Jewish state to in the 1947 UN Partition Plan. But since it is mostly vacant, has a majority Palestinian population today, and can sustain a greater population, a swap between it and the Nahariya district is proposed here in accordance with international law since the Nahariya district is populated today by a majority of Israelis.

This area referred to here as the Bisan Plateau is composed largely of the natural region of the Bisan Plateau in addition to the eastern edge of Marj ibin Amer (Izre’el Plateau), leaving the Harud Valley and the city of Bisan (Beit She’un) under Israeli sovereignty which measures approximately 220 km2. Table 8 shows seven Palestinian villages currently in the area with a total population of 8,104. Table 9 shows the four Israeli towns currently in the area with a total population of only 2,343.

 

Map 5 – Bisan Plateau

click on map to enlarge

Table 8. Palestinian Towns in the Territories Proposed for the Palestinian

State in the Bisan Plateau

Town	Population
Taibe	1,250
Nein	1,310
Tamra	989
Na’ura	1,350
Kofor Misr	1,780
Dahi	431
Sulem	1,030
Total	8,104

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities

Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1998.

Table 9. Israeli towns in the Territories Proposed for the Palestinian State

in the Bisan Plateau

Town	Population	Established
Ein Harud	831	1948
Gazit	601	1948
Ramat Tsvi	384	1942
Moledet	527	1937
Total	2,343

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities

Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1998.

Table 10 shows a total of 14 Palestinian villages that were depopulated and destroyed by Israel in 1948. The total population of those villages was over 5,200 in 1948.

 

Table 10. Destroyed Palestinian Villages Sites in the Territories Proposed for the Palestinian State in the Bisan Plateau

Town	Population in 1945
al Hamidiyya	320
al Bira	260
Danna	190
Jabbul	250
Kafra	430
Kawkab al Hawa	300
al Murassass	460
al Tira	150
Khirbat Um Sabuna	444
Yubla	210
Zaba’	146
al Zawiya	n/a
Ziri’i	1,420
Inndur	620
Total	5,200

Source: All that Remains, Walid Khalidi, 1992.

After the destruction of 14 villages and 53 years of Israeli control of this area, Palestinians still compose a 78% majority in this area. The sites of all 14 destroyed Palestinian villages can be redeveloped to help accommodate Palestinian returnees.

Marj ibin Amer ( Izre’el Plateau)

The Marj ibin Amer plains are lightly populated with an overall population density of 200/km2. These plains contain the richest lands in Palestine. Throughout the history of Palestine over the past millenniums, Marj ibin Amer was and still is the main source of bread for the population of the land. Out of the small area on the southern edge of the plains north of Jenin that remained in Palestinian hands, the Jenin area produces the majority of the grains for consumption by the Palestinian population. The same goes for the Israelis. The Izre’el Plateau is one of the main areas Israel produces its grains.

The population distribution is mainly around the frontiers of the plains. The plains themselves are mostly vacant. There is a concentration of Israeli population on the southeastern frontier, the city of Afula and the surrounding area, and along the northern frontier of the plains from the city of Migdal Ha Emek to the south of the Haifa region. The southern section of the plains alongside the 1949 armistice line has a simple majority of Palestinians.

To allow for the areas that are mostly populated by Israelis to stay naturally connected to the main Israeli populated areas and the coastal plains, the eastern frontier and the northern frontier of the plains along with the northern and eastern sections of the plains are proposed to remain under Israeli sovereignty.

The southern section of the plains is proposed to be configured under Palestinian sovereignty along the same lines proposed in the 1947 UN Partition Plan (see map 6). This configuration allows for a natural connection of the Palestinian population of the West Bank to the Palestinian population of the Galilee. Similarly, it allows for the connection of the Haifa region to Afula, Tiberias, and Safed for the Israeli population. It also allows for the accommodation of more Palestinian returnees in these areas and will also give the Palestinians more land to help suffice their basic food needs.

This area falls in the center of Marj ibn Amer (Izre’el Plateau) bordering what is now the West Bank to the north (approximately 65 km2). This area was allocated to the Arab state under the 1947 UN Partition Plan. The Israeli army took control of this area on May 31, 1948 (Khalidi, 1992), but was driven out by area residents on July 19, 1948. However, the Israelis pressured Jordan to turn most of it back to Israeli control in February 1949 according to what is known as the Rudis Accord, the armistice agreement with Jordan (Morris, 1990). Later in 1956, the Israelis pressured Jordan to give them more of this rich fertile land, after which they established small farming settlements in the plains (see Table 12).

Table 11. Palestinian Towns in the Territories Proposed for the Palestinian State

in the Marj ibin Amer Area

Town	Population
Sandala	1,170
Muqabela	2,410
Total	3,580

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities,

Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1999.

Table 12. Israeli towns in the Territories Proposed for the Palestinian State

in the Marj ibin Amer Area

Town	Population	Established
Magen Sha’l	257	1976
Meitav	351	1954
Avilal	385	1953
Dvora	227	1956
Adirim	231	1956
Barak	293	1956
Ramon	391	1960
Ni Yaffe	291	1956
Mele’a	306	1956
Gadish	264	1956
Total	2,996

Source: State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities

Their Population and Codes, 31 XII 1998, Jerusalem 1998.

Map 6 – Marj ibn Amer

click on map to enlarge

Even though the number of Israeli towns in the area is greater than the two Palestinian towns there, Palestinians still hold a majority in the population. The total population of the area is 6,576 of which 3,580 are Palestinians and 2,966 Israelis. The Palestinian population composes a 54% majority in this area.

The other important aspect of this area is that the lands included in it belong to the Palestinian villages of what is now the West Bank. For example, the residents of the village of Ti’nik own 2,540 dunums in these plains and the residents of the village of al Jalameh own over 4,000 dunums in these plains (al Dabbagh, 1973). Also, even though there are no destroyed village sites in this area (it is composed of fertile fields and Palestinian tradition for generations did not allow for the establishment of villages on fertile lands, so villages were established on the nearby hills or by the plains frontiers) some of the lands in this area belong to the destroyed villages of Ziri’n, Nuris, al Mazar and al Lajoun, located at the frontiers of these plains.

Central Region (Coastal Plains and the West Bank)

The Central Region is broken down into five areas: (a) the Coastal Plains, (b) the Triangle which is the stretch of Palestinian villages along the Western border of the West Bank, (c) the West Bank, (d) the District of Jerusalem, and (e) the South-Central Region which is the area between Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

Coastal Plains

The coastal plains are densely populated by Israelis. The population density ranges from 500/km2 south of Haifa, to 1000/km2 in the center of the plain between Haifa and Tel Aviv, to 3000/km2 in the Haifa area, and to 9000/km2 in the Tel Aviv area. The coastal plains hold the bulk of the Israeli population. It is proposed to remain under Israeli sovereignty since proposing any change there would create more conflict given the current demographic makeup of the region. However, the inner city of Jaffa, which has a Palestinian population of over 15,000 and could accommodate more, is proposed to be reconfigured under Palestinian sovereignty as was proposed by the 1947 UN Partition Plan. This change in the city of Jaffa will address the concerns of the oppressed Palestinian community there and also allow for accommodation of more Palestinians returnees.

Furthermore, Palestinian returnees can be accommodated in the city of Haifa. Haifa is the closest to an integrated city, an example that should be developed. Haifa is proposed to remain under Israeli sovereignty but to increase the Palestinian population there, since it was the most populous Palestinian city prior to 1948 and many Palestinian refugees are originally from there.

The Triangle

This area is further broken down into two areas: (a) Upper Triangle which is the stretch of Palestinian villages in what is now Israel between Tulkarem and Um al Fahm and (b) Lower Triangle which is group of Palestinian villages in what is now Israel between Tulkarem and Jerusalem.

Upper Triangle

A cluster of highly populous Palestinian villages bordering the West Bank to the west between Um al Fahm and Tulkarem fall in what is now Israel. This area is actually rectangular in shape but came to be known as the triangle because the villages in this area belong to the cities of Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarem which make a triangle.

This area was allocated to the Palestinian state in the UN 1947 Partition Plan. The Israeli army fell short of occupying this area in the 1948 war. However, Israel managed to pressure King Abdullah of Jordan to hand over this area to their control in February 1949 under the Rudis Accord (Morris, 1990). The Israelis’ concern at the time was to maintain control of the Khidara-Afula road (Highway 65). Such concerns are of no importance under the Federal Union proposed here. This area is densely populated with Palestinians; Israelis compose only a small minority there. A demarcation is proposed here to allow this Palestinian population to enjoy Palestinian statehood ( see map 7). Tables 13 & 14 show the Palestinian and Israeli towns and their populations respectively that would be affected by this reconfiguration.

Table 13. Palestinian Towns in the Territories Proposed for the Palestinian State in the Upper Triangle District

Town	Population
Union of:
Salem
Zalafa
al Biada
al Mushrafa
Musmus
Total	9,300
Union of:
Ein Es Sahla
Mu’awiya
Bartaa’a
Total	5,260
Um al Fahm	33,200
Ara’ra	12,800
Kofor Qaria	11,700
Um al qutuf	642
Baqa al Gharbiya	17,400
Jat	7,700
Meisar	1,230
Ein Ibrahim	unrecognized
A’ara	unrecognized