Tuesday, December 26, 2023

The Only Solution to the Israel-Palestine Problem

In this ambitious article, I will be outlining a solution to the 100-year-old Israel-Palestine problem. Yes, I know how presumptuous this sounds. I will present a solution that, even if it fails in its ultimate goal (and it very well could fail), it has potential to achieve successes on other fronts. Either way, this is the only viable solution in my opinion for reasons that I will elucidate, and therefore, at the very least, it must be attempted.

Note that if you are one of those people that hold that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state, then this article is not for you. It will also trigger you if you think Israel has always been the only evil aggressor. (I will add a disclaimer that I definitely do not absolve Israel of any wrongdoings in the past. But this topic needs to be covered separately and we will stay focused.) But if you would like to see actual peace via a two-state solution, without repeating the failures of Oslo, read on.

In order to solve any problem, first we have to define the problem accurately. Solutions can only emerge from an accurate and solid definition. A good definition of the problem will also explain why other solutions have failed until now.


The Problem

The problem is that most people around the world greatly underestimate the problem. The core of the problem is not that radicals upend peace attempts and suppress peaceful citizens, nor is it the fault of more hard-line leaders derailing agreements, nor is it any alleged 'endless cycle of violence'. The problem is that the vast majority of Palestinian citizens do not recognize Israel's right to exist, and this majority supports terrorism to achieve the goal of 'liberating Palestine from the River to the Sea'. In this scenario, Israel ceases to exist, and all 7 million Jews in Israel will be expelled at best, or killed at worst. And this is not a view held by only Hamas supporters, nor even by the PLO, but by the majority of citizens.

Any sins that Israel may have committed are a drop in the ocean compared to this problem. This problem predates modern-day Israel, and has persisted until today. Israel's sins are used as mere excuses to justify this ultimate goal.

Most claims by Palestinians that Israel stole their land, that Israel is the aggressor, etc. all stem from this viewpoint. In other words, it's not that Israel stole the Palestinian's half of the land, it's that Israel stole any land. It's not that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank, Israel is illegally occupying Tel Aviv. It's not that Israel killed Palestinians to conquer the Palestinian areas, it's that Israel has no right to exist anywhere and therefore any act of self-defense by Israel is perceived as aggression.

I will now back all of this with hard evidence:

In a recent poll by the Arab World for Research and Development, 14th Nov. 2023, they interviewed 670 Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Amongst all of the questions, two key questions are devastatingly clear (29 and 33):

Question 33 asks: Do you support a: 1. One-state solution 2. Two-state solution 3. "A Palestinian state from the river to the sea". 75% chose option #3. Pay close attention to the question and answer.

Note that, given the other choices, the third choice of "from the river to the sea" does not mean a free democratic shared country with Jews living together with Arabs as some ignorant people would claim, since that is covered by 'one-state solution'. Obviously, 75% want a purely Palestinian government and state, with no place for Jews.

And in case you think that with either the 'Palestinian state' or 'One-state' approach, this means Jews would be allowed to stay, and without getting constantly murdered: See below evidence to the contrary from the online Ask Project. In addition we have mountains of evidence from terrorist actions in the past 100 years, even when Jews did not rule Palestinians under the British mandate since 1920, as well as before 1967 when Palestinians were not under Jewish rule for 19 years, or since Israel left Gaza in 2005. In all of these cases and more, Palestinians continuously attacked and killed Jews with terror attacks and pogroms. So neither of these 'solutions' are viable, to say the least. Anyone ignoring 100 years of terrorism conducted under any circumstances, even when Palestinians are not being ruled by Jews, and, despite this, still demands that we live side-by-side in a single state, is insane, or has murderous intentions.

Question 29 asks: "How do you view the role of the following parties" and included are not only Hamas with 76% positive support, but also other violent terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad with 84%, Al Aqsa Brigade with 80%, and Al Kassam with 89%.

This question reveals many things. First is that support for terrorism amongst civilians is 80-90%. The only reason Hamas gets slightly lower support (especially in Gaza) is presumably because of governance issues, not because of its views on Israel and terrorism/violence, otherwise support for other extremist terrorist groups would be the same as for Hamas. Either way, Hamas still gets a majority of support and always has gotten it, including in the 2006 free elections in Gaza. But other murderers get more support than Hamas.

Another important point it reveals, once you combine questions 29 and 33, is that their support for terrorism is not towards the goal of a two/one state solution, but towards the eradication of Israel. If you support terrorism and want a solution that does not involve Jews, this conclusion is inevitable. This refutes any claim that they resort to terrorism because of desperation or any perceived aggression by Israel. It's not that they fight because they are being repressed, they fight because they simply don't want Israel to exist.

In case you think this poll may be unreliable for some strange unknown reason, you are free to perform your own research and you will find that any poll you find from any year and any decade will reflect a similar reality with roughly similar numbers. And there have been many polls over decades.

Just keep in mind that not all questions are free of ambiguous goals and misleading words. For example, asking people what they believe or feel will happen does not mean it's what they want to happen. Similarly, just because some of them don't support Hamas, it most certainly does not mean they do not support killing of Jews.

For example, here is another poll all the way back from 1995 while the Oslo peace agreements were well under way and were being implemented. On the one hand, they support the then-current peace agreement, and have a positive outlook about Palestinian goals, and on the other hand, 65% say Israel has no right to exist!

This seemingly blatant contradiction in a single poll has a very simple answer: They saw (and still see) any peace agreement as a mere stepping stone towards their ultimate goal of destroying Israel. They were positive because it was a step towards that direction, not because it was a step towards peace with Israel. This interpretation is not speculation, it has been declared officially by the PLO in 1974, and reiterated many times by Arafat during the Oslo process in the 90s, and by his people in numerous quotes.

This is why Oslo failed. Not because of Israeli settlements. But because they used Oslo as a stepping stone to increase terrorism towards their ultimate goal of destroying Israel. We have seen this repeatedly. Every time Israel even starts peace negotiations, terrorism increases, and every time Israel withdraws from occupied land, terrorism increases exponentially. Please perform your own research if you don't believe me.

I previously mentioned the Ask Project on youtube: This is a long-running fascinating project that has been going on for a decade now, where the host stops people on the street in the West Bank and Israel and asks them hard questions. Some of the questions include: What happens to Jews if Palestinians take over all of the land, whether Israel has a right to exist, if there will be peace when Israel leaves the West Bank, etc. The answers are very consistent: The majority of Palestinians (not Israeli Arabs - this group has more mixed answers) want to expel all Jews, even the ones that have been living in Israel for centuries, and there will be no peace until all of the land is 'liberated', etc etc. 

Note how this random selection of civilians on the street accurately reflects the above polls, bolstering our evidence even further, and this demonstrates very clearly the same harsh reality. It also adds the conclusion that living in a one-state solution under current circumstances is impossible because they clearly state that Jews will not be allowed to live anywhere in Palestine once they gain power.

Even Palestinian children are radicalized. There are dozens of videos out there showing very small children staging a play involving stabbing of Jews in schools, practicing war in camps with guns, reciting the hateful dogma they learned in school about Israel and Jews, or even being used during war to carry weapons.

Regarding pre-Oslo 1920-1993, we don't even need polls to know their opinion during this time, since we have it in writing in both PLO and Hamas official charters calling for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews, and the PLO even called for the destruction of Israel back in 1964 before Israel occupied the West Bank! No Palestinian representative had ever recognized Israel before Oslo, and at the 1967 Arab League summit, they all famously declared their 'three nos' which included not recognizing Israel's right to exist.

And given the quotes I posted above, after Oslo the PLO only pretended to recognize Israel to get their foot in the door. Given this, the only difference between Hamas and the PLO is in their methods, and in that Hamas are honest, whereas the PLO use trickery and pseudo-cooperation to achieve the same goals (this is why the Netanyahu government 'preferred' Hamas and let money go to Gaza, not because they want Hamas to exist). And, as demonstrated, these goals are fully and passionately supported by the majority of citizens. This is not restricted to their leaders, as we saw in numerous polls and the Ask Project.

So this is what has been going on for a hundred years. The majority of Palestinian citizens do not recognize Israel's right to exist. They never have and still don't and this is backed by hard evidence. This is the actual problem. And this is why all peace agreements failed or were rejected. QED.

In addition, this is why, even if we eliminate Hamas and the PLO, any peace agreement will still fail. They will simply elect a new version of Hamas as their leaders. And any moderate voices amongst the Palestinians will be (and have been) eliminated by Palestinians. It doesn't help us that there is a small percentage of Palestinians that do want peace with Israel. Not only do the people in charge want to destroy Israel, they are also the vast majority.

One might conclude from this that the situation is hopeless. But I think that it clarifies the problem, and presents us with the only possible solution. The reason why Oslo failed is because it didn't address the real problem. If the real problem that I described and proved here is solved, Oslo, or any other similar agreement, would be the next step after this solution, and then, and only then, could it work. Possibly.

Re-attempting something like Oslo before dealing with the real problem is like trying to run before learning how to walk. We may ultimately fail with running even after walking, but we definitely will not get there without trying to walk first. And, by presenting and clearly defining the problem, we now know that the only way to proceed is by solving this problem first.

The Solution

Given all of the above evidence and the precise definition of our problem and primary obstacle, the solution, and the only possible solution, in case it wasn't obvious by now, is a massive project of de-radicalization. The big question is how to implement such a project, and I will try to outline some initial ideas and comments on such a project here.

This project could obviously easily fail for numerous reasons. But it also has a chance of success, given the right drive, commitment and tools, and given enough time and resources. The key to remember is that peace cannot even begin unless this project is first undertaken and completed. Therefore even if it fails, it must be attempted again...and again...and again. Because there is no other choice.

In addition to having no choice, I will also explain below why this project has benefits even if it fails.

First, it must be declared very clearly that the ultimate goal of this de-radicalization project is a peace agreement (two-state solution). This project is a peace plan project. It's just that de-radicalization is a necessary, critical, and inevitable first step in the peace process.

I refer you to the de-Nazification project conducted by the Allies in Nazi Germany after WWII. Granted, there are differences. For example, it is possible (but not certain) that the majority of citizens were not truly committed, rabid Nazi supporters, or that many were misled, afraid or only mild supporters. But there is still much that is similar and that can be learned from this project. Obviously, this WWII project never succeeded in re-educating all of the radicals. But there were many successes, for example individuals that admitted later that they were misled or brainwashed or caught up by the Nazi regime. And the goal was/is to convert the majority of society to stop supporting radicalism as a society, not to convert everyone. Obviously radicalism has continued and will continue to exist, but the goal is to push it to the fringes of society. Towards this specific goal, one only has to look at Germany to see that it has succeeded.

Therefore, towards the goal of de-radicalizing Palestinians, everything must be done in order to increase the chances of success, including:

  • Establishing an international consortium with a maximum amount of countries and super-powers involved in the project. If half the world disagrees with the project, then the Palestinians will feel supported by the other half. It could still work with only half of the world involved, but probably with lower chances of success.

  • Imprisoning or eradicating all radicals that actually committed war crimes or that preach publicly for genocide. The rest of the radicals will have to be re-educated.

  • Sending a variety of people and specialists to Gaza and the West Bank to re-educate them until something works, including moderate religious Muslim leaders, moderate secular Arab leaders, education specialists, cult-deprogramming experts, etc. with a preference for Arabs for obvious reasons.

  • Obviously, people that the Palestinians refuse to listen to and will never listen to (such as Israelis) should not be in charge of their education.

  • Keep trying over and over again with different methods until it works. Bring in new consultants if it fails. There is no other choice. Even if it takes decades. Peace cannot be achieved without this.

That said, there are also very critical deal-breakers:

  • Israel must have a veto right over who gets sent into Gaza/West Bank, using background checks to ensure these people are not radicals who will merely support the terrorists (as we saw with the UN). Similarly, Israel can demand the expulsion of anyone from the team for demonstrating support for terrorist views. The reason for this is to avoid a repeat of the many UN failures that only succeeded in helping terrorists.

  • The UN must not be involved in this consortium. Over decades, they have proven themselves not only biased, and not only have they repeatedly turned a blind eye towards terrorism in their own facilities, but some of their employees have been shown to actively fund or participate in terrorism. We cannot have a repeat of the UNRWA fiasco.

  • Israel, at any time, must have the right to respond militarily to attacks from radicals while this project is taking place. This is obvious. You cannot work towards a peace agreement between two sides if one side is being exterminated and cannot defend itself. The international consortium can take care of their own security while in Gaza, but if this consortium fails to protect Israel, Israel has a right to take action against the radicals.

  • No peace agreement can proceed until this first step of  de-radicalization has succeeded with a majority of Palestinians. I explained why this is absolutely necessary in the previous section.

Some additional notes and comments on this solution:

  • It would behoove Israel to be the initiator of this project. This is not a deal breaker, but it would greatly help Israel if it were seen as actively pursuing peace rather than just going along reluctantly with peace initiatives. It's not that Israel does not want peace and has not repeatedly attempted peace; Even the Israeli Right wishes for a viable peace agreement; It's just that Israel has given up on the idea due to repeated attacks from Palestinians and the above problem that I defined. Except that this giving-up approach lends support to the erroneous and damaging world opinion that Israel, or half of Israel, doesn't want peace. The project can still work, however, even if the USA or Russia initiates and manages the project.

  • Any leader that initiates or pro-actively enhances this project could save his political career (hint hint). Since this first step does not put Israel in additional danger beyond existing dangers until the de-radicalization is successful, it should also gain wide support even in Israel.

  • It would be difficult to have the USA, Russia and China all working together on the same project for obvious reasons. But that does not mean it is impossible. Since all three agree that a two-state solution is the desirable goal, a skilled team of diplomats could theoretically put this together and make it a world project. As long as no one mentions Ukraine and Taiwan.

  • I will add one more controversial thought: Notwithstanding the above, if the choice is between USA and Russia/China launching and managing this project, my choice would be Russia/China. This is controversial and will make many people balk, but it is true for a number of reasons which I will only briefly outline: 1. Russia/China has much more influence on Arab states than the USA nowadays. 2. Palestinians hate the USA and call it the Great Satan. 3. China has had successes with diplomacy in the Middle-East where the USA failed thanks to a less partisan and aggressive approach. 4. USA leadership has been extremely unstable and inconsistent in the last decade or two, to say the least. 5. As a result, the USA is also seen as unstable and unreliable.

Finally, I will add that even if the de-radicalization project fails, it can succeed on many other fronts:

  • The world, by actively participating hands-on in Gaza and the West Bank, will see for themselves what they are dealing with, and won't be able to deny or have to rely on Israeli information. Seeing is believing. I've personally known people that were pro-Palestinian until they went into Gaza to help and then they changed their mind ("I was wrong, they are not interested in building").

  • Once the real problem is understood, experienced and demonstrated on a global level, public relations could greatly improve between some countries and diplomacy will have common understanding rather than flounder in useless accusations of failures. Too idealistic? Perhaps. But it gives geo-politics better tools and information to work with, at least in theory.

  • If the project fails, it will be a failure by the Palestinians, or it will be the world's failure. This will be less easily blamed on Israel (although I'm sure they will find a way)

  • The world, including Israel, will be moving towards peace, actively implementing a practical plan that is working on the actual problem, instead of being stuck in the same place or repeating the same mistakes over and over. It is something new and fresh.

  • Even if it fails in converting the majority, every individual radical Palestinian that has been de-radicalized means less violence in the world.


In conclusion, barring a miracle from God, there is only one path towards peace. This path must be attempted, and repeatedly, until it succeeds, because there is no other choice. Even if this solution fails, it can improve the situation partially. I have provided hard evidence that defines the problem precisely, and this solution emerges naturally from this definition of the problem. The key is to understand the problem. Even if you disagree with my specific solution, merely understanding the problem could improve matters greatly and clear up much confusion as well as improve public relations and viewpoints on Israel.