Two-State Vision: Offering a Scenario for Lasting Peace

Abstract

In response to the war between Israel and Hamas that erupted on October 7, 2023, this article introduces a bold two-state scenario as a potential pathway to peace. It extends the current international dialogue with a fresh-eyes perspective by introducing an alternative, while carefully analyzing its potential impact on each nation involved, challenges, and the strategic thinking necessary to implement it. The discussion underscores the importance of international diplomacy, examination of regional dynamics, and the imperative for a humanitarian-led peace initiative. Compared to traditional two-state solutions, this approach offers greater robustness in the face of mutual distrust, resentment, and hostility. It also presents a faster route to full sovereignty for Palestinians and enhanced security for Israel. Elements of this two-state scenario may also serve as catalysts for innovative thinking about the potential for reconciliation and stability in the Middle East, a region long beset by conflict. Context-aware readers may start at Section 5.

1. Introduction

The Israel-Hamas war, which erupted on October 7, 2023, amid a conflict spanning generations, has once again captured global attention. While the United States government voiced its support of Israel and continued to provide military aid, the UN Secretary General called for a ceasefire, citing violations of international law. US citizens have been divided regarding their responses to the war, which have included statements of support and condemnation, advocacy for a two-state solution, as well as calls for a ceasefire. Despite these demands for peace, regrettably, the violence has escalated at an alarming rate.

The coexistence of two independent nations has been frequently proposed as a possible pathway to peace. This raises the question, what form could such a solution realistically take to be acceptable to both peoples? As I explore this complex issue, I ask for patience. My perspective is that of a learner, aiming to understand the complexities of this historic divide and to look beyond simple solutions.

2. Background

Disputes over land in this region are deeply rooted in history, stretching not only to colonial times but back to antiquity. To some, resolving such profound historical divides might appear an insurmountable task. However, this shouldn't discourage efforts by those outside the conflict to leverage their skills and insights in pursuit of peace, particularly given the dire consequences for those involved.

For the Jewish people, a pivotal moment came with their exclusion from Jerusalem and much of Judah and Samaria following the Bar Kokhba revolt against Roman rule. The aftermath saw prohibitions imposed first by the Romans, then by successive Christian and Muslim rulers, barring Jews from returning to Jerusalem. Following their initial expulsion, the Romans invited settlers from surrounding areas, including Gaza and what is now Jordan, to inhabit Judah. The Jewish people were dispersed globally, while the Romans attempted to erase their historical ties to the land by renaming the region Syria-Palestine.

The possibility of return for the Jewish people emerged at the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th century, when the British Empire sought to establish a foothold in the region. Early Zionists negotiated with both the British and French governments. At one point, the British offered a homeland in Uganda, which was declined. In the Balfour declaration of 1917, the British government announced support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, setting the stage for increased Jewish immigration to the region. In the wake of the Holocaust, there was a concerted international push to find a safe haven for Jewish survivors. The resulting influx of Jewish migrants heightened the growing tensions with Palestinian Arabs already residing in Mandatory Palestine.

In 1947, the United Nations proposed allocating the majority of the land to Jewish inhabitants and a smaller portion to the Arabs, an offer declined at the time in part due to concerns over the demographic imbalance. What followed was the 1948 Palestine war, during which Britain eventually withdrew from the region. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were expelled in what they call the Nakba (“catastrophe”). Many ended up in Gaza, controlled by Egypt after the war, or the West Bank, controlled by Jordan. After Britain withdrew, Jewish leaders established the state of Israel, an act that catalyzed ongoing conflict.

Further changes in territory control occurred in several wars that followed, including the Six-Day War, during which Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank. Subsequent changes occurred with treaties such as the Oslo Accords, in which Israel agreed to demilitarization. However, many restrictions on Palestinians remained in place under Israeli control, including a full blockade of Gaza, fueling an almost continuous state of conflict (Figure 1 - Source).

After a devastating surprise attack in October 2023 led by Hamas that governs Gaza, followed by severe retaliatory measures from Israel, the quest for a durable peace now seems even more elusive. With international calls for a ceasefire and condemnations of violations of international law, the stakes are extraordinarily high. The path to peace, while necessary, remains fraught with challenges.

3. Unilateral Options

In a geopolitical landscape as complex as it is contentious, it is essential to approach discussions with an acute awareness of the diverse perspectives involved. In this spirit, I will attempt to elucidate the various stances surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the utmost respect for all parties.

In examining the conflict, one finds that unilateral aspirations often complicate the search for peace. For instance, Hamas has explicitly stated its goal to eliminate Israel, a stance that poses a stark challenge to any peaceful resolution. This goal directly contrasts with the international efforts that typically advocate for coexistence.

Palestinians have articulated visions of a free Palestine, which past proposals have suggested may include both Gaza and the West Bank. This delineation would include the holy site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which holds profound religious and cultural significance. However, the geographical separation of these territories presents a significant hurdle; it could potentially bisect either Palestine or Israel, leading to logistical and governance challenges and possibly fueling long-term violent conflicts.

Inclusion of the West Bank in a new Palestine also poses deeper political problems. Israel is unlikely to cede its historical heartland, which encompass areas of dense Jewish history and culture (Figure 2 - Source 1, Source 2). This is a sentiment that has been echoed and championed by both orthodox and secular Israelis and seems to have gained traction within the government.

Regarding Israel’s position, its current leadership has expressed a resolute stance against Hamas. Yet, they have not specified their longer-term plans or goals. Any discourse on the power dynamics between these two sides must be broached with sensitivity, as Israel’s actions to curb Hamas have already come at the cost of a profound loss of life among Palestinian civilians.

If Israel were to take decisive action against Hamas, the aftermath could lead to several scenarios, each with its own challenges. Israel might choose to remilitarize Gaza --though they so far have said they would not-- but this could regress once again to a state of daily conflict. Alternatively, installing a new civil government or restoring the Palestinian Authority poses its own set of challenges, given the existing tensions within areas the PA currently administers. Given other historical partitions, the political and governance trajectories of Gaza and the West Bank are likely to diverge. Combined with the presence of Lebanon and Syria, this creates multiple fronts for Israel to consider—fronts with histories of coordinated attacks.

Israel’s recent ground offensive suggests it may seek to significantly alter Gaza’s infrastructure, potentially forcing Palestinians to relocate to the West Bank with much of Gaza remaining fallow or subject to Israeli settlement. However, it seems unlikely that Israel would move a large Palestinian population to the Jewish heartland (Figure 2). A previous attempt to push the Palestinians into Egypt was met with refusal, likely due to concerns that such a move would be irreversible.

On an international level, the U.S. faces its own decision matrix regarding support for Israel. The U.S. opposed a resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly on October 27, 2023 calling for a ceasefire, after the Assembly chose not to include an amendment condemning Hamas and calling for the immediate release of all hostages held in Gaza. However, other members of the U.N. have continued to stress the ceasefire, citing Israel's targeting of much of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and schools. While several in the Security Council emphasized a two-state solution as a long-term solution to the crisis, the specifics of this long hoped-for agreement are yet unclear.

4. Previous UN-Based Two-State Solutions

There have been several variants and proposals of the traditional UN-based two-state solution each aimed at overcoming the obstacles between Israel and Palestine. These proposals often involve compromises, international mediation, and sometimes innovative approaches to the issues at hand. Here are a few of the notable concepts and adaptations.

4.1. Clinton Parameters (2000)

Proposed by U.S. President Bill Clinton, these parameters outlined a framework for addressing borders, Jerusalem, settlements, and refugees. It suggested Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the majority of the West Bank, with land swaps to compensate for settlement blocs, and a division of Jerusalem.

4.2. Arab Peace Initiative (2002)

Offered by the Arab League, this initiative proposed full normalization of relations between the Arab region and Israel, in return for a complete withdrawal from the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, and a settlement for Palestinian refugees.

4.3. Geneva Initiative (2003)

This unofficial draft proposal for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians included detailed maps and arrangements on almost all issues. It was developed by informal delegations of Israeli and Palestinian experts.

4.4. Road Map for Peace (2003)

Proposed by the U.S., in cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations (the Quartet), this plan outlined a three-phase process aiming for a two-state solution, including the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and an end to Israeli settlement expansion.

4.5. Olmert’s Offer (2008)

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert proposed a peace plan that included a near-total withdrawal from the West Bank and the establishment of a Palestinian state, with land swaps and a tunnel connecting the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

4.6. Economic Peace

Proposed by various leaders, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the concept of economic peace focused on improving the economic conditions of Palestinians as a precursor to, or in place of, a political agreement.

4.7. Confederation Concepts

Some proposals have suggested a confederation either between Israel and Palestine or a trilateral confederation including Jordan. These proposals would allow for shared jurisdiction and cooperation while maintaining separate sovereignties.

4.8. One-State Solution

While not a two-state solution, some have proposed a single democratic state for both Israelis and Palestinians as an alternative. However, this has raised significant concerns about the future identity of such a state and the rights and status of Jews and Arabs within it.

4.9. Summary

Each of these variants has faced its own set of challenges and opposition from different parties. Changes in leadership, external political shifts, and the constraints of Gaza and West Bank borders have all impacted the viability of each proposal. Despite numerous attempts, a lasting solution that satisfies both parties and the international community has yet to be achieved.

5. A Bold Scenario

In exploring the multifaceted issue of establishing a homeland for Palestine, one may consider solutions that initially appear radical or even impracticable. While challenging and indeed discomforting for many, it is imperative to approach such solutions with an open mind and a willingness to engage in dialogue and mutual concession.

Given that Israel holds a position of considerable strength, the possibility of Israel emerging as a significant beneficiary in any forthcoming agreement is not unlikely, echoing historical precedents such as the Oslo Accords, and treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Nevertheless, the gains for other parties involved could be substantial. Establishing a Palestinian homeland has long been a focal point of regional and international diplomacy, and finding a path to this outcome could lead to greater stability and prosperity in the region as a whole. The road ahead is undoubtedly difficult, and an agreement may require significant sacrifices from everyone involved.

In contemplating the suggestions that follow, one must humbly admit the limitations of external prescriptions. The ultimate resolution must come from the will of the people directly involved, and as such, any role played by international bodies should be supportive rather than prescriptive, fostering an environment conducive to genuine and lasting peace.

5.1. Palestinians

Imagine, if you will, a scenario in which Palestinians agree to relocate from Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to establish a new, fully sovereign state within the northern regions of Israel. This state would function with complete autonomy, without military oversight from Israel or any other nation.

This proposition rests on a considerable if – the acquiescence of Syria and Lebanon to cede disputed territories, namely the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms, to facilitate this new Palestinian homeland. History reminds of the significant role that lands, including those in dispute, may play in national pride and sovereignty. Yet, one could also ponder the immense costs, both tangible and intangible, that Syria and Lebanon may bear in a further decades-long quest to reclaim these lands. The destabilizing pursuit to redraw boundaries raises the question of whether there may be a different path forward.

5.2. Israel

Israel, under this framework, would cede approximately half of its Galilee territory, extending to a line roughly two kilometers north of significant urban centers such as Haifa and Tiberias, to accommodate the creation of 'New Palestine' (Figure 3).

In this envisaged peace accord, Israel's withdrawal from the north would be marked not by destruction, but by an orderly and respectful transition. This includes the commitment not to dismantle existing infrastructure, military or otherwise, a clear departure from the scorched earth policies often witnessed in history. Instead, there would be an onus on Israel to prevent any form of property damage, imposing sanctions on individuals who contravene this directive.

Under this framework, Israel would also transfer sea rights and assets, inclusive of oil exploration and drilling ventures off the coast of the new Palestinian state. Israel would not only hand over these rights but would also enter into a transitional service agreement, providing operational assistance and expertise for a set period, ensuring a stable transfer of knowledge and oversight. The provision of utilities from Israel would continue uninterrupted for a time, as the nascent state builds the capacity to manage these services independently.

Within the domain of sacred spaces, the status of the Al-Aqsa Mosque would call for delicate negotiations. While Israeli sovereignty over the site is debated, an alternative might be to leave the jurisdiction of this revered site indeterminate for the present. In this space of shared sanctity, unrestricted access for Palestinians and Muslims would be paramount.

In terms of military considerations, a demilitarized West Bank would mirror certain stipulations of the peace treaty with Egypt, with restrictions on troop numbers and heavy armaments, thereby maintaining the security interests of Jordan and the wider region.

Moreover, Israel would transfer all Palestinian detainees to the jurisdiction of New Palestine, along with pertinent records, fostering transparency and the rule of law. The sharing of heritage records would further assist in the establishment of a robust national registry, vital for the cultural and historical identity of New Palestine.

5.3. United Nations

The United Nations would play a critical and multifaceted role in this proposal, ensuring the success and stability of the newly delineated sovereignties of Israel and New Palestine. Their role would be one of facilitation, protection, and legitimization of the nascent political entities and their boundaries.

One of the most tangible contributions of the UN would be the precise demarcation of the new international borders. Expert teams from the United Nations would meticulously survey and officially recognize the borders between New Palestine and its neighbors, including Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. This task extends to the delineation of maritime boundaries in the Mediterranean Sea and internal water bodies such as the Sea of Galilee. The goal would be to leave no ambiguity that might lead to future disputes, thereby setting a solid foundation for regional peace.

Given the complexity and risk associated with a mass migration, it would require significant international support, both in terms of resources and expertise. The parallels to the partition of India and Pakistan are hard to miss. This seismic shift in the geopolitical landscape forged distinct sovereign entities, but the unexpected mass migrations that followed led to a large-scale loss of life from intercommunal violence. International assistance and planning would help to ensure a process which is as humane and orderly as possible, with due respect to the individuals and families whose lives are being profoundly affected by these changes. The role of the UN may also be to maintain transitional peacekeeping forces in the region, an affirmation of the international community’s commitment to safeguarding the emerging state's sovereignty.

The role of the UN might also evolve in terms of how regional interests are represented within its structures. Considering the significant changes on the ground, there might be a call to grant the Arab League a special consultative status in the Security Council on matters concerning their region. This might not extend to full veto powers but would ensure that their voice and concerns have a platform within international decision-making forums.

In parallel, the international community might explore avenues to offer Israel certain assurances in the event of provocations by its neighbors. These considerations would aim to reinforce stability and discourage any actions that could undermine the newly established peace and security architecture.

5.4. More on Palestinians

In this envisioned peace initiative, the Palestinian leadership and its people would also be poised to embark on a series of commitments.

The recognition of borders forms a significant part of international relations, and in this scenario, while formal recognition of Israel as a state might not be stipulated, the Palestinians would set aside claims to any territories within the remaining 1967 lines of Israel. This includes recognizing and respecting the newly established border with Israel as part of the broader peace agreement. Such an agreement would signal a relinquishment of territorial aspirations in exchange for the establishment and international recognition of New Palestine.

The Palestinians would also commit to addressing the plight of their diaspora by repatriating any person of Palestinian descent within the first ten years or so of the homecoming (Table 1 - Source 1, Source 2), with a special emphasis on those from refugee camps, regardless of their religious beliefs or those who have been previously expelled by Israel with cause. This move would serve as a powerful act of reconciliation and unity.

Finally, Palestinians may undertake to establish and sustain a democratic governance system for at least the initial decade. This would serve as a cornerstone for receiving development aid from Western nations, which are often more willing to invest in and support democracies. Initially, shorter election cycles for the presidency or prime minister's office, such as every three years, may offer the flexibility needed to iterate and refine their political systems. It would be an acknowledgment that democracy is a process, one that often requires adjustment and fine-tuning, especially in its infancy.

5.5. Reflection

While this is a scenario heavy with concessions and symbolism, it reflects an overarching desire for a sustainable and peaceful coexistence. The process would necessitate a level of international cooperation and support that has rarely been seen, underscored by a commitment from all parties to look beyond the past towards a mutually beneficial future.

6. Potential Impact: Analyzing the Proposition for Palestinians

Video 1. Terrain of potential ‘New Palestine’ territory (green line is flight path).

6.1. National Gains

Arguments for Sovereignty and Independence:

• Palestinians would rapidly gain a fully sovereign state, devoid of Israeli military control.
• They would not face integration challenges and demographic power struggles that characterize multi-ethnic states.
• They would have the freedom to establish their own foreign relations and to develop defense policies and a formal military independently.

Administrative and National Cohesion:

• The territorial contiguity of New Palestine would facilitate more efficient governance compared to the fragmented West Bank and Gaza Strip (Figure 4 - Source).
• Prior to 1948, much of this land was already rich in Palestinian historical and cultural presence.
• The partition process, though potentially rushed, could be comparatively smoother than historical partitions, with some immediate housing solutions available.

Territorial Considerations:

• The land area of New Palestine would be approximately equivalent or slightly larger than the currently Palestinian-administered territories (ca. 2820 vs. 2630 km2, resp.), potentially increasing their geopolitical footprint (Figure 3, 4).

6.2. Key Challenges

Historical Concessions:

• Palestinians must reconcile with relinquishing claims to Gaza, the West Bank, and religiously significant sites, potentially drawing criticism from both local and global Muslim communities.

Cultural and Religious Site Access:

• Negotiating access to Islamic holy sites, like the Al-Aqsa Mosque, would be challenging, involving complex arrangements that respect observance of religious rites while addressing geopolitical realities.

Public Perception and Historical Narrative:

• Managing the narrative around ceding historically Arab and Islamic lands is crucial, considering past calls for Arab military support for Palestinians and the resultant, adverse historical outcomes.

Migration Logistics and Sentiments:

• Mass migration from Gaza and the West Bank to New Palestine would present a significant logistical and humanitarian challenge, along with the communal costs of leaving ancestral lands.

Demographic and Economic Pressures:

• The anticipated country population density of about 3190/km2 would be among the highest in the world. The infrastructure needs of New Palestine would necessitate extensive, China-level central planning, prioritization, and international financial support, akin to a major global project.

6.3. Discussion

The potential impact of such a comprehensive peace plan is vast, with both immediate and long-term consequences. This would include the vision of a sovereign future, untethered from the complications, confrontations and human suffering that have long defined the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the challenges are formidable. They range from the deeply personal—such as the loss of ancestral homes and the weight of historical grievances—to the logistical enormity of moving and resettling potentially millions of people (Table 1). Each challenge demands careful, empathetic consideration and the establishment of mechanisms to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all those affected.

Moreover, securing access to and preserving the sanctity of religious sites would have implications beyond the immediate region, resonating throughout the broader Muslim world. The proposition of pilgrimage arrangements, akin to those for Hajj, would require diplomatic finesse and unwavering commitment from all parties involved.

Economic and developmental concerns also loom large. The envisioned state-building efforts in New Palestine would require unprecedented levels of international aid and cooperation, along with strategic, centralized planning to ensure the creation of sustainable communities and economies.

In sum, the transition to a New Palestine, as proposed, represents a formidable array of incentives and challenges. The journey from proposal to reality would hinge on effective diplomacy, meticulous planning, and the unwavering resolve of the international community, alongside the indomitable spirit of the Palestinian people, in a quest for lasting peace.

7. Potential Impact: Analyzing the Proposition for Israel

7.1. National Gains

Historical Precedents and Territorial Integrity:

• Israel's current territorial size is greater relative to historical epochs, and freely relinquishing parts of Galilee has a distant historical precedent (1 Kings 9:11).
• The arrangement allows Israel to consolidate control over the Judean heartland, including virtually all of Jerusalem, and removes the administrative challenges of the disputed territories.

Security Benefits:

• The redefined borders would be more defensible and strategically advantageous, potentially reducing the number of adversarial fronts from four to one or none (Figure 5).

National Cohesion:

• The consolidation could enhance national cohesion by focusing on the development of uncontested territories.

7.2. Key Challenges

Demographic and Societal Impacts:

• Address the complex issue of migration for Israelis living in northern Israel, balancing current security risks with personal and historical ties to the land.

Potential Labor Market Shifts:

• Prepare for the possible migration of Israeli Arabs to New Palestine (Table 1), which may create labor shortages, while also acknowledging the potential influx of Jewish immigrants into a more peaceful climate.

Environmental and Resource Concerns:

• Ensure water security by establishing agreements on the management of the upper Jordan River, taking into account regional implications and necessary trust-building measures.

Religious Site Access and Diplomatic Relations:

• Navigate the complexities surrounding Muslim access to religious sites in Israeli-controlled areas to ensure respect for religious customs.

Long-Term Regional Dynamics:

• Anticipate continued tensions with New Palestine, drawing lessons from similar historical partitions, while striving for clear border delineations to minimize conflict.

7.3. Discussion

For Israel, the notion of surrendering territory for the sake of a broader peace involves complex trade-offs. It requires reconciling historical connections to the land with the practical benefits of having secure, recognized borders. The security aspect is paramount, with the potential reduction of hostile fronts being a significant incentive, even if current adversaries combined to the north.

This proposal would align with Israel’s long-term strategic interests, balancing between the immediate challenges of population shifts and the long-term benefits of stability. Its population dynamics, particularly regarding Israeli Arabs, would require attention to ensure social harmony and economic stability.

Water resource management is another critical area, requiring cooperative strategies to maintain the flow of the Jordan River. This, too, would need to be framed within a broader regional context, ensuring that mutual dependencies, including that of Jordan, foster cooperation rather than conflict.

Religious site access must be managed with care to prevent exacerbating religious tensions. Here, Israel would need to employ its diplomatic acumen to facilitate religious pilgrimages without compromising on sovereignty or security.

Ultimately, any long-term peace initiative with New Palestine will require Israel to look beyond immediate concessions and focus on the prospects of a peaceful, prosperous region. This forward-looking vision could potentially attract more international support and investment, bolstering Israel's position both regionally and globally.

8. Potential Impact: Considerations for Lebanon

8.1. National Gains

Resolving Refugee Issues:

• Lebanon would be able to close refugee camps that contribute to social and political instability.

Territorial Concessions for Broader Peace:

• A peace agreement could lead to long-term regional stability and improved relations with Syria.

Creating a Friendly Border:

• Replace a historically hostile border with Israel with a potentially amicable one with New Palestine, fostering goodwill and cooperation.

Economic Upsides:

• Peace and the initial development of New Palestine could bring economic stimulus to Lebanon, potentially revitalizing its economy and job market.

8.2. Key Challenges

National Sentiment and Sovereignty:

• Lebanon would need to address the complexity of relinquishing its claim on Shebaa Farms, a region that bears national significance.

Security Guarantees:

• Ensure that security concerns are met, especially regarding the management and potential militarization of the border with New Palestine.

Regional Dynamics:

• Navigate the potential shift in regional alliances and attitudes towards Israel, especially considering the historical context and future possibilities.

8.3. Discussion

For Lebanon, the potential shift in regional dynamics offers both a challenge and an opportunity. The closure of refugee camps and the possible stabilization of the border could alleviate many of the country's current social and economic woes.

However, the suggestion that Lebanon could incentivize the early stages of New Palestine's development by relinquishing claims to Shebaa Farms must be approached with an understanding of Lebanese sovereignty and national pride. It may require careful presentation to the Lebanese public and political stakeholders to ensure widespread acceptance. A diplomatic solution that allows for some form of concession, without undermining Lebanon's position, would be the aim.

On the other hand, a peace agreement and the stability it provides would also likely benefit Lebanon itself. Lebanon's role as a mediator and benefactor in the early days of New Palestine's existence could also set a precedent for regional cooperation. The economic benefits, such as job creation and increased stability, could be significant, provided that Lebanon can also manage its internal complexities and maintain a balanced approach to its neighbors. ?Improving relations with Syria could also open new avenues for diplomatic and economic engagement, further enhancing Lebanon's regional standing.

In conclusion, for Lebanon, this proposal would carry a nuanced balance between sacrifice and benefit, with an emphasis on the long-term advantages of peace and regional cooperation.

9. Potential Impact: Considerations for Syria

9.1. National Gains

Addressing Long-Standing Claims:

• While Syria's claim to the Golan Heights is deeply rooted in history, the practical reality of Israel's annexation with recent U.S. recognition makes the prospects of reclaiming it unlikely.
• Offering this strategically costly area for the formation of New Palestine could position Syria as a leader for peace and stability in the Arab region, garnering widespread goodwill and potentially strengthening diplomatic ties.
• This gesture might enhance Syria’s standing in international forums, improving its global image and helping to attract greater economic and political support.

Refugee Resettlement:

• The closure of Palestinian refugee camps in Syria is a potential benefit.
• Additionally, the descendants of Golan Heights' Syrian residents would gain the right of return to New Palestine.

Shifting to a Friendly Neighbor:

• The potential to exchange an adversarial border with Israel for one with a more sympathetic Arab state.

International Incentives:

• Substantial international aid for reconstruction post-civil war may be proposed as an incentive for relinquishing claims and suggest easing sanctions as part of the agreement.

9.2. Key Challenges

National Pride and Sovereignty:

• Relinquishing sovereign claims can be a significant blow to national pride and sentiment.

Setting Precedents:

• This proposal may raise concerns about setting a precedent for further territorial concessions or partitions, especially during ongoing civil unrest.

Authoritarian Leadership Dynamics:

• Navigating the decision-making process in an authoritarian regime, where the assent of a single leader could determine the outcome, can be complex, especially without causing the leader to lose face.?

9.3. Discussion

For Syria, this proposal involves a substantial sacrifice. The relinquishment of the Golan Heights, while pragmatic given the low likelihood of its return, may still be a bitter pill to swallow for the Syrian leadership and its people.

Providing Syria with significant incentives, such as major economic aid and a potential 'reset' in international relations, could be key to gaining acceptance. However, any such agreement would have to be carefully crafted to avoid the appearance of outright buying off national interests or undermining the country's leadership.

The proposal's success would depend heavily on the ability of the international community to offer something that meets Syria's immediate needs — such as reconstruction aid and sanctions relief — while also addressing the longer-term desire for regional stability and sovereignty.

Moreover, there is a delicate balance to be struck between incentivizing the Syrian leadership and maintaining accountability for any past transgressions. Any deal that appears to absolve leaders of responsibility for human rights abuses without a genuine move towards rectification may face significant opposition on the international stage. For example, short of outright pardons, perhaps the various courts and prosecutors could be convinced to allow alleged transgressors to be indefinitely ‘on bail’, if they don’t commit further offenses with the stipulation that they earnestly help facilitate the transfer of the Golan Heights claim.

Ultimately, for Syria, the decision would involve a trade-off between long-term strategic interests and immediate geopolitical and economic gains, all while managing internal perceptions and external pressures.

10. Potential Impact: Considerations for Jordan

10.1. National Gains

Closure of Refugee Camps:

• Jordan would be able to close refugee camps, which have long contributed to social and economic instability within Jordan.

Mediterranean Access:

• Jordan would gain a friendly land route to the Mediterranean, bolstering trade and economic connectivity, despite the increased distance.

Stable Borders with Israel:

• Jordan may achieve a more stable and peaceful border with Israel, which would likely contribute to regional security and potentially foster more cross-border cooperation.

10.2. Key Challenges

Recognition of Past Agreements:

• Jordan had unmet expectations from the peace treaty with Israel regarding the West Bank, and any concerns of being overlooked in the new arrangement would need to be addressed.

Preserving Jordan's Role in Peace Efforts:

• It is critical to affirm Jordan's role as a mediator and stabilizing force in the region, ensuring that its contributions to peace are not diminished but rather reinforced in the new context.

10.3. Discussion

Jordan's involvement in this plan is crucial, given its historical role in the region's peace process and the presence of a significant Palestinian refugee population within its borders. Jordan’s support of the plan would require careful consideration of its past commitments, as well as tangible benefits that align with its national interests, such as increased stability and potential economic gains.

Ensuring that Jordan does not feel marginalized by the redirection of the West Bank's status will be essential. Demonstrating respect for Jordan's previous agreements and highlighting the advantages of a peaceful border with Israel may persuade Jordan to view this plan as an opportunity rather than a setback.

11. Potential Impact: Considerations for Egypt

11.1. National Gains

Stability at the Gaza Border:

• Egypt could achieve a more stable and secure border with Gaza, which could result in decreased security engagements and increased opportunities for cross-border cooperation.

Regional Stability and Economic Opportunities:

• A peaceful resolution could potentially lead to broader regional stability, which is in Egypt's strategic interest. This could also open up new economic opportunities, including trade and tourism.

Reaffirmation of Egypt's Leadership:

• Egypt has played a historical role as a leader in mediating peace and stability in the region, and their support for this plan could reaffirm their position as a pivotal peace broker.

11.2. Key Challenges

Acknowledging Past Agreements:

• While Egypt's past peace treaty with Israel had unmet expectations regarding Gaza, the evolving political landscape may necessitate a reassessment of those assumptions. Egypt's flexibility and leadership could be vital in navigating these changes.

Implementing Past Commitments:

• Egypt may have concerns about Israel’s past unfulfilled treaty obligations. However, Egypt may have an active role in overseeing the new implementations.

11.3. Discussion

This proposal would give Egypt the potential for enhanced border stability and a leadership role in the peace process. Egypt's past experience with its peace treaty with Israel can be a sensitive point; however, by acknowledging these experiences and focusing on the benefits of a revised approach, Egypt could be persuaded to take a proactive stance. The suggestion of tangible improvements in regional security and economic conditions could also help to alleviate any reservations stemming from historical treaty expectations regarding Gaza.

12. Conclusion and Call to Action

Looking upon the landscape of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it becomes evident that the path to peace is both deeply complex and profoundly costly for all those affected. In proffering this idea, I am acutely aware of its speculative nature and the multitude of logistical, cultural, and historical hurdles that it encompasses. Ultimately, a respectful agreement is one that honors the lived experiences and self-determination of those who have suffered the most from the conflict, by seeking out their perspectives and prioritizing their voices. The two-state model delineated here is not presented as a stand-alone resolution but rather as an impetus for inventive thinking—a starting point from which more flexible and resourceful solutions might emerge.

This proposal, envisioning independence for Palestinians and more secure borders for Israelis, encourages both sides to view peace not as a zero-sum game but as a shared, painful journey toward mutual recognition and coexistence. While it is understood that any enduring resolution comes with a high price—including the challenges of mass migration and the uprooting of communities—the long-term benefits of stability and harmony may far outweigh the immediate costs.

In forging ahead, it is imperative that we adopt a collaborative approach. The international community, regional powers, non-state actors, and every level of governance must come together to address the humanitarian implications and to ensure that the necessary support systems are in place. This includes engaging in constructive dialogue that leaves no voice unheard and considers every option on the table, however unconventional it may appear.

Moreover, we must recognize that peace is not an event but a process—one that may take years to unfold. It requires patience, perseverance, and an unwavering commitment to the goal of living side by side in tranquility. It calls upon us to be ready for the long haul, to brace for setbacks, and to always aim for progress.

To those in positions of influence, be it slight or substantial, let this proposal serve as a spark for conversation, a catalyst for change. Share this article with your colleagues, superiors, and negotiation teams. Even if it seems like a venture into left field or appears implausible, allow it to inspire a more dynamic dialogue about peace. May it stir creative thinking that moves us closer to resolving a conflict that has lingered for far too long.

11/11/2023: Section 3 of this article was revised to include a recent resolution by the U.N. General Assembly.

14. Bibliography

Al Jazeera English, “Balfour: Seeds of Discord”, Al Jazeera TV Documentary (2023). YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLIBZ1Fewco, accessed 2023-11-06.

Anera, “What are Area A, Area B, and Area C in the West Bank”, Online Article (2023). Link: https://www.anera.org/what-are-area-a-area-b-and-area-c-in-the-west-bank/, accessed 2023-11-06.

Arifin, Argo, and Taufiq Letri. "The Review of Conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis." International Journal of Social Science Research and Review 2, no. 2 (2019): 16-27.

Asseburg, Muriel. "The “deal of the century” for Israel-Palestine." German Institute for International and Security Affairs 1 (2019).

Crowley, Peter. "Consociation for Israel-Palestine." Peace Review 32, no. 1 (2020): 71-76.

Dann, Moshe. “A Realistic Two-State Solution.” ?BESA Center Perspectives, Paper No. 1432 (2020).

Hirschhorn, Sara Yael. "From Divine Sanction to Suburbanization: The Evolution of the Israeli Settler Movement and the Future of the Two-State Solution." Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies 43, no. 3 (2020): 58-74.

Lustick, Ian S. Paradigm lost: From two-state solution to one-state reality. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019.

Middle East Monitor, “Ex-Israel, Palestine officials propose new two-state solution, allowing settlers to remain”, Middle East Monitor, (2022-02-08).

Miller, Benjamin. "Israel–Palestine: One State or two: Why a two-state solution is desirable, necessary, and feasible." In The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, pp. 98-112. Routledge, 2018.

Nimni, Ephraim. "The twilight of the two-state solution in Israel-Palestine: shared sovereignty and nonterritorial autonomy as the new dawn." Nationalities Papers 48, no. 2 (2020): 339-356.

O'Malley, Padraig. The Two-State Delusion: Israel and Palestine--a Tale of Two Narratives. Penguin, 2016.

Paudel, Bhuvan. "Two-State Solution Between Israel and Palestine: Viable or Obsolete Idea." Master’s Thesis, Department of International Relation & Diplomacy (2021).

Simanovsky, Natalia. "The Fayyad Plan and Its Implications for the State of Israel." Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs 5.1 (2011): 19-31.

Toaldo, Mattia, Fatima Ayub, Hugh Lovatt, and Dimi Reider. "Israel/Palestine: Two-State Stress Test." (2013).

Wagner, F. N. N. P. "Territory in Conflict; Analysing the role of imaginary geography in the Israel-Palestine conflict." (2018).

Warrick, Thomas. “Postwar Gaza planning: An initial checklist.” Jewish News Syndicate (2023-11-01).