After the War
During his recent trip to Israel, President Biden asked Prime Minister Netanyahu what the plan was for the day after the war. Netanyahu had no answer.
All wars eventually end, and this one will be no exception. It should be clear that a return to the status quo isn’t an option, and may not even be possible, regardless of whether Hamas is wiped out, removed, or persists in some form. Placing an even more formidable barricade around Gaza than before will turn it into a de facto “open-air prison” even if it wasn’t one on October 6. A great deal of the world’s antisemitism is symbiotically connected to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. By that I mean, both are caused by, and contribute to each other. Israel cannot maintain the occupation indefinitely without leaving its victims with no other outlet for their rage and frustration. It doesn’t matter if this is a legitimate response to oppression, or merely naked Jew-hatred. The end result is the same.
Tearing down the walls and creating a unified state is also not an option, as neither side is willing or able to coexist peacefully in the same country. And any proposal to ethnically cleanse the entire area of either Jews or Palestinians is ludicrous and should be dismissed out of hand. I would like nothing better than to see former President Rivlin’s vision of a federation of self-governing cantons, similar to what Switzerland has, but we’re further away from that now than we’ve ever been.
This leaves the two-state solution. There are many objections to this, not least of which is its lack of support among Palestinians. Other objections include how to handle the West Bank settlements, security, and if Palestine can be a viable independent state if it’s divided between two separate enclaves with a hostile country in between and has no way to support itself economically.
Let’s imagine a homeless man is camping in my back yard. I offer him the use of a bedroom that is separate from the rest of the house. He refuses, because he would prefer to have complete access to the entire house, even though it would be better for him to sleep under a roof. Am I allowed to ignore his wishes and force him to sleep in the bedroom anyway?
This is the position Israel is in. As the dominant player, Israel could unilaterally grant Palestinian independence, whether they want it or not. Egypt gave up its claim to Gaza, and Jordan to the West Bank; there’s nothing preventing Israel from doing the same thing. I’m aware that this would be unsatisfactory to many Palestinians, who would prefer to return to their ancestral homes in Israel proper. But if that isn’t available, their own independent state would surely be an improvement over what they have now.
The end result would include land swaps and a transit corridor between West Bank and Gaza. West Bank settlers would have the option of either relocating to Israel or remaining where they are as citizens of Palestine.
None of this is new; the first two-state proposal dates back to the Peel Commission report in 1937. What I’m suggesting is that Israel unilaterally declare Palestinian independence, with our without their agreement. The advantage for the Palestinians would be their own country, free of Israeli dominance. The advantage for Israel would be the end of their direct responsibility for Gaza and the West Bank, while also ending any accusations of “apartheid,” “open-air prison,” and “colonialism,” at least with respect to the Occupied Territories, which would no longer be “occupied.” This wouldn’t end criticism of Israel itself or calls for its obliteration, but for many people, their main issue with Israel isn’t its existence per se, but its treatment of the Palestinians. The existence of an independent Palestine would marginalize anyone demanding more.
One argument against this is security. Would Palestine have a military? An independent Palestine could be used as a staging area for attacks on Israel similar to what we saw on October 7, only larger scale. But this would be a conflict between two separate, sovereign states, which isn’t comparable to what’s going on now. The argument for one sovereign state defending itself from another is stronger than the argument for defense against an occupied and subjugated internal population.
Israel has been described as a sandwich with three falafel balls; democracy, Jewish identity, and the Occupied Territories. The problem is that the sandwich only has room for two; the question is which one should go. Both sides have a legitimate claim to the same land, both historically and by virtue of their current residency. An independent Palestine would, in the long run, be beneficial both for Israel and the Palestinians. Israel has the ability to make this happen, and the current war makes it imperative.
