I’m a bit of a student of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I tend to read news from all sides, study history, try to listen to and understand disparate views, and avoid flame wars. The current situation is devastating, nauseating, grotesque. Emotions are strong, rightly so. Something has to change. I’m willing to stick my neck out.
I gravitate towards those who try to find new paths forward rather than relitigating old grudges or making gotcha points. I’d rather be found to be “wrong” if it leads to peace, than to be “right” and continue fighting. If we’ve learned anything over the past few months it’s that what existed prior to October 7th, 2023 wasn’t peace at all, just the illusion of safety for the Israelis, and that while the injustice of the current state of affairs continues, no one should have any greater expectations. Any lull in the action can only a step away from the next bout of violence.
I’m raising my voice in the hope that some of what I propose might resonate with other Kossacks or better yet, provoke even better ideas.
What I propose below is an alternative path to a negotiated settlement that has the potential to lead to a two-state solution, and one that might have a greater chance for lasting peace. I know the chance of success in this conflict is vanishingly slim, but I’ll take slim over living with the endless cycle of violence we’re witnessing and that human beings are living.
The Other Path - Divide and Choose1
There is a tried and true method of fairly dividing a resource between two parties.2 It is called Divide and Choose:
- One side draws the partition
- The other side chooses whichever half they prefer
Perhaps the most critical aspect of the method is that it does not require negotiation.3
Another critical feature of the method is that it is Envy Free, i.e.,
- The Partitioner views both pieces as equal (by definition) so they will not envy the choice.
- The Chooser exercises their discretion and gets the piece preferable to them.
Yet another is that outside parties need not be satisfied — the entire transaction is between the two interested parties, no others. If they’re happy, outside parties should be satisfied to.
Try it with a couple of children using a cookie. It might take a bit of practice, but they’ll iterate to this solution every time. The concept is that simple.
NOTE 1: An example is found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 13 known as Abraham and Lot's Conflict in which Abraham drew the partition of land while Lot chose which half he preferred.
NOTE 2: Two parties implies two “equal” parties. The ratio of people of Palestinian and Jewish descent living currently within the area that was British Palestine is roughly 50-50 (actually 52-48):
Yes, there is a Palestinian diaspora not present in Palestinian territories (nearly 5 million in surrounding countries alone), but there is also Jewish diaspora that not present in Israel that may want to immigrate to Israel.
There are also other minority ethnic groups present, such as Christians, Bedouin, Druze, etc, who may not identify precisely with either the Palestinians or those of Jewish descent, and but they are far less than 5% of the population and will probably remain so. I have not considered them in the partition discussion. My apologies.
If you disagree with my 50-50 ratio estimate, or insist on more complex partition formulations be my guest, they exist. (See Fair division and Fair cake-cutting for more nuanced approaches.). However, my guess is that we’ll get nowhere as census numbers are asserted, rejected, etc. We have to get going and can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
NOTE 3: Yes, it will require outside parties to force both parties to accept this method and will require third-party boots on the ground to enforce the partition. The lack of either of these might be seen as one of the fatal flows of the original 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, it certainly didn’t help.
Observation A — We are in a Cycle of Violence (and have Been for Decades)4
-
Occupation, oppression and injustice are relentless
-
The resulting anger and resentment spills over into anti-Israeli violence5
- Anti-Israeli violence is been put down with more intensive occupation, oppression and injustice
- A false peace is temporarily achieved, i.e., Israelis are apparently “safe”
- The cycle repeats itself with ever escalating levels of violence on both sides and “facts on the ground” driving the situation further and further from a two-state solution.
Note 4. I am avoiding the parsing of “legitimate” and “illegitimate” violence. I haven’t experienced terrorism, nor have I experienced “collateral damage”. I don’t know where the line is between resistance and terrorism, nor do I know where the line is between self-defense and terrorism. I’ll leave that to wiser folk.
Violence is not a state of affairs in anyone’s best interest. I’ll leave it at that.
And of course there are other second-order reasons for the cycle of violence, but I’m not here to point fingers or label parties guilty or innocent related to particular historical acts. From a 30,000 foot view, the cycle of violence we see stems from a failure to fairly distribute resources, both at the time of the establishment of Israel and since.
Note 5. Anti-Israeli violence sometimes spills over into Anti-Israeli-Coalition violence. My first memory of the IP conflict is the assassination of US Presidential candidate Bobby Kennedy by Sirhan Sirhan a Palestinian who was upset with Kennedy’s support to send fifty fighter jets to Israel for use against Palestinians.
Observation B — A Negotiated Two-State Settlement Has Failed
The paradigm for the past 50 or so years as been for the two sides to negotiate a two-state solution. No mutually-agreeable solution has emerged. No concrete progress has been made via this method since the Oslo Accords approximately 30 years ago, and subsequent actions by both parties have hardened positions while altering the reality of physical divide.
A idea of a Palestinian state used to be held out on the horizon as a beacon. The reality that is was never anything more than a mirage is now clear for all to see. The horizon is empty. That was only a mirage at best, though I wouldn’t put up much of an argument with anyone claiming that it was always a cynical ploy used to keep our eyes averted from what was really transpiring.
Based on past experience, we should have no confidence that continuing down this path will lead to any different result.
'”Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — Unknown
Observation C — A Negotiated Settlement has Daunting Barriers to Entry
Even if we demand to stay on the negotiated-settlement course, we have major hurdles regarding even beginning down that path that may be insurmountable.
It is said that for there to be a negotiated “settlement” (i.e., division) towards a two-state solution there must be two parties 1) representative (of their respective peoples), 2) legitimate (chosen and / or elected by their peoples) and 3) well-meaning (i.e., respecting the best interests of their peoples).6 However,
- Israel has legitimate concerns about a Palestinian partner due to past experience
- Palestinians have legitimate concerns about entering into negotiations with 1) an Israeli partner who is currently in a position of absolute control over Palestinians lives (and deaths), and 2) who has nearly unconditional support from the world’s superpower.
- Palestinians have legitimate concerns about entering negations because they would, by definition, begin from a tremendous disadvantage in terms of the current distribution of
- land area
- contiguous land
- arable land
- water
- coastal access
- access to cultural/historic sites
- etc.
- and because the current situation virtually precludes the solution of critical issues such as the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their former homes.
I’m too simple to understand all the dimensions related to this observation. No doubt both sides would be happy to add to the list. For example, there are maximalists on either side that believe any negotiation is an illegitimate compromise. Many Palestinians distrust anyone who has participated in the Palestinian Authority because they believe the PA cooperation with the Israelis has facilitated the ongoing occupation. I could go on and on.
My point is that both sides have legitimate concerns. I won’t disparage them. This is their lived history, not mine.
Note 6. Many others insist on other preconditions such as that a future Palestinian state must be disarmed, that there be a series of milestones that must be met before the Palestinian state will be recognized, etc. I’m choosing to ignore those complications for now, but will address them towards the end of this blog, at least in part.
Observation D — Facts on the Ground have Destroyed the Plausible Geography of a Negotiated Two-State Solution
Israeli appropriation of Palestinian territories post 1967 has effectively destroyed a two-state solution built from anything resembling the current boundaries through a negotiated settlement. (See B’TSELEM’s excellent interactive maps and multi-media if you’d like to understand what the current state of affairs looks like as well as the steps that have led to the current boundaries.
J Street, perhaps the most center-right pro-Israeli group here in the US, took down some of their white papers that purported to show the contours of how a two-state solution might emerge from the pre October 7, 2023’s state of affairs, but the gist was that they pointed to a future where the Palestinians had to make virtually all of the major concessions. Still, J Street’s remaining policy papers are informative and new ones have been added recently in an attempt to re-baseline the situation to account for October 7th and its fallout. If you wish to learn about their current thinking and ideas surrounding an “Israeli-Palestinian Confederation”, by all means, dive in (J Street Policy Center).
Tom Freidman is fond of pushing for the adoption of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, but the geographic split it was premised on (essentially the pre-1967 lines) is now so overcome by “facts on the ground” that it is all but meaningless. Nonetheless, there have been rumors (fantasies?) that the Biden Administration is trying to work with Arab partners, mainly Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, to dust off that proposal in order to provide for part of a “day after Gaza” plan that includes something about a two state solution.
Observation E — The Current Situation Disincentivizes Change by Either Party, Consequently External Pressure is a Prerequisite to Any Path Forward
Because of Observations A, B, C, and D, neither side has either the incentive or the power to change the current dynamic.
The world is beginning to recognize that only a future in which the reality of a Palestinian state becomes tangible is there likely to be any change to this situation and dynamic. The world understands that this will require considerable pressure from the outside.
Whether that external pressure is used to attempt the a Negotiated two-state settlement or the “Divide and Choose” partition method, external parties will have to spend considerable political capital strong arming the sides. While Divide and Choose might require much more arm twisting by the US on Israel in the short term, it may require much less care and feeding going forward, while yielding greater benefits. I.e., it may very well be worth it to choose the option that is harder at the outset.
Observation F — “One State” is a Dilemma
Since both sides represent distinct cultures with different historical experiences, different religions, different languages, etc. It is difficult to imagine a one-state solution that would remain stable and peaceful, nor would it satisfy the existential need for the Jews to have a home state.6
But it is unclear how much longer the world will turn away from what is transpiring. As the intensity grows for Palestinians to be treated with humanity and equality, the push towards a One-State solution will only intensify, and that pressure will be greatest if there is no two-state option. That is precisely the path we are on right now.
Note 6. I don’t care whether a Zionist vision is right or wrong, I haven’t lived the Jewish experience. I do, however believe that because British Palestine was not pristine wilderness in 1947, that Zionism is, by definition, contrary to Palestinian interests and that it is the historic lack of equal focus on the creation of a co-equal Palestinian state that has led to the de-facto apartheid condition we see today.
Observation G — Shared Values...Eroding
It is becoming increasingly untenable for the US to argue that shared values are what link Israel and the US. The following are anathema to American values, yet are now accepted as legitimate responses to terrorism, having to be defended by the US and with virtually no other allies:
-
Settlement
- Occupation
- Disparate Laws based on Ethnicity
- Collective Punishment
- Routine destruction of civilian infrastructure (water supplies, sewage treatment, electrical supplies, hospitals, homes)
- Indiscriminate killing of civilians
- Deliberate withholding of basic needs (food, water, medicine) against large percentages of the entire Palestinian population
- Routine detention with virtually no detainee rights
- A censored press
I could go on and on.
My children are in their mid twenties. Neither has known any Israel other than through the lens of these practiced “values”. Holding on to that generation and ones to come is doomed to fail unless they begin to see a real change. We’re witnessing that erosion as I type. It will only get worse.
We cannot hope to save Israel unless we save Israel from itself by demanding it shift to a humane path.
Observation H — Justice is a Prerequisite for Lasting Peace
We all know the chant: “No Justice. No Peace” because we’ve all been taught that justice is a prerequisite for peace. That’s just obvious, right?
An historical lack of justice towards both sides underpins the Current Cycle of Violence and must be both acknowledged and addressed:
- The Palestinians have suffered millennia of colonization culminating in the Nakba and generations of occupation, oppression and arguably, major war crimes committed against them
- The Jews have suffered millennia of antisemitism culminating in the Holocaust and the murder of generations
I’m not here to compare the degrees of injustice, or to compare the Nakba/occupation to the Holocaust, merely to remind us that injustice has led to deep wounds on both sides.
We should be leery of solutions built upon a foundation of injustice and strive to evaluate any proposed solution from all perspectives, not just our own or that of “our team”.
Justice for all provides the broadest foundation from which to build a lasting peace. Is it a guarantee? No, absolutely not, but I believe it is a prerequisite and the right thing to do from a moral perspective.
Rather, we should strive for justice for all if we are to hope for the greatest potential for peace to take root.
I believe prerequisites such as “any Palestinian State must be demilitarized” are tacit admissions that we are asking them to accept an unjust outcome. We know our own natures. We understand that were we in their shoes, we cannot say for certain that we wouldn’t choose the path of violence.
The Immodest Part — My Thesis
External parties should bring pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to pursue a two-state solution to be decided via the “Decide and Choose” method of partition because it
- Avoids the challenges inherent in a negotiated settlement by sidestepping negotiations altogether
- Ensures fairness of the outcome from the perspective of shared resources
- Provides an “envy free” partition, which is the best we can hope for at this point
- Has the greatest potential to lead to a Zionist state side by side with a co-equal Palestinian state, the two must-haves according to each side.
- Uses a methodology that forces the partitioner to consider the perspective of the chooser, not just their own, obviating the challenge of negotiation between two sides of vastly different strengths. Instead the partitioner negotiates with themself as they weigh partition options.
- This does not preclude the use of external partners to advise one party or the other
- This does not preclude a solution that calls for a neutral “international” zone governed by neither side, say, for Jerusalem.
- Maximizes the potential for lasting peace by avoiding a two-state solution built upon unjust foundations, i.e., today’s morass on the ground with virtually all of the concessions forced upon the Palestinians
- Saves everyone from th “One State” dilemma, which is fast approaching.
- Returns the US to core our principles while de-escalating our one-sided relationship with Israel and the related blow-back.
Hey, it’s my dream. It doesn’t have to be yours.
I welcome your comments below, but I’ll probably try to avoid the temptation to join in. As my great grandmother used to say, “Nobody ever learned anything listening to themselves talk.” I’ll be here “listening”.
Read More
