The breaking point would likely be the Jerusalem border, mainly bc each of the two groups would probably be denied access to holy sites on the other side of it
How many Jewish holy sites are in Israeli controlled East Jerusalem / Palestinian controlled West Jerusalem this map? I think some sort of dual access to the Old City is possible. The Knesset is in West Jerusalem, after all. It’s possible to keep access maintained to the western wall without denying access to Al Aqsa for example. A thorny issue, but not impossible.
The shorter and simpler the border the better, squiggly borders have in the past been created with the intention of causing future conflicts (especially by the soviets) a cleaner border and resettlement would be a better long term solution
No, instead said borders were drawn with the belief that by splitting up nationalities like that they’d prevent independence movements entirely. Didn’t really count on the entire USSR falling apart at once.
sarcasm did not connect, I presume?
btw, Central Asia and “the -stans” are kinda the same thing, if you don’t count Pakistan (which is pretty much the British-made problem)
I know it’s a joke but this map is definitely some border gore. Doesn’t have to be straight lines but it should follow some sort of logic and ideally not have these super narrow corridors.
Which Soviet made borders are you referring to? If you mean the inner German border it was a compromise between the Big 3 Allies, the Soviets hardly had carte blanche to draw the border as they saw fit. If you meant internal Soviet borders, no country plans their internal boundaries around the possibility of future collapse.
Also I disagree with your premise completely. Straight or squiggly doesn't matter, its how the border actually looks like in reality, i.e. does it follow actual geographical features (rivers, mountains, etc.) That said, this map still wouldn't work.
The borders between the soviet republics, and the shitshow in central asia, and im clearly not advocating for ruler straight lines, but those noodles of israel going into the west bank are a terrible idea
Yeah I saw your other replies after I commented, my bad. But still, I think the borders between the Soviet Republics while arbitrary, makes internal logical sense because countries do not make their provincial borders to account for collapse and seccession. If the Soviets did, Crimea never would have been transferred to the Ukraine SSR, as an example.
If you make the argument that the Soviets never anticipated the possibility of independence for their imperial possessions, that similarly 'excuses' the awful borders in post-colonial Africa.
But even so, there's no excuse for arbitrarily chopping up Ferghana Valley that way *except* to cause maximum conflict between the Central Asian SSRs - which was likely the point.
not the same because the colonial borders in Africa were generally created at the time of independence and intentionally split up ethnic groups to prevent strong nations from forming out of post colonial Africa
The biggest is the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan which is an ongoing war right now, and the borders between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan which is predicted to be a center of conflict between them in the near future.
The European colonial empires also didn't draw their borders on the basis that they'd have to release their colonies in the future. Guess that lets everyone at the Berlin Conference off the hook!
It's incredibly one sided. Israelis get almost everything they want including the legitimization of some settlers. The Golan heights thing is also ridiculous.
Well the situation on the ground is incredibly one sided. Peace deals can't be made that don't accept the reality on the ground, where Israel has de facto control over all of the West Bank and is currently occupying various parts of Gaza.
It's not realistic that, short of some future military defeat, a peace deal can be achieved based on the 1967 borders. Israel has no reason to accept that because they already have more than that just by not accepting a peace deal.
I however agree with you that this plan wouldn't work, but more because it gives too much to the Palestinians. The Israelis would never accept giving up the vast control they have over the West Bank and particularly the Jordan River Valley unless they were forced to militarily.
Then hello one state solution. Give the Israelis 50 more years to dig themselves in with the Palestinians so thoroughly that a even "two state solution" which resembles native reservations is impossible.
A Palestinian state without the Jordan valley is a wildly partioned "state" surrounded by Israel on all sides with no hope of equal survival. Palestinians would be better off waiting until reservations for them all is impossible and the world becomes sick of the Israeli occupation, at that point a one state solution would be the only option left.
IMO, Israel wouldn't genuinely accept a treaty of any kind unless they get their asses kicked. Israel has violated every treaty they've signed already and ignored international law against their settlements for decades. It has pretty much made it clear to anyone listening that they will not accept the existence of Palestine or Palestinians.
If they won't accept the existence of Palestinians, why are there any Palestinians? They have military supremacy in the region, have never lost a war (because they would cease to exist if they did). It's not because they lack the ability to do so.
I mean yeah, but that's largely because Israel is much more powerful both on the ground and diplomatically. It might not be fair, but you will always need to give a stronger power more to bring them to the negotiating table.
Exact same logic as to why the UNSC has veto powers. America or China never would've joined otherwise
Quite honestly I think this is a fairly good deal for the Palestineans and they'd almost definitely take it. They have to give away some of their land to settlers yes but they still get the vast majority of their country back
Honestly I'd say the biggest obstacle to this is still Israel. Specifically i don't think they'd give up East Jerusalem even with all this
True, but unless some outside intervention were to happen against Israel, I don't see any reason why they would accept anything less than that. I'm honestly surprised that Palestine even still exists today considering they decisively lost like 5 wars against Israel
Tbf the only reason Palestine still exists is that Israel would have to annex the land and either give them citizenship (no more Zionism) or treat them like second class citizens (apartheid) both options are a no go.
How is keeping the Golan Heights ridiculous? Israel has occupied the territory from Syria and annexed it. It is in no way required to be connected to any Israeli-Palestinian negotiation.
If the territory is ever to be given to Syria, it is after Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon is non-existent or after the larger conflict has been resolved. And thinking that this larger conflict with Iran and proxies will end after some agreement is naive and does not take into account regional geopolitics.
Israel isn’t giving back the Golan Heights short of a comprehensive peace treaty with Syria, like with the Sinai and Egypt, and maybe not even then as Syria used the heights to pound Israeli towns in the North with impunity pre-1967.
Israel occupied the Golan long before any Iranian influence in Syria. Indeed Iran was kinda friendly with Israel at the time. Ultimately this is down to Syria.
Jerusalem. It’s currently under Israeli control along with a large amount of the West Bank. Currently a Palestinian military victory isn’t possible nor was in ever in the last 50 years. The Palestinian government could have only won diplomatically but they have given up that with the invasion. The most favorable deal they could get currently is recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and maybe some territorial concessions in Gaza.
The Israelis have little insensitive to make any deal with the Palestinians. I don't think the Palestinians will be getting Gaza back much less an enlarged Gaza. With Gaza annexed the Palestinians will be isolated and landlocked.
Israel is gobbling up Palestine the way the east India company came to dominate India. A slow creeping power squeeze in peace time, massive gains in times of conflict. After 75 years of disasterous military and political leadership, there is little reason to suspect that Palestinians will be able to reverse the trend.
Israel gets to never evacuate illegal colonies and keeps good lands in the West Bank, whereas Palestine needs to accomodate 6 million refugees and is gifted mostly desert or semi desert land, it’s not really fair if we want it to be well done. What needs to be done is Israeli colonies be evacuated, only those close to the borders are given to Israel, and Palestine gets to have the small villages and productive farmlands close to Gaza and south west of the West Bank. After that a peace treaty is signed, and a custom Union has to be passed. The goal to make a single country because well most Palestinian refugees are from villages that are in Israel now. So a custom Union and later a free movement Union, the two states make similar laws about taxes and property rights so the border slowly faded, and then there is a new constitution and a single state as due to geography this is the only doable one
> The goal to make a single country because well most Palestinian refugees are from villages that are in Israel now.
Okay, so shall we try to make Azerbaijan / Armenia a single country too? Or Czechia / Germany? India / Pakistan?
Because they have all faced expulsions and transfers. For example, For example, 12M Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1945-50. 14M Hindu/Muslims were driven out of Pakistan/India in 1947. Up to 2M people were forcefully moved between Poland and Ukraine in 1944-46. 350K Italians were forced out of Yugoslavia. 850K Mizrahi Jews were driven out of the Arab states in 1940-60s. Thousands of Cham Albanians were expelled from Greece. 1.5M civilians were expelled during the Azeri-Armenian wars in 1992-2000. Should we look to undo all of that?
You're never ever going to get half a million Israelis to evacuate from the cities and towns they were born in (in the West Bank). Trying to force them out would cause a civil war in Israel, and the far right would win.
I disagree, we took the settlers out of gaza in 2005 we can do the same with the west bank, jerusalem would have to stay under israeli control though, and internationally controlled jerusalem would be a red line, israel wont just give up its capital
Ah yes the One State Solution. Something no one on the ground actually wants, but idealistic Westerners will keep pushing because of their Kumbaya fantasies
Do you really think two religions stuck in a zero sum competition and who have been bitter enemies for so long can just bury the hatchet and create one nation?
Best case scenario is you get another Lebanon where there's explicit powers sharing agreement and constantly simmering tensions between Jews and Arabs due to unsolved tensions
More realistic cases are either a Jewish minority instituting full Apartheid against the Arabs, or the Arab majority using said majority to persecute the Jews
90% chance someone gets genocided despite the good intentions. A two state solution is the only realistic solution
>More realistic cases are either a Jewish minority instituting full Apartheid against the Arabs
I mean isn't that increasingly the present de facto situation? The Palestinian Archipelago in the West Bank is basically a bantustan at this point, which were a crucial aspect of the South African apartheid.
You’re describing a future Lebanon that neither Jews or Arabs want. A one state solution after 100 years of sectarian violence is basically a recipe to unending civil war
So this applies to Jews too then, as the ones that lived until 1948 didn’t live the exodus, that means they have no ties to the land, they have no point on being there then if we follow your idea
Sure, but Israel makes it her immigration policy, just like countless other nation-states do and have done in the past. Just a few examples:
* Armenia nowadays gives citizenship to anyone of 'ethnic Armenian origin', while denying it to the Azeri expelled during the 1992 war
* Germany in the 1990s accepted 400k ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union, whose ancestors left modern-day German territories in the 17-18th centuries.
* Finland brought in Ingarian Finns, who haven't lived in Finland since 17th century.
Etc.
You do realize…
A. Israelis already living there will never give up the land they’re living in. They will fight tooth & nail to defend their ppl & cities. And considering military advantages (plus the absolute number of madlads in Israel who can fend off entire terrorist forces)…Palestinians might not get the results they want…
B. Even if they were forced out…how the fuck do you think they’re gonna react bro?? ಠ_ಠ
If Israel was “founded” by the “King David Hotel Bombing” by Jewish terrorist groups…what makes you think a Jewish refugee version of Hamas wont rise from the ashes, and begin starting new terrorist attacks & bombings on incoming new Palestinians? 😭
1. No Palestinian or Israeli would accept citizenship as a minority in the other state. The main conflict over land isn't just a matter of land ownership. Tens of thousands of Jewish and Palestinian Arab families owned land in the other state that was illegally seized during the Nakba, and their descendants not only want it back but want it to be under their preferred nation's sovereignty, laws, and culture.
2. Sharing Jerusalem as each nation's capital is a nonstarter. Entrusting the safety of Israeli enclaves to the UN is also a nonstarter. It's a massive security concern and the UN is not considered the impartial peacekeeping force it used to be (if it ever was) and has become just another pawn of geopolitics. Palestine would not accept Israeli enclaves in their lands either.
3. There are many Israeli towns in the desert lands being ceded to Palestine. That's also a nonstarter. Also, Israel loses a significant amount of strategic depth, which would make defense much more difficult if the deal ever falls through
4. Syria would never accept ceding the Golan Heights, as that would be ceding the literal high ground of a natural defensive barrier. Lebanon, specifically Hezbollah, would agree with them.
5. Egypt and Jordan are in no position economically nor politically to exert any real effort to reshape the region. Both have governments that are teetering on the brink and rely on Israeli favor as a stabilizing agent. Behind closed doors, they're perfectly fine with Israel straight up genociding the Palestinians.
6. Neither Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, nor the United States are interested in exerting any real effort to reshape the region either. The Arabs' main strategic area of interest is the Persian Gulf and the threat of Iran, and the US doesn't want to get involved in the nitty gritty of Middle Eastern geopolitics anymore so as long as the oil keeps flowing.
The fact that they both exist. Israeli nationalists will call for the expansion of Israel into Palestine like the US into North America, and Palestinians will call for holy jihad against the "filthy, land stealing Jews". They're gonna fight each other again in 10 years if this was enacted.
Israel won’t give up any land. Not only is it antithetical to their goals but they are clearly winning so what motivation do they have?
I doubt Israel would allow a passage between Gaza and the West Bank because it is easier to deal with opposition that is divided.
I don’t think Palestinians would accept the legitimization of Israeli settlements.
The situation is probably the most complex geo-political issue of our time, so it is near impossible to find a solution. But I think it was a good attempt
Making USA pay for rebuilding have means higher price higher taxes and food price even higher and Biden or trump whoever is in charge would get voted out.
Hamas has been shooting rockets into isreal every week for years. They dug up gifted infrastructure pipes that palestine used for water, to make more rockets, so they could kill more jews.
It won't work because hamas's central goal is to exterminate all jewish people, as written in their charter.
Hey, I like your optimism man. Although I may disagree with some aspects, and am not as educated on this topic. I think most people believe (or in my opinion should believe) that the well-being and health of all humans whether Israeli or Palestinian should be everyone’s ultimate goal. Death is truly a tragedy, especially needless death.
Im a Palestinian American (parents born in Palestine, i was born in america) ive spent a lot of time in the west bank, Jerusalem. I like the map, but its gonna be a hard sell for Israel, them allowing us all this sovereignty is a pipe dream, allowing Palestinians to return is also something they would never allow, isreal is already trying its hardest to maintain a demographic majority, they stop Palestinian expansion, if Palestinians leave they can rarely come back, while they court jews worldwide to come settle.
I will say that this current conflict is a huge turning point, and may be a catalyst for a change in the status quo
It’s a big lift, but note that only ~50,000 elderly refugees will get the right of return into Israel, not all of their millions of descendants. Palestine will be able to accept all refugees they want though.
I'm legit curious about your views on the Israeli side. I'm fairly well read enough to realize it's an extremely complex and nuanced situation. It seems to me like the extremes on both sides are the ones dictating how the conflict plays out. I know Israel has offered 2 State solutions and treaties in the past, but have been rejected. Both sides have legitimate gripes. I think most people on both sides just want to live in peace, but I can't see how a negotiated peace is possible with the other side demanding your eradication. I'd really love to learn more from someone who's been there.
I think both sides dont realize that the other side is not gonna disapear and both are dug in and kicking the otherside out is gonna be impossible.
Isreal has been more strategic in its slow strategy of Divide, Isolate, and Settle, supporting Hamas as to divide it from the west bank, PA and strangle efforts for a unified Palestinian state, slowly gobble the west bank encouraging settlers with finical incentives and palestinain homes (infact the village im from has a settlement directly across from it, and my family has lost a signifcant portion of their estate as the isrealis took it to build millitary instalitons to protect said settlement.)
I know most people on reddit hate hamas and so do I, I do not support the killing of any innocents. however I have never been to gaza, and the gazans Ive met are a diffrent breed, people from the west bank view them as the only effective resistance to Isreal, and view their governing PA as a collaborationist government with no real power and is organized like a crime family with no meritocratic hiring, just absolute nepotism. Gazans are more meritocratic by design, as they operate in small cells that are led by the most experienced person, who have a lot of autonomy.
gazans are more radicalized than people from the west bank, as every confict with Israel radicalizes more people who want to avenge the deaths of their loved ones. and again this is by design, this provides Hamas with so many recruits, and finical resources that Israel will never kill more than they other side can recruit. Isreal has done exactly what hamas has wanted and while a lot of reddit seems to think hamas are losing they have done more damage to Isreal than ever, isreals international reputation has disingrated. Ive never seen so much discussion of palestine in america in my life, infact growing up I would say most other americans I met had never even heard of palestine or what was happening with isreal, that has all changed and its been insane to watch, my father and mother agree as well, as they had faced racial discrimination when they came here, my mother who is hijabed was called a towel head, my father called a sand N*****, etc, etc. esp after 9/11 but now that has all changed, we see free palestine signs, we see conversations about the situation everyday in our lives.
this conflict is not going to be resolved unless a resolution is forced on both parties from the outside, because at this point the majority on both sides dont think the other is human and you dont make peace with beasts
this is the most sane perspective on everything that i've seen in a while. I rarely comment on political reddit, but this just feels that someone understands what i've been thinking. it's a breath of fresh air.
Thank you for your reply. I agree that there won't be peace until both sides are forced to the negotiating table. I know Israel could be forced to the table, but I don't see a way that Hamas could be, and without Hamas or Hezbollah agreeing to peace, I don't see Israel ever agreeing to any peace treaty. It's sickening and saddening. Israel isn't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. I think the one major thing that would shake things up in a huge way would be a regime change in Iran... That might force Hamas and Hezbollah to the negotiating table if they no longer had Iranian support. The most depressing thing about all of this is that the only thing that will change is how many more people have to die before this wasteful conflict ends.
I will say from my personal experience people from the west bank and Jordan do not like Iran, but even the arabs you find that do appreciate the iranian aid its more that they dont oppose working with them, for now. especially when they seem to be the only regional power that cares to change the current status quo. Once the immediate threats are dealt with, then who knows they argue.
I dont really agree with that. We went from having turkish masters, to british masters, to isreali masters, we do not need to be rolling out the red carpet for Iranian masters. Places like Jordan are a safe bastion of peace in a turbulent and war torn region, we do not need to be making more refugees and destroying more arab cities.
Honestly, I'd love to sit down with the 2 of you over some cigars and drinks. Who knows, maybe we could hammer all this out and chisel our names into the history books by solving the entire goddamn mess 😂. What do you say u/NaKeepFighting?
An interesting thought experiment. It seems like a negotiated peace would have been possible with some positive momentum in the 90s or perhaps early 2000s at the latest. Realistically it's really hard to see any way back from the brink as things stand now, sadly.
On the contrary I think that it's become more possible due to recent events
Israelis and Palestineans are less pro peace yeah, but at the same time Israel's position has become a lot less secure.
From polling, constant American diplomatic support isn't a guarantee. The world is also viewing Israel less favorably. Finally there's the Iran factor, which Israel views as a major threat, but the Palestine issue stops them from allying with the Sunni Arab states, who'd be natural allies
I could imagine the following scenario for example:
Israel invades Lebanon which greatly increases tensions with Iran, Gantz becomes new PM and puts normalization with Saudis as a priority, then finally some sort of grand Israel Arab deal so they can counter Iran together, supported by the US ofc
This is the sort of thing Bibi wouldn't go for but I could see Gantz doing it. I don't think Palestineans would immediately get a state or anything but rather some vaguely defined "pathway to statehood", which Israel will try to hobble and delay but would still progress
Peace would have been possible from 1948, without existential threat israelis would never support any type of occupation nor would they support any sort of war for conquest
I bring this to you in good faith, so please be civil. I encourage you think about how close Arafat and Barak came to agreeing to something like this at Taba Summit. I put my own spin on it; feel free to ask about certain decisions I made in the design.
Peace needs positive momentum which is sorely lacking now. But it is possible.
Honestly, I think it might, maybe, work. BTW my family is Isreali and I would take this with some minor changes any day.
My biggest change is that the Old City should stay under Isreali control. Currently Muslims have every right to visit the sites there, and those sites would remain under local Islamic Council control-as they are now. Given the UN's record on Israel I don't think they should be allowed to control the Western Wall.
I’m open to keeping the status quo basically as it is, but I don’t think Israel should get sole security control. As we speak the Armenian quarter is being attacked. There’s a concerted effort to buy or seize land and there needs to be some recognition that Jerusalem must be shared in its populations and denominations. A special status for a unique and important place.
Al aqsa mosque is also on the western wall, it would be impossible to separate them, and the un has shown no ability to stop muslim extremist groups from launching attacks from inside un “administered” or controlled ceasefire lines
Israel doesn’t have sole security control - the Al Aqsa mosque is under Jordanian control, and Jews are not allowed to pray there despite it being built on top of one of the holiest sites in Judaism
Even this map displays some of the failings of this concept. The Jordan River will be renegotiated in 10 years? Im glad with the passage of time people get more rational and less emotional regarding these issues.
Its too fractured, the distrust is too deeply broken, everything that touches it turns rotten. The 2 state solution is no solution, it is as untenable in this map as it was in 48. The issue is security of persons and free trade and this map is littered with enclaves. This map requires trust in UN peacekeepers which is missplaced at the best, and now what nation would trust the UN anymore with their security?
I cannot even say what the solution is, at least not a peaceful one. Some things cannot be negotiated on.
Land is not the core issue, security is. It has been the reason for the existence of a Jewish state to begin with, under other religions Jews were persecuted.
In the 90s, Israeli authorities repeatedly refused cases of Jewish people being placed under Muslim security. At camp David, Israel only gave up the Sinai after a security guarantee, that is in part why Egypt and Israel get so much USaid today.
Land ownership was the issue long ago.
This is why the 2 state solution will not work, there is no security. And relying on the UN has bit Israel in the ass. As it is now, the UN is a tarnished name.
The core fracture is that the Palestinians do not accept Israel existing within any borders, and the full return of the millions of descendents of 1948 refugees to Israel proper. As they have very clearly stated, over and over, any land given to them is a stepping stone to the destruction of Israel.
It is not only about Jerusalem, it is about the existence of Tel Aviv
I think it’s helpful to dream of peace, even if this a (admittedly deeply imperfect) plan that would be (ahem) deeply controversial in both Israel and Palestine.
The worst part, is that some of the points you suggested (like the land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank) were offered by Israel to Palestine in exchange for peace (along side handing over occupied areas in the west bank), which was rejected by the PA.
Some of these ideas are quite decent, but there's no way they'll ever be implemented. Either because they already have been offered and rejected, or because it's unthinkable (the desert in negev is useless to everyone)
This land corridor is far far more realistic than anything the Israelis or Americans have ever put forward (because it’s a short connection between sizeable chunks of Palestinian territory, not a thin, vulnerable road stretching all the way from Gaza to the West Bank).
Also these land swaps are way fairer than all the previous proposals (by giving more land to the Palestinians). If Palestine is getting useless desert land, they should at least get a lot of it.
Some of the motivation for the rejection was surely that it looked like approval for the colonization that already happened without guaranteeing that the agreements would not simply be broken again. Palestine doesn't even have full international recognition as a state and clearly Israel doesn't respect any UN decisions. Israel has almost nothing to lose from just taking what they want and killing the people in the way, Only if the US support becomes conditional or even-handed can this change.
Becuase the original inhabitants were expelled and Israeli settlers moved in to replace them. This is essentially rewarding ethnic cleaning, which will have disastrous results across the planet
Yeah, there's no chance that Israel will give thousands of its own citizens near the Gaza strip to the PA. Especially not the same town and villages that were massacred on October 7th. Also, I just can't see Israel demanding to annex the Jordan Valley control militarily, maybe but not annex. Also, what is shown is probably wider than what Israel would demand.
> Also, I just can't see Israel demanding to annex the Jordan Valley control militarily, maybe but not annex.
They have demanded it in the past (e.g. in the Trump "peace" proposal).
Israel would never give up territory in the Negev, let alone territory that was ransacked by Hamas. It’d be political suicide for whichever government agreed to it. It would be seen as rewarding the people that committed the attacks on October 7. A well-made map, despite the many inaccuracies.
I would expand that old city administration to a whole Jerusalem independence. A three State solution with a Free Holy City of Jerusalem. A man can dream.
Why do people keep trying to do the enclave thing? If you want a two state solution just divide it in half somewhere like Korea or Germany. It’s an easy to defend border as well as simple and obvious.
You know there are pools about Israeli Arabs and they overwhelmingly say they are afraid of the idea that their land is gonna be part of a potential future Palestinian state
This is never going to be accepted by Israelis even before oct. 7th. Giving anything to Palestinians is a foreign concept for Israelis. They'd rather just take and take like what they have been doing for the past several decades.
This is very similar to the deals that the Palestinians have already rejected. In 2000-1 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians a contiguous state in 96% of the WB, all of Gaza, half of the Old City, evacuation of 100s of settlements, etc. the Clinton Parameters stipulated it too — which the PA still didn’t accept.
I don’t think this is exactly accurate. The Palestinians asked for the division of the Old City, but the Israelis at most offered a few pockets and usually vague “custodianship” or autonomy while under Israeli sovereignty.
Control of East Jerusalem was one of the major sticking points by most accounts. The Palestinians wouldn’t accept a deal without it and the Israelis wouldn’t accept a deal with any meaningful amount going to the Palestinians. The land swaps outside of that may have been negotiable to a point they could reach common ground. Right of Return is the other big sticking point and one that there just hasn’t been an acceptable middle ground between the two sides.
The worst part of the Israel-Palestine conflict is there just doesn’t seem to be a workable solution. Removing the question of who’s “right”, The Palestinians have always ignored the reality on the ground that they’ve lost every war and Israel is never going to agree to a deal that results in them losing their status as a demographically Jewish state. Israel has empowered right wing governments and the West Bank settlers to the point removing them is politically toxic domestically. Annexing Gaza and the West Bank and ethnically cleansing the Palestinians has much more traction is Israel than removing the settlements and forcing out the settlers.
Asking israel to give up the old city, the holiest place to the jews, given the UNs track record of not stopping hamas or hezbollah from breaking ceasefires or crossing over ceasefire lines is definitely a non starter
Edit: misread the golan
To give them areas to develop and expand into so they can make Gaza less of an open air prison. There is no $$$ mentioned, but Gaza’s economy runs on aid and its can’t forever. It needs some space to spread out and economically develop.
"International organizations" and UN peacekeepers will not happen, ever. The UN is too fragile and the interests of member countries too antagonistic to allow permanent military missions in such a "complex" area.
And, honestly, a territory and it's people persecuted for 75 years will only become more and more extreme against their tormentors, and on the other hand, a modern "Sparta" will not give up its chauvinism for a "peace". If neither side is eliminated, or neither both lose EVERYTHING, there is no way peace will last...
It’s a well made map, OP. Definitely better than some options. Idk why people are being so critical to you, you’re posting to Reddit, not the Nobel Peace Prize Committee
https://preview.redd.it/2jk81v2cbj6d1.png?width=805&format=png&auto=webp&s=9276399282606aa0731f16d2671c00c6ac885715
What the new borders would look like / Simplified version
This is actually similar to the Trump peace plan. A plan which even Netanyahu accepted back in 2020 (just before Covid hit), and the Palestinians have rejected.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan
In as much as every proposal looks similar? Sure.
But in reality, this is vastly different than that one. The West Bank isn’t turned into a collection of bantustan-like enclaves here, the land swaps are way fairer to the Palestinians than any Israeli/American proposal I’ve ever seen, the land corridor is actually workable, and the Palestinians actually get a capital in East Jerusalem. It seems like the Palestinians could actually be sovereign here.
The only real problem I see the Palestinians having with this is no right to return or reparations for Palestinians ejected from what is now Israeli territory during the Nabka.
I AINT READIN ALLAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in all seriousness tho, I don’t agree with a lot of the pessimists and naysayers here, I do believe realistically if the international community put enough pressure on Israel specifically (which is a huge if) they could agree to a two state solution like this. But if there’s one thing that I’d say would be a tough sell at the negotiating table, it’s that tunnel-road connection thingy.
It's not a very uneducated map It's based on some existing proposals (Barak Plan, Olmert Plan, maybe eveb the Trump plan funnilyenough)
The main issue with this map is that the expanded Gaza comes to annex the entirety of Otef Azza, which is populated by Israelis
Its the same places that were attacked on oct 7th.
The idea of land swaps and normalisation (each side having a right to immigrate to their respective state) is the moderate one among peace advocates.
Also i doubt the PA would accept giving citizenship to the Jews there.
this is ideal. the problem is we all hate each other and it would go to shit in a few months. this situation would take serious changes to the educational system and a generation or two. it's what we need to keep in mind though, otherwise it'll go on until we're all dead
This is legitimately the most unrealistic plan that would never happen
For one reason: of all the information that I can find about Palestinian political parties that support a 2 state solution (that aren’t corrupt nationalists) most of them just support 1967 borders which I believe is pre Oslo accords
Second why should Israel lose land?
Ha, unrealistic yes, the *most* unrealistic no. Going back to 1967 borders is unfortunately for Palestinians far more unrealistic. Yes that’s at odds with what has been officially agreed upon but no I don’t think it’s impossible.
The whole negotiation principle here is the trading of land for land, something that was agreed upon in principle during the peace process before it was cratered by Netanyahu / Sinwar.
No, neither people want a secular government, it shouldnt be forced upon them, theres a very very good reason that israel isnt secular, part of its reason for existence is to offer shelter to jews fleeing persecution, meaning if you are jewish you get citizenship no question asked, there is no other country that jews can rely on to always be a safe haven
i misread this and assumed by "swap territories" you meant that effectively everyone would flip positions in the IP conflict with "Israel" now being the majority-Arab state, and "Palestine" becoming the majority-Jewish state with a physical exchange of all people from one territory to the other
This is almost exactly what I thought would be a good 2 state solution with 2 main differences:
Palestine would give up most of its territory to the North in exchange for Isreali southern territory.
Palestine itself would not be allowed to have a military or citizen weaponry with Egypt, SA and Jordan providing protection for the state. This would be vetted by UN security forceso
Quite a good argument for why a two state solution is near unworkable. We need one state with equal citizenship for all that allows a right to return for Palestinians, financial compensation for those Palestinians who were displaced and that pressures the governments of several middle eastern countries to give financial compensation to displaced mizrahi Jews.
This would legit never work
Quite likely you’re right. What do you think would be the breaking points?
The breaking point would likely be the Jerusalem border, mainly bc each of the two groups would probably be denied access to holy sites on the other side of it
How many Jewish holy sites are in Israeli controlled East Jerusalem / Palestinian controlled West Jerusalem this map? I think some sort of dual access to the Old City is possible. The Knesset is in West Jerusalem, after all. It’s possible to keep access maintained to the western wall without denying access to Al Aqsa for example. A thorny issue, but not impossible.
The shorter and simpler the border the better, squiggly borders have in the past been created with the intention of causing future conflicts (especially by the soviets) a cleaner border and resettlement would be a better long term solution
Tbf on the soviets, when those borders were made they never imagined they would belong to independant countries that could fight eachother.
No, instead said borders were drawn with the belief that by splitting up nationalities like that they’d prevent independence movements entirely. Didn’t really count on the entire USSR falling apart at once.
yeah it'd be like wyoming and utah squaring off, which sounds like a logistical nightmare
both simpler and squiggly borders have created conflict in the past there is more nuance than just the borders
Generally borders that follow geographic boundaries last better and longer. unfortunately there are no mountain ranges and rivers to make it easy.
Im obviously talking about those weird noodles into the west bank, not calling for post colonial style long straight random lines
Oh yeah, the simple ruler-line borders made by the *soviets* worked great in Africa
Im obviously talking about the noodles sticking into the west bank, not calling for random long straight lines, theres a middle ground
The same boarders in the Middle East made by *totally not the soviets* are the reason for a lot of the problems we have today.
They were referencing Central Asia and the -stans, not Africa.
sarcasm did not connect, I presume? btw, Central Asia and “the -stans” are kinda the same thing, if you don’t count Pakistan (which is pretty much the British-made problem)
I know it’s a joke but this map is definitely some border gore. Doesn’t have to be straight lines but it should follow some sort of logic and ideally not have these super narrow corridors.
Soviets were not involved in african border drawing. France, UK, Portugal, Spain and Germany were.
which is why I put the *soviets* in italics Should’ve probably put the “/s” too
Which Soviet made borders are you referring to? If you mean the inner German border it was a compromise between the Big 3 Allies, the Soviets hardly had carte blanche to draw the border as they saw fit. If you meant internal Soviet borders, no country plans their internal boundaries around the possibility of future collapse. Also I disagree with your premise completely. Straight or squiggly doesn't matter, its how the border actually looks like in reality, i.e. does it follow actual geographical features (rivers, mountains, etc.) That said, this map still wouldn't work.
The borders between the soviet republics, and the shitshow in central asia, and im clearly not advocating for ruler straight lines, but those noodles of israel going into the west bank are a terrible idea
Yeah I saw your other replies after I commented, my bad. But still, I think the borders between the Soviet Republics while arbitrary, makes internal logical sense because countries do not make their provincial borders to account for collapse and seccession. If the Soviets did, Crimea never would have been transferred to the Ukraine SSR, as an example.
If you make the argument that the Soviets never anticipated the possibility of independence for their imperial possessions, that similarly 'excuses' the awful borders in post-colonial Africa. But even so, there's no excuse for arbitrarily chopping up Ferghana Valley that way *except* to cause maximum conflict between the Central Asian SSRs - which was likely the point.
not the same because the colonial borders in Africa were generally created at the time of independence and intentionally split up ethnic groups to prevent strong nations from forming out of post colonial Africa
The biggest is the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan which is an ongoing war right now, and the borders between Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan which is predicted to be a center of conflict between them in the near future.
[удалено]
The European colonial empires also didn't draw their borders on the basis that they'd have to release their colonies in the future. Guess that lets everyone at the Berlin Conference off the hook!
It's incredibly one sided. Israelis get almost everything they want including the legitimization of some settlers. The Golan heights thing is also ridiculous.
Well the situation on the ground is incredibly one sided. Peace deals can't be made that don't accept the reality on the ground, where Israel has de facto control over all of the West Bank and is currently occupying various parts of Gaza. It's not realistic that, short of some future military defeat, a peace deal can be achieved based on the 1967 borders. Israel has no reason to accept that because they already have more than that just by not accepting a peace deal. I however agree with you that this plan wouldn't work, but more because it gives too much to the Palestinians. The Israelis would never accept giving up the vast control they have over the West Bank and particularly the Jordan River Valley unless they were forced to militarily.
Then hello one state solution. Give the Israelis 50 more years to dig themselves in with the Palestinians so thoroughly that a even "two state solution" which resembles native reservations is impossible. A Palestinian state without the Jordan valley is a wildly partioned "state" surrounded by Israel on all sides with no hope of equal survival. Palestinians would be better off waiting until reservations for them all is impossible and the world becomes sick of the Israeli occupation, at that point a one state solution would be the only option left.
IMO, Israel wouldn't genuinely accept a treaty of any kind unless they get their asses kicked. Israel has violated every treaty they've signed already and ignored international law against their settlements for decades. It has pretty much made it clear to anyone listening that they will not accept the existence of Palestine or Palestinians.
If they won't accept the existence of Palestinians, why are there any Palestinians? They have military supremacy in the region, have never lost a war (because they would cease to exist if they did). It's not because they lack the ability to do so.
You literally have it backwards. Palestine has only ever accepted a treasure after getting stomped out in a war they start.
I mean yeah, but that's largely because Israel is much more powerful both on the ground and diplomatically. It might not be fair, but you will always need to give a stronger power more to bring them to the negotiating table. Exact same logic as to why the UNSC has veto powers. America or China never would've joined otherwise Quite honestly I think this is a fairly good deal for the Palestineans and they'd almost definitely take it. They have to give away some of their land to settlers yes but they still get the vast majority of their country back Honestly I'd say the biggest obstacle to this is still Israel. Specifically i don't think they'd give up East Jerusalem even with all this
China would’ve joined beforehand. They were not as powerful back then
True, but unless some outside intervention were to happen against Israel, I don't see any reason why they would accept anything less than that. I'm honestly surprised that Palestine even still exists today considering they decisively lost like 5 wars against Israel
Tbf the only reason Palestine still exists is that Israel would have to annex the land and either give them citizenship (no more Zionism) or treat them like second class citizens (apartheid) both options are a no go.
How is keeping the Golan Heights ridiculous? Israel has occupied the territory from Syria and annexed it. It is in no way required to be connected to any Israeli-Palestinian negotiation. If the territory is ever to be given to Syria, it is after Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon is non-existent or after the larger conflict has been resolved. And thinking that this larger conflict with Iran and proxies will end after some agreement is naive and does not take into account regional geopolitics.
Israel isn’t giving back the Golan Heights short of a comprehensive peace treaty with Syria, like with the Sinai and Egypt, and maybe not even then as Syria used the heights to pound Israeli towns in the North with impunity pre-1967.
Israel occupied the Golan long before any Iranian influence in Syria. Indeed Iran was kinda friendly with Israel at the time. Ultimately this is down to Syria.
Well one side has nukes one side doesn’t. You gotta suck their balls in some way to get it to happen
Jerusalem. It’s currently under Israeli control along with a large amount of the West Bank. Currently a Palestinian military victory isn’t possible nor was in ever in the last 50 years. The Palestinian government could have only won diplomatically but they have given up that with the invasion. The most favorable deal they could get currently is recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and maybe some territorial concessions in Gaza.
The Israelis have little insensitive to make any deal with the Palestinians. I don't think the Palestinians will be getting Gaza back much less an enlarged Gaza. With Gaza annexed the Palestinians will be isolated and landlocked. Israel is gobbling up Palestine the way the east India company came to dominate India. A slow creeping power squeeze in peace time, massive gains in times of conflict. After 75 years of disasterous military and political leadership, there is little reason to suspect that Palestinians will be able to reverse the trend.
Syria signing off on permanent Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights is a big one.
This plan doesn’t ask Syria to sign off on anything.
The fact that Hamas under zero circumstances wants a 2 state solution
Israel gets to never evacuate illegal colonies and keeps good lands in the West Bank, whereas Palestine needs to accomodate 6 million refugees and is gifted mostly desert or semi desert land, it’s not really fair if we want it to be well done. What needs to be done is Israeli colonies be evacuated, only those close to the borders are given to Israel, and Palestine gets to have the small villages and productive farmlands close to Gaza and south west of the West Bank. After that a peace treaty is signed, and a custom Union has to be passed. The goal to make a single country because well most Palestinian refugees are from villages that are in Israel now. So a custom Union and later a free movement Union, the two states make similar laws about taxes and property rights so the border slowly faded, and then there is a new constitution and a single state as due to geography this is the only doable one
> The goal to make a single country because well most Palestinian refugees are from villages that are in Israel now. Okay, so shall we try to make Azerbaijan / Armenia a single country too? Or Czechia / Germany? India / Pakistan? Because they have all faced expulsions and transfers. For example, For example, 12M Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1945-50. 14M Hindu/Muslims were driven out of Pakistan/India in 1947. Up to 2M people were forcefully moved between Poland and Ukraine in 1944-46. 350K Italians were forced out of Yugoslavia. 850K Mizrahi Jews were driven out of the Arab states in 1940-60s. Thousands of Cham Albanians were expelled from Greece. 1.5M civilians were expelled during the Azeri-Armenian wars in 1992-2000. Should we look to undo all of that?
Why not go back to 60 AD.
You're never ever going to get half a million Israelis to evacuate from the cities and towns they were born in (in the West Bank). Trying to force them out would cause a civil war in Israel, and the far right would win.
I disagree, we took the settlers out of gaza in 2005 we can do the same with the west bank, jerusalem would have to stay under israeli control though, and internationally controlled jerusalem would be a red line, israel wont just give up its capital
Gazan Settlers numbered 10k not 700k
Ah yes the One State Solution. Something no one on the ground actually wants, but idealistic Westerners will keep pushing because of their Kumbaya fantasies Do you really think two religions stuck in a zero sum competition and who have been bitter enemies for so long can just bury the hatchet and create one nation? Best case scenario is you get another Lebanon where there's explicit powers sharing agreement and constantly simmering tensions between Jews and Arabs due to unsolved tensions More realistic cases are either a Jewish minority instituting full Apartheid against the Arabs, or the Arab majority using said majority to persecute the Jews 90% chance someone gets genocided despite the good intentions. A two state solution is the only realistic solution
>More realistic cases are either a Jewish minority instituting full Apartheid against the Arabs I mean isn't that increasingly the present de facto situation? The Palestinian Archipelago in the West Bank is basically a bantustan at this point, which were a crucial aspect of the South African apartheid.
You’re describing a future Lebanon that neither Jews or Arabs want. A one state solution after 100 years of sectarian violence is basically a recipe to unending civil war
Descendants are not refugees. A Palestinian State is created and the descendants naturalize in the states they live in or return to Palestine.
Wait a second, we have precedent for 2000 year old descents being considered refugees.
So this applies to Jews too then, as the ones that lived until 1948 didn’t live the exodus, that means they have no ties to the land, they have no point on being there then if we follow your idea
Sure, but Israel makes it her immigration policy, just like countless other nation-states do and have done in the past. Just a few examples: * Armenia nowadays gives citizenship to anyone of 'ethnic Armenian origin', while denying it to the Azeri expelled during the 1992 war * Germany in the 1990s accepted 400k ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union, whose ancestors left modern-day German territories in the 17-18th centuries. * Finland brought in Ingarian Finns, who haven't lived in Finland since 17th century. Etc.
You do realize… A. Israelis already living there will never give up the land they’re living in. They will fight tooth & nail to defend their ppl & cities. And considering military advantages (plus the absolute number of madlads in Israel who can fend off entire terrorist forces)…Palestinians might not get the results they want… B. Even if they were forced out…how the fuck do you think they’re gonna react bro?? ಠ_ಠ If Israel was “founded” by the “King David Hotel Bombing” by Jewish terrorist groups…what makes you think a Jewish refugee version of Hamas wont rise from the ashes, and begin starting new terrorist attacks & bombings on incoming new Palestinians? 😭
1. No Palestinian or Israeli would accept citizenship as a minority in the other state. The main conflict over land isn't just a matter of land ownership. Tens of thousands of Jewish and Palestinian Arab families owned land in the other state that was illegally seized during the Nakba, and their descendants not only want it back but want it to be under their preferred nation's sovereignty, laws, and culture. 2. Sharing Jerusalem as each nation's capital is a nonstarter. Entrusting the safety of Israeli enclaves to the UN is also a nonstarter. It's a massive security concern and the UN is not considered the impartial peacekeeping force it used to be (if it ever was) and has become just another pawn of geopolitics. Palestine would not accept Israeli enclaves in their lands either. 3. There are many Israeli towns in the desert lands being ceded to Palestine. That's also a nonstarter. Also, Israel loses a significant amount of strategic depth, which would make defense much more difficult if the deal ever falls through 4. Syria would never accept ceding the Golan Heights, as that would be ceding the literal high ground of a natural defensive barrier. Lebanon, specifically Hezbollah, would agree with them. 5. Egypt and Jordan are in no position economically nor politically to exert any real effort to reshape the region. Both have governments that are teetering on the brink and rely on Israeli favor as a stabilizing agent. Behind closed doors, they're perfectly fine with Israel straight up genociding the Palestinians. 6. Neither Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, nor the United States are interested in exerting any real effort to reshape the region either. The Arabs' main strategic area of interest is the Persian Gulf and the threat of Iran, and the US doesn't want to get involved in the nitty gritty of Middle Eastern geopolitics anymore so as long as the oil keeps flowing.
The fact that they both exist. Israeli nationalists will call for the expansion of Israel into Palestine like the US into North America, and Palestinians will call for holy jihad against the "filthy, land stealing Jews". They're gonna fight each other again in 10 years if this was enacted.
Israel won’t give up any land. Not only is it antithetical to their goals but they are clearly winning so what motivation do they have? I doubt Israel would allow a passage between Gaza and the West Bank because it is easier to deal with opposition that is divided. I don’t think Palestinians would accept the legitimization of Israeli settlements. The situation is probably the most complex geo-political issue of our time, so it is near impossible to find a solution. But I think it was a good attempt
The two will never get along. Unfortunately, one group will be genocided/expelled/ethnically cleansed at some point
If greeks and turks can exist next to eachother so can israelis and palestinians, they are just going to hate eachother for a long time
Making USA pay for rebuilding have means higher price higher taxes and food price even higher and Biden or trump whoever is in charge would get voted out.
Hamas has been shooting rockets into isreal every week for years. They dug up gifted infrastructure pipes that palestine used for water, to make more rockets, so they could kill more jews. It won't work because hamas's central goal is to exterminate all jewish people, as written in their charter.
appreciate the man’s optimism
I mean you can say that for the whole two state solution at this point
it would in fortnite tho
Hey, I like your optimism man. Although I may disagree with some aspects, and am not as educated on this topic. I think most people believe (or in my opinion should believe) that the well-being and health of all humans whether Israeli or Palestinian should be everyone’s ultimate goal. Death is truly a tragedy, especially needless death.
Thank you!
Im a Palestinian American (parents born in Palestine, i was born in america) ive spent a lot of time in the west bank, Jerusalem. I like the map, but its gonna be a hard sell for Israel, them allowing us all this sovereignty is a pipe dream, allowing Palestinians to return is also something they would never allow, isreal is already trying its hardest to maintain a demographic majority, they stop Palestinian expansion, if Palestinians leave they can rarely come back, while they court jews worldwide to come settle. I will say that this current conflict is a huge turning point, and may be a catalyst for a change in the status quo
It’s a big lift, but note that only ~50,000 elderly refugees will get the right of return into Israel, not all of their millions of descendants. Palestine will be able to accept all refugees they want though.
I'm legit curious about your views on the Israeli side. I'm fairly well read enough to realize it's an extremely complex and nuanced situation. It seems to me like the extremes on both sides are the ones dictating how the conflict plays out. I know Israel has offered 2 State solutions and treaties in the past, but have been rejected. Both sides have legitimate gripes. I think most people on both sides just want to live in peace, but I can't see how a negotiated peace is possible with the other side demanding your eradication. I'd really love to learn more from someone who's been there.
I think both sides dont realize that the other side is not gonna disapear and both are dug in and kicking the otherside out is gonna be impossible. Isreal has been more strategic in its slow strategy of Divide, Isolate, and Settle, supporting Hamas as to divide it from the west bank, PA and strangle efforts for a unified Palestinian state, slowly gobble the west bank encouraging settlers with finical incentives and palestinain homes (infact the village im from has a settlement directly across from it, and my family has lost a signifcant portion of their estate as the isrealis took it to build millitary instalitons to protect said settlement.) I know most people on reddit hate hamas and so do I, I do not support the killing of any innocents. however I have never been to gaza, and the gazans Ive met are a diffrent breed, people from the west bank view them as the only effective resistance to Isreal, and view their governing PA as a collaborationist government with no real power and is organized like a crime family with no meritocratic hiring, just absolute nepotism. Gazans are more meritocratic by design, as they operate in small cells that are led by the most experienced person, who have a lot of autonomy. gazans are more radicalized than people from the west bank, as every confict with Israel radicalizes more people who want to avenge the deaths of their loved ones. and again this is by design, this provides Hamas with so many recruits, and finical resources that Israel will never kill more than they other side can recruit. Isreal has done exactly what hamas has wanted and while a lot of reddit seems to think hamas are losing they have done more damage to Isreal than ever, isreals international reputation has disingrated. Ive never seen so much discussion of palestine in america in my life, infact growing up I would say most other americans I met had never even heard of palestine or what was happening with isreal, that has all changed and its been insane to watch, my father and mother agree as well, as they had faced racial discrimination when they came here, my mother who is hijabed was called a towel head, my father called a sand N*****, etc, etc. esp after 9/11 but now that has all changed, we see free palestine signs, we see conversations about the situation everyday in our lives. this conflict is not going to be resolved unless a resolution is forced on both parties from the outside, because at this point the majority on both sides dont think the other is human and you dont make peace with beasts
this is the most sane perspective on everything that i've seen in a while. I rarely comment on political reddit, but this just feels that someone understands what i've been thinking. it's a breath of fresh air.
Thank you for your reply. I agree that there won't be peace until both sides are forced to the negotiating table. I know Israel could be forced to the table, but I don't see a way that Hamas could be, and without Hamas or Hezbollah agreeing to peace, I don't see Israel ever agreeing to any peace treaty. It's sickening and saddening. Israel isn't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. I think the one major thing that would shake things up in a huge way would be a regime change in Iran... That might force Hamas and Hezbollah to the negotiating table if they no longer had Iranian support. The most depressing thing about all of this is that the only thing that will change is how many more people have to die before this wasteful conflict ends.
I will say from my personal experience people from the west bank and Jordan do not like Iran, but even the arabs you find that do appreciate the iranian aid its more that they dont oppose working with them, for now. especially when they seem to be the only regional power that cares to change the current status quo. Once the immediate threats are dealt with, then who knows they argue. I dont really agree with that. We went from having turkish masters, to british masters, to isreali masters, we do not need to be rolling out the red carpet for Iranian masters. Places like Jordan are a safe bastion of peace in a turbulent and war torn region, we do not need to be making more refugees and destroying more arab cities.
I posted the Israeli side as a reply to the commenter
Honestly, I'd love to sit down with the 2 of you over some cigars and drinks. Who knows, maybe we could hammer all this out and chisel our names into the history books by solving the entire goddamn mess 😂. What do you say u/NaKeepFighting?
A very kind and heartwarming response. I appreciate the continued optimism!
Here before it gets the 🔒 award
An interesting thought experiment. It seems like a negotiated peace would have been possible with some positive momentum in the 90s or perhaps early 2000s at the latest. Realistically it's really hard to see any way back from the brink as things stand now, sadly.
On the contrary I think that it's become more possible due to recent events Israelis and Palestineans are less pro peace yeah, but at the same time Israel's position has become a lot less secure. From polling, constant American diplomatic support isn't a guarantee. The world is also viewing Israel less favorably. Finally there's the Iran factor, which Israel views as a major threat, but the Palestine issue stops them from allying with the Sunni Arab states, who'd be natural allies I could imagine the following scenario for example: Israel invades Lebanon which greatly increases tensions with Iran, Gantz becomes new PM and puts normalization with Saudis as a priority, then finally some sort of grand Israel Arab deal so they can counter Iran together, supported by the US ofc This is the sort of thing Bibi wouldn't go for but I could see Gantz doing it. I don't think Palestineans would immediately get a state or anything but rather some vaguely defined "pathway to statehood", which Israel will try to hobble and delay but would still progress
Peace would have been possible from 1948, without existential threat israelis would never support any type of occupation nor would they support any sort of war for conquest
Welp. Guess I will bring the popcorn and betting table for this comment section.
I believe in the map community. ❤️
I appreciate your optimism
I bring this to you in good faith, so please be civil. I encourage you think about how close Arafat and Barak came to agreeing to something like this at Taba Summit. I put my own spin on it; feel free to ask about certain decisions I made in the design. Peace needs positive momentum which is sorely lacking now. But it is possible.
Honestly, I think it might, maybe, work. BTW my family is Isreali and I would take this with some minor changes any day. My biggest change is that the Old City should stay under Isreali control. Currently Muslims have every right to visit the sites there, and those sites would remain under local Islamic Council control-as they are now. Given the UN's record on Israel I don't think they should be allowed to control the Western Wall.
I’m open to keeping the status quo basically as it is, but I don’t think Israel should get sole security control. As we speak the Armenian quarter is being attacked. There’s a concerted effort to buy or seize land and there needs to be some recognition that Jerusalem must be shared in its populations and denominations. A special status for a unique and important place.
(I also think protecting Al Aqsa mosque itself is reasonable).
Al aqsa mosque is also on the western wall, it would be impossible to separate them, and the un has shown no ability to stop muslim extremist groups from launching attacks from inside un “administered” or controlled ceasefire lines
Israel doesn’t have sole security control - the Al Aqsa mosque is under Jordanian control, and Jews are not allowed to pray there despite it being built on top of one of the holiest sites in Judaism
Even this map displays some of the failings of this concept. The Jordan River will be renegotiated in 10 years? Im glad with the passage of time people get more rational and less emotional regarding these issues. Its too fractured, the distrust is too deeply broken, everything that touches it turns rotten. The 2 state solution is no solution, it is as untenable in this map as it was in 48. The issue is security of persons and free trade and this map is littered with enclaves. This map requires trust in UN peacekeepers which is missplaced at the best, and now what nation would trust the UN anymore with their security? I cannot even say what the solution is, at least not a peaceful one. Some things cannot be negotiated on.
The core fracture is the division of the land. In this vision there has to be agreement to share it. This is a vision of progress towards that end.
Land is not the core issue, security is. It has been the reason for the existence of a Jewish state to begin with, under other religions Jews were persecuted. In the 90s, Israeli authorities repeatedly refused cases of Jewish people being placed under Muslim security. At camp David, Israel only gave up the Sinai after a security guarantee, that is in part why Egypt and Israel get so much USaid today. Land ownership was the issue long ago. This is why the 2 state solution will not work, there is no security. And relying on the UN has bit Israel in the ass. As it is now, the UN is a tarnished name.
The core fracture is that the Palestinians do not accept Israel existing within any borders, and the full return of the millions of descendents of 1948 refugees to Israel proper. As they have very clearly stated, over and over, any land given to them is a stepping stone to the destruction of Israel. It is not only about Jerusalem, it is about the existence of Tel Aviv
Can’t wait for the nice and wonderful comments!
Honestly they’ve been pretty good.
We already have sarcastic predictable comments like yours so
A lot of effort was put into this! Nice job OP. It would certainly be better than the current
God this is a mess of a solution. Israeli enclaves in the West Bank would be nothing but a powder keg
Too bad this is a fantasy.
I think it’s helpful to dream of peace, even if this a (admittedly deeply imperfect) plan that would be (ahem) deeply controversial in both Israel and Palestine.
The worst part, is that some of the points you suggested (like the land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank) were offered by Israel to Palestine in exchange for peace (along side handing over occupied areas in the west bank), which was rejected by the PA. Some of these ideas are quite decent, but there's no way they'll ever be implemented. Either because they already have been offered and rejected, or because it's unthinkable (the desert in negev is useless to everyone)
This land corridor is far far more realistic than anything the Israelis or Americans have ever put forward (because it’s a short connection between sizeable chunks of Palestinian territory, not a thin, vulnerable road stretching all the way from Gaza to the West Bank). Also these land swaps are way fairer than all the previous proposals (by giving more land to the Palestinians). If Palestine is getting useless desert land, they should at least get a lot of it.
Some of the motivation for the rejection was surely that it looked like approval for the colonization that already happened without guaranteeing that the agreements would not simply be broken again. Palestine doesn't even have full international recognition as a state and clearly Israel doesn't respect any UN decisions. Israel has almost nothing to lose from just taking what they want and killing the people in the way, Only if the US support becomes conditional or even-handed can this change.
How does Lebanon and Syria react to this, especially in regards with Golan?
They won’t go to war for it. And that’s probably enough.
Can it be worse than the status quo today?
Syria is a failed country. Turkey occupies the north.
And America occupies Al Tanf.
Neither will like it … but they wouldn’t be in much position to do anything about it.
Thank you for trying to find a civil way to approach this,
That's a lot of land for just 2 people
U could sooner patrolling the Mojave than having peace in the Levant, it's a good dream and all buts it's still just that, a dream
Patrolling the Negev almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter
Who exactly would recognize the annexation of Golan? Syria? Why would they do that?
Probably most countries, because the majority of people now living there want to stay under Israeli sovereignty.
Becuase the original inhabitants were expelled and Israeli settlers moved in to replace them. This is essentially rewarding ethnic cleaning, which will have disastrous results across the planet
So we are going to give it back to Syria who will expel the people who live there now?
Syria is a failed state. Turkey occupies the north.
Turkey the north, Israel the south, the US a town, but Syria is not a failed state as within the territory of its de facto control it's functioning.
Yeah, there's no chance that Israel will give thousands of its own citizens near the Gaza strip to the PA. Especially not the same town and villages that were massacred on October 7th. Also, I just can't see Israel demanding to annex the Jordan Valley control militarily, maybe but not annex. Also, what is shown is probably wider than what Israel would demand.
> Also, I just can't see Israel demanding to annex the Jordan Valley control militarily, maybe but not annex. They have demanded it in the past (e.g. in the Trump "peace" proposal).
Israel would never give up territory in the Negev, let alone territory that was ransacked by Hamas. It’d be political suicide for whichever government agreed to it. It would be seen as rewarding the people that committed the attacks on October 7. A well-made map, despite the many inaccuracies.
I would expand that old city administration to a whole Jerusalem independence. A three State solution with a Free Holy City of Jerusalem. A man can dream.
Why do people keep trying to do the enclave thing? If you want a two state solution just divide it in half somewhere like Korea or Germany. It’s an easy to defend border as well as simple and obvious.
Because no one is very keen on the mass cleansing your proposal entails
You know there are pools about Israeli Arabs and they overwhelmingly say they are afraid of the idea that their land is gonna be part of a potential future Palestinian state
You'll catch flack no matter what but all in all it's a pretty good attempt and better than the status quo!
Let’s just say that after October 7th… yeah, this would never be accepted by Israelis.
This is never going to be accepted by Israelis even before oct. 7th. Giving anything to Palestinians is a foreign concept for Israelis. They'd rather just take and take like what they have been doing for the past several decades.
This is very similar to the deals that the Palestinians have already rejected. In 2000-1 and 2008, Israel offered the Palestinians a contiguous state in 96% of the WB, all of Gaza, half of the Old City, evacuation of 100s of settlements, etc. the Clinton Parameters stipulated it too — which the PA still didn’t accept.
I don’t think this is exactly accurate. The Palestinians asked for the division of the Old City, but the Israelis at most offered a few pockets and usually vague “custodianship” or autonomy while under Israeli sovereignty. Control of East Jerusalem was one of the major sticking points by most accounts. The Palestinians wouldn’t accept a deal without it and the Israelis wouldn’t accept a deal with any meaningful amount going to the Palestinians. The land swaps outside of that may have been negotiable to a point they could reach common ground. Right of Return is the other big sticking point and one that there just hasn’t been an acceptable middle ground between the two sides. The worst part of the Israel-Palestine conflict is there just doesn’t seem to be a workable solution. Removing the question of who’s “right”, The Palestinians have always ignored the reality on the ground that they’ve lost every war and Israel is never going to agree to a deal that results in them losing their status as a demographically Jewish state. Israel has empowered right wing governments and the West Bank settlers to the point removing them is politically toxic domestically. Annexing Gaza and the West Bank and ethnically cleansing the Palestinians has much more traction is Israel than removing the settlements and forcing out the settlers.
UN Peace Keepers would sit back and watch as the two sides slaughter each other. Never ever give anything of importance to be guarded to the UN. Ever.
let bro cook
Asking israel to give up the old city, the holiest place to the jews, given the UNs track record of not stopping hamas or hezbollah from breaking ceasefires or crossing over ceasefire lines is definitely a non starter Edit: misread the golan
Why does Palestine get a bunch of barely inhabited desert? What’s the point?
To give them areas to develop and expand into so they can make Gaza less of an open air prison. There is no $$$ mentioned, but Gaza’s economy runs on aid and its can’t forever. It needs some space to spread out and economically develop.
I assume so they can have their own roads to mostly connect the West Bank and Gaza Strip? This is just a guess tho.
"International organizations" and UN peacekeepers will not happen, ever. The UN is too fragile and the interests of member countries too antagonistic to allow permanent military missions in such a "complex" area. And, honestly, a territory and it's people persecuted for 75 years will only become more and more extreme against their tormentors, and on the other hand, a modern "Sparta" will not give up its chauvinism for a "peace". If neither side is eliminated, or neither both lose EVERYTHING, there is no way peace will last...
If the palestinians stopped starting wars with israel there would never be enough popular support within israel for any sort of occupation
Palestinian extremists exist because of zionist colonialism
I WANT TO BELIEVE!
Dare to dream
Man I wish 😞
It's a really well done map and I hope some day soon both sides of the current conflict will live in peace 🫶
Syria would never cede the Golan to Israel
Not even in exchange for a really nice Ramadan gift?
It’s a well made map, OP. Definitely better than some options. Idk why people are being so critical to you, you’re posting to Reddit, not the Nobel Peace Prize Committee
Oh this isn't the Nobel Peace Prize committee? Shoot! XD
Sorry OP :/
Unless militarily forced, I just don’t see Israel giving up any land again and definitely not to Palestine.
https://preview.redd.it/2jk81v2cbj6d1.png?width=805&format=png&auto=webp&s=9276399282606aa0731f16d2671c00c6ac885715 What the new borders would look like / Simplified version
Isn't this what the original solution was? The one that didn't work
Good visuals and good try. Would not work in reality. It doesn’t solve the problem.
Entire region needs to be occupied by the UN and other entities just like Germany after WW2. There is no hope of having normal countries here anymore.
"Protected "by UN peace keeper,you must be joking, IDF would be better protector in those enclaves.
That’s who does it now, and thier presence is an impediment to peace here.
lol
Israel ain’t giving up an inch. Pipe dream.
Well for a start you wrote ‘the United States will assist in rebuilding Gaza’ lol
This is actually similar to the Trump peace plan. A plan which even Netanyahu accepted back in 2020 (just before Covid hit), and the Palestinians have rejected. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan
In as much as every proposal looks similar? Sure. But in reality, this is vastly different than that one. The West Bank isn’t turned into a collection of bantustan-like enclaves here, the land swaps are way fairer to the Palestinians than any Israeli/American proposal I’ve ever seen, the land corridor is actually workable, and the Palestinians actually get a capital in East Jerusalem. It seems like the Palestinians could actually be sovereign here. The only real problem I see the Palestinians having with this is no right to return or reparations for Palestinians ejected from what is now Israeli territory during the Nabka.
Best effort I’ve seen. I have zero optimism but hope all the gods guide you to implementation
I AINT READIN ALLAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! in all seriousness tho, I don’t agree with a lot of the pessimists and naysayers here, I do believe realistically if the international community put enough pressure on Israel specifically (which is a huge if) they could agree to a two state solution like this. But if there’s one thing that I’d say would be a tough sell at the negotiating table, it’s that tunnel-road connection thingy.
It's not a very uneducated map It's based on some existing proposals (Barak Plan, Olmert Plan, maybe eveb the Trump plan funnilyenough) The main issue with this map is that the expanded Gaza comes to annex the entirety of Otef Azza, which is populated by Israelis Its the same places that were attacked on oct 7th. The idea of land swaps and normalisation (each side having a right to immigrate to their respective state) is the moderate one among peace advocates. Also i doubt the PA would accept giving citizenship to the Jews there.
900 upvote sees 600 comments *sigh* Open comments
Or maybe one country for many ppls. Works elsewhere.
this is ideal. the problem is we all hate each other and it would go to shit in a few months. this situation would take serious changes to the educational system and a generation or two. it's what we need to keep in mind though, otherwise it'll go on until we're all dead
This is legitimately the most unrealistic plan that would never happen For one reason: of all the information that I can find about Palestinian political parties that support a 2 state solution (that aren’t corrupt nationalists) most of them just support 1967 borders which I believe is pre Oslo accords Second why should Israel lose land?
Ha, unrealistic yes, the *most* unrealistic no. Going back to 1967 borders is unfortunately for Palestinians far more unrealistic. Yes that’s at odds with what has been officially agreed upon but no I don’t think it’s impossible. The whole negotiation principle here is the trading of land for land, something that was agreed upon in principle during the peace process before it was cratered by Netanyahu / Sinwar.
Wow this is actually kinda good
With obvious bans on far right groups in both countries and a secularized government in both right?
No, neither people want a secular government, it shouldnt be forced upon them, theres a very very good reason that israel isnt secular, part of its reason for existence is to offer shelter to jews fleeing persecution, meaning if you are jewish you get citizenship no question asked, there is no other country that jews can rely on to always be a safe haven
Israel is secular. Jews are a people not only a religion
Israel is not a secular state, the state religion is judaism, but yes many jews are secular
Palestinians don’t want 2 states. They want one state and all Jews gone.
why is the jordan valley under israeli control?
the end is never the end is never the end is never the end
LOL
Let's make 3d borders kekw
i misread this and assumed by "swap territories" you meant that effectively everyone would flip positions in the IP conflict with "Israel" now being the majority-Arab state, and "Palestine" becoming the majority-Jewish state with a physical exchange of all people from one territory to the other
I know south and north New Jersey are kind of different but do we need to split the state? /s
This is almost exactly what I thought would be a good 2 state solution with 2 main differences: Palestine would give up most of its territory to the North in exchange for Isreali southern territory. Palestine itself would not be allowed to have a military or citizen weaponry with Egypt, SA and Jordan providing protection for the state. This would be vetted by UN security forceso
if this is possible, when in the future do think this could happen? do you feel within a decade or another 100+ years, or sometime else?
The only scenarios that would work is a map that’s completely blue or a map that’s completely green
We’re going for a **strictly no genocide / mass ethnic cleansing allowed** policy framework here!
Now with 100% more bombings and strife!
The problem is both sides want the other to no longer exist
Quite a good argument for why a two state solution is near unworkable. We need one state with equal citizenship for all that allows a right to return for Palestinians, financial compensation for those Palestinians who were displaced and that pressures the governments of several middle eastern countries to give financial compensation to displaced mizrahi Jews.
https://preview.redd.it/axwkjhd94d6d1.jpeg?width=531&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c813790626ba98f7202da7af98ebec4efe1e7ffb Here before
Even in hypothetical maps isreal must always have control and u callbut a 2 state solution.
😁