I devoted a lot of time some years ago to sorting out all the issues in the Israel/Palestine mishigas and creating a helpful and definitive peace plan. 

Some people call this the Messiah Complex, and it is not uncommon, but I think I addressed this rather thoughtfully. I interviewed Palestinians and Israelis wherever I could find them and came up with an approach that would achieve justice and protect both sides. 

I wrote a Kindle single, started a Facebook community with many tens of thousands of participants, edited a webzine and gave a Ted Talk. (Okay, okay, sticklers: I gave a “TEDx” talk. But still. I stood in an auditorium in front of an audience and people applauded, and you can watch it on YouTube. Do you really know the difference?)

I won’t link to any of these things, and, although they are easily findable on the web (and the book is even for sale still), I ask you not to do so.

A lot of work went into my “New Framework,” and at one time it would have solved everything. Probably because it was just the most reasonable and fairest resolution of everything, some Israeli settlers and Palestinians in the territories began to push it, not from my influence, but just because it was obvious. 

I now need to recant. The leader of Hamas is dead, and there is a chance for peace. 

If you’re interested in peace, don’t pay any attention to what I said back then. Listen to me now. 

. 

This was the idea, as I wrote it then: 

The initial premises are these: (1) neither the two state solution, as currently envisioned, nor the one state solution, will work; (2) for the sake of debating and presenting the framework, I’m not taking sides (though like any human, I have my views on who is right and wrong); (3) Israelis and Palestinians are each a People, and neither is going anywhere. With regard to (1), what seems to kill the two-state solution in negotiations is the existence of the so-called Israeli settlements and the Palestinian right of return. I believe that these are two sides of the same coin. Human beings should have the right to live wherever they want in their homeland.

So, quite simply, I proposed that Arabs and Jews could live anywhere within the entire land between the river and the sea. 

The 1948 armistice line will be the formal border, with the exception of Jerusalem and the additional territory in the Sinai. (I understand the security issues involved, which will be addressed below.) Citizens of each state will be permitted to live wherever they want, but they will vote in national elections only in their national state. Arabs in Palestine, Jews in Israel. New Palestinian returnees would settle within the Palestinian border for 40 years, and new Israeli immigrants would settle within the Israeli border for 40 years.

So-called settlers may remain in their settlements, in which Arabs will also be free to live (eventually, after the normalization discussed below). Mixed race children will be citizens of the state in which their parents choose to live or may take the identity of their brothers over the border instead, if they so wish. Jerusalem will be an international city, with rotating governments – two four-year terms for Palestine, two four-year terms for Israel. Jews may live in East Jerusalem.

I suggested that this would all kick in after a period of normalization followed by a period of genuine calm:

All of this would have to begin with “normalization”, which would be essential for success. A number of years, at least ten, devoted to getting to know each other again. Trips to Auschwitz, if we must; exchange students, joint summer camps, Arab-Jewish orchestras, sports teams, boy bands, whatever it takes. Ten years of normalization and verified anti-incitement programs on both sides, combined with hefty financial incentives for the building of an Arab state, followed by five-years of genuine calm, after which the migration on both sides could begin with a trickle at first, a quota year-by-year, if indeed anyone wishes to pack up. If it works out, the quota grows. If violence ensues, the quota shrinks. Normalization continues. My suspicion is that most Palestinians would choose to live in Palestine and most Israelis would choose to live in Israel. Think about the Palestinians who receive beautiful new apartments in the Sinai and build a life there, even one that may include a job over the border. Why would they move to Israel? They can if they want, but most people would stay where they are.

.

The new territory in the Sinai was never really going to happen, although it was discussed back then. 

Two things have now changed my mind: first, October 7. But also importantly, those kids at Columbia. 

Today, both Israelis and Palestinians are more traumatized than ever. Israelis see Palestinians as aggressors who invaded their country and perpetrated a massacre. Palestinians see Israelis the same way. It is unimaginable that they could live together, after what has just happened.

But there are other external elements at play here that would prevent the success of the sort of land-sharing that I and others once proposed.

Neither October 7 nor the Columbia protests were designed to help Palestinians; exactly the opposite. The Palestinians are an afterthought in all of this. Does anyone think October 7 has been good for the Palestinians? And when the Columbia protestors praise October 7 as a “historic act of resistance,” do you think this reflects what is best for Palestinians?

No: in fact, both October 7 and the Columbia protests, which spread to the rest of the country, reflect at their heart not a desire for peace or justice, or even an advocacy for the Palestinians or a Palestinian state, but an unbridled hatred for Israel. In Gaza, the Palestinians celebrate Sinwar’s death, the man who brought them so much death and destruction. At Columbia, they praise his murderous rampage, the Palestinians be damned.

I have my own views about how a hatred for Israel gestates – is it antisemitism? (it doesn’t matter) – but it is there, and it is what it is. 

If Israel and Palestine were to agree to anything more complicated than a line in the sand and a formal separation (with perhaps even a demilitarized zone), it will create an opening for duplicity and chicanery. 

How so? Israel could not open the gates now. But the period of calm is more unlikely than it seemed even a few years ago. Iran would fund Palestinian disrupters. The Palestinian disrupters would empower Israeli obstructionists. And the Palestinian government, international organizations and college protestors would accuse Israel of foot-dragging. Israel would be faced with a choice between international condemnation and opening its doors to terrorists. 

What if that period of calm actually occurred, and Israel did indeed open its doors? It would be filled with citizens of Palestine returning to the cities of their ancestors. 

This is what everyone should want! 

Except….

Within a few years, protestors around the world and (without a doubt) UN committees would complain about a permanent underclass of indigenous non-voting citizens within Israel, denied their human rights solely by reason of their national origin as Palestinians. 

Of course, they could vote in Palestine – just as an American citizen who lives in Paris votes absentee ballot in Brooklyn rather than in France — but these pro-Palestinian advocates would demand on their behalf the right to vote within Israel. Jews would similarly flock to Hebron and other areas within “Judea and Samaria” and would similarly be permitted to vote only in Israel, but no one would advocate on their behalf on the Morningside Heights campus and the various UN committees that would soon be devoted to condemning this new apartheid. 

I thought that the new framework that I proposed would be embraced because it was the best possible deal for Palestinians who wanted to return to Haifa and Jews who wanted to live in Bethlehem, but in this case, the best possible deal is the worst possible deal, because it would not be the end of the story, and we need this story to end. 

With the death of Sinwar, Israel needs to withdraw. The Arab and European nations should take over militarily in Gaza, and a reformed PA should take over administration. A border should be imposed between Israel and the West Bank. The US should recognize a Palestinian state and end its veto in the UN. 

Israel and Palestine should be like North and South Korea. Nothing more dangerous than balloons filled with poo and some testy words. 

.

In a hundred years, one might imagine, trade between these two neighbors might start to flourish; a Palestinian businessman who works frequently in Tel Aviv might need to rent an apartment in Yafo. My new framework would come about organically.

But who are we kidding? Have you ever been to Israel/Palestine in July? In Tiberias, it’s impossible to breathe. In a hundred years, most of the land will be under water, and whatever high elevations survive the deluge will be uninhabitably hot. 

So this problem is temporary, however it turns out. 

^^^

This article is by Steven S. Drachman. Art design by Kalyee Srithnam.