The Three Option State-Sinai-Relocation Plan

The Three-Option Plan for Exploring Simultaneous Palestinian Statehood and Relocation

The recent phone calls between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu after the Prime Minister’s statements opposing a two-state solution present the need for a new idea. Israel’s approach, and the entire world’s approach to the Palestinian problem needs a new perspective.

Israeli officials have effectively said all of the following in recent weeks:

– that Palestinians should be relocated,
– that Israel has no intention of relocating them,
– that Israel must control security from Jordan to the sea,
– that there will be no Two-State solution, and,
– that a Two-State solution is not completely off the table.

Even amongst Israel’s allies, frustration with Israel is growing, and support weakening, after Netanyahu’s comments. Still, Israel cannot be expected to shoulder the burden alone of a global problem instigated by outside forces.

And meanwhile, Iran is taking full advantage.

As reported by the Jerusalem Post, President Isaac Herzog recently said in Davos, “If you ask an average Israeli now about his or her mental state, nobody in his right mind is willing now to think about what will be the solution of the peace agreements.” And that Israelis have, “lost trust in the peace processes because they see that terror is glorified by our neighbors.” Most Palestinians don’t want a two-state solution either, only 17% according to a November 14th Survey by the Arab World for Research and Development, with 74% wanting a Palestine “from the river to the sea”.

The world is likewise polarizing around this conflict, as the international community doesn’t understand that any Palestinian state under the current Palestinian ideology would just be a means to “bring in the heavy artillery” – a stepping stone to better attack Israel from. A Palestinian capitol in East Jerusalem or militarized state would just be an excuse to bring in a million soldiers and start an all out war against Israel that would draw the whole world in. The past 16 years in Gaza is proof of what the Palestinians would do with full statehood. Yet, the status quo cannot continue forever either.

Netanyahu is under increased international pressure to accept a pathway to a Palestinian state, by an international community who do not understand or care that most Palestinians’ goal is to destroy Israel, not live alongside her in peace. Meanwhile, the Jewish people are a moral people, who neither want to control Palestinians nor accept their terrorism.

So, here’s one possible solution. Israel need not choose between Palestinian statehood or relocation; it can explore both options simultaneously. If the Palestinians continue to oppose Israel, under such a plan, they will increasingly create a global momentum for their relocation into the Sinai. At some point, any idea will be better than continuous war with no plan whatsoever. Especially, as allies like Saudi Arabia, regardless reality, demand some path forward to be able to unite with Israel to focus on Iran’s imminent nuclearization.

A new perspective of the problem:

Humanity approaches the potential resolution of all wars incorrectly, per theories I discuss in my article, “Humanity is in its Infancy in Understanding War.” The problem is not so much individuals nor their leaders, but the ideological dynamics of the group collective psyche, which controls both, and is the true reason for all war. Since the dawn of mankind, humans are tribal, and face threats in groups on a subconscious, primal level. These collective group “hive” mindsets are the primary motivators of human group conflict, and rational analysis of individuals a distant secondary. Take Abbas and Arafat, as examples, unable to make peace as adherents controlled by the broader ideological entity, the “Palestinian cause.” While often tribally-defined in the region, groups can actually form around nearly any shared interest or ideology.

The Palestinian problem is not ultimately about land, nor money, nor religion, though many Palestinians hate Israel because it is Jewish. The problem ultimately is the dynamics of the group’s ideological in-group versus out-group polarization. The problem is not one of making peace with leaders, but one of ideological momentum, and must be dealt with on a metaphysical level, according to principles I am developing within the PeaceMatrix™ system called PeaceMatrix™ Entitativity theory. These principles resolve conflicts by strategically addressing the ideological dynamics of the parties’ collective mindsets.

A key cause of the current paradigm is that today those who merely want to alleviate Palestinian suffering are ideologically aligned with those who want to destroy Israel. They have the same initial goal – a Palestinian state. This problem exists across the Palestinian territories, the broader Arab community, the broader Muslim community, and the even broader international global community. Without a political process, the Palestinians have nowhere to direct their inherent, tribal, ideological in-group versus out-group polarization except at Israel. They can’t be constructive in improving their own lives when their focus is opposing Israel. Anyone who attacks Israel whether verbally or militarily, like Hamas, is elevated within Palestinian society, because the broader ideological collective psyche’s dynamics channel status, power, resources, and benefits to those who instigate opposition to Israel.

The pressure from this global problem is wrongfully laid on Israel’s shoulders; not Iran for sponsoring terror, not Arab states for not helping more, and not the broader international community for accepting terrorism and making unreasonable demands. The international community can no more demand a Palestinian capitol in East Jerusalem than demand that India make half of New Delhi a capitol of a new Islamic state; or half of London, or half of Paris, or half of Moscow, or half of Beijing be capitols of new Islamic states in those countries. Since a main reason for the current paradigm is that those who genuinely want to help the Palestinians are united ideologically with those who want to destroy Israel, the first thing we need to do is separate those two viewpoints and groups. The strategy must help one at the expense of the other.

A second reason for the current situation is that with every peace offer in the past 75 years, Palestinians have felt they had nothing to lose, and believed they had only to gain from continuing the conflict. It’s “try to conquer Israel”, or, “stay at the status quo”. Like a mugger to whom you must return his weapon after you thwart his attack, he has nothing to lose from trying again. Culturally, there is no equivalent word in Arabic for the concept of “compromise,” only “resistance”, and “more”, whether they have 1% of the land, or 99.6%, which Arabs already control of the Middle East anyway. Approximately 72% of Palestinian support October 7th style terrorism, and the vast majority support never-ending war against Israel until Israel no longer exists. Gaza has been its own de facto independent Palestinian state for 16 years and all it has done is wage war against Israel. Some say it is still less moral to keep the Palestinians in that predicament than to relocate them, not just for Israel, but for other Arab states not taking Palestinian refugees also. We must therefore also utilize a carrot and stick approach, that provides some consequence, alternative route, or both, if Palestinians reject the offer or fail to meet reasonable requirements.

A third understanding is that the Palestinian “cause” is a living ideological entity, and if peace were made, the Palestinian cause would die, and it doesn’t want to die. See more on PeaceMatrix™ Entitativity theory in my other writings. So, the third thing we must do, is address the fact that the Palestinian cause ideology wants to continue, in some form.

The solution:

The solution should restructure ideological polarities in favor of Israel, peace, and stability, and helping Palestinians at the same time. The solution is to change the polarization from Arab cause versus Israel, to, those who want peace versus those who want a different peace. And, to do so within a controlled framework. In other words, let’s exchange an unhealthy polarization for a healthier and more constructive one. The plan presented here for examination is an example of how we might look at potential solutions and draw those lines.

The Plan:

Propose a working group for the simultaneous exploration of two options; either a Palestinian state based in Ramallah under preconditions, or in the Sinai.

Such a proposal would be rejected outright, but it doesn’t matter. Many Palestinians will always want to destroy Israel, but it doesn’t matter. The plan is designed to regardless have countless benefits, and ultimately may be self-implementing. Here’s why:

The plan is a 3-part plan that if Palestinians meet a set of Israel’s prerequisites, then a demilitarized Palestinian state can be further explored with a capitol in Ramallah; but if they do not, then the Palestinians are relocated, either to a Palestinian state in the Sinai if Egypt allows, or absorbed into other Arab societies if Egypt does not.

The solution is not the plan itself, nor its acceptance or rejection; the solution is the reasoning behind the plan, as explained below.

Option 1)

The Palestinians have a timeframe to meet a list of prerequisites ensuring Israel’s security, which if they meet, with the world’s help, will move the parties closer to a demilitarized Palestinian state after that time. Israel’s list may include:

– Destroy Hamas
– Deradicalization the ideology of Palestinian society
– Accept Israel as a permanent Jewish state with Jerusalem as its Capitol
– End violence and intent to destroy Israel
– Palestinians must reject all external anti-Israel influence, including Iranian
– The international community will sends monitors to de-radicalize education, promote peace education, control political process to allow diverse candidates to run, candidates must hold elections yearly, and must not promote jihad, hatred, and opposition to Israel
– The international community will help install democratic institutions, constructive cultural, sports, and community activities and bring economic incentives
– International community will stop all Iranian and external anti-Israel influence and nuclearization
– Palestinian territories are demilitarized and Israel maintains control of security from the Jordan river to the sea
– Palestinians must accept permanent borders and acknowledge that further attacks against Israel by anyone including Iranian proxies will cost them land
– Palestinians who want to relocate are allowed to move to other Arab countries temporarily or permanently to ease pressure off conflict
– Israeli and other leaders have an ongoing public debate about all options. Ultimately, Israel is right, and the more open and constructive debate, the better.

Option 2) and 3)

If Palestinians do not meet these prerequisites, despite it not being Israel’s or the world’s first choice, many Palestinians may end up being relocated for their own good to:

Option 2) a new Palestinian state in part of the Sinai if Egypt allows, or,

Option 3)  absorbed into other Arab states if Egypt does not. The choice between #2 and #3 being placed in the hands of Egypt, other fellow Arab states, and the broader global community.

The plan is a compromise between the world wanting an impossible two-state “solution” by which the Palestinians would continue an enhanced permanent conflict, and those who believe relocation is the most moral remaining option after Palestinians have rejected peace offers for 75 years. Again, the question is not whether relocation is moral, but whether it is more or less moral than allowing them to suffer in endless conflict.

Benefits:

Exploration of these options can be a unilateral process. Even if opposed by all parties, the international community will be presented with another option for Palestinian statehood which is better than no option, taking pressure off Israel.

The reason many Israelis oppose a Palestinian state is because they believe Option #1 is impossible to achieve. Fine. This plan will motivate the international community to try harder at Option #1, while simultaneously building momentum for Options #2 and #3, in case #1 fails.

Those who oppose relocation have another option – to try harder to accomplish Option #1 above. Arab states who oppose taking in Palestinian refugees can support Option #1 or #2. If Egypt opposes an Option #2, it can support Option #1 or #3.

Think of ideological energy as water. Instead of all the flow being directed at Israel, it is redirected three ways, which will compete against one-another to offer Palestinians the best possible life.

Ultimately, the longer the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel, and the more Option #1 proves impossible if that is the case, the more attractive relocation as Option #2 or #3 becomes to the world.

Explanation:

The plan motivates Palestinians and those globally who want a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel. It also lays parameters, without which, Palestinians’ ability and desire to attack Israel would continue the conflict even more if a state were established. This process is essentially a test, to see if Palestinians are able to accept Israel and live in peace, or only want a state to better attack Israel from.

Many in the world who want a Palestinian state do not care whether it is next to Israel, or in the Sinai. This plan is reasonable to those who want to help the Palestinians but don’t want to destroy Israel. Thus it creates a debate between them. It draws an ideological polarizing line as the debate grows, between those who just want a Palestinian state versus those who want to destroy Israel, instead of everyone ideologically united against Israel. When one option becomes more difficult, momentum in the form of ideas, resources, and policies will flow to the other options. Cyclically, momentum will grow for all three options as their proponents oppose each other and advance the debate, as human nature requires.

If the Palestinians reject a demilitarized state peacefully alongside Israel, and prove they only want a state as a stepping stone to destroy Israel, the international community will increasingly see relocation as justified. After all, if Palestinians don’t want peace, it is immoral for the whole world to force them to stay there.

This plan answers the component missing from every other peace proposal, which is, what happens if the Palestinians reject it.

Palestinian society will engage in debate polarized between those seeking to destroy Israel versus those seeking a peaceful state with self-governance. It bifurcates the “Palestinian cause” into its two primary subcomponents.

Palestinian society will also engage in debate polarized between those seeking a limited peaceful state alongside Israel, versus those seeking a larger and more lucrative state in the Sinai, which could have substantial global investment as a major international center.

Palestinian society will also engage in debate polarized between those seeking a state versus those seeking to relocate to other Arab states, as international pressure for Arab states to accept refugees grows. Thus, it also separates the Palestinian “cause” from individual Palestinians’ interests also, as nothing has caused as much suffering for individual Palestinians as the “Palestinian cause.”

The international community that wants Option #1 will have incentive to put pressure on Iran, as the plan also separates Iran’s goal of destroying Israel. The “Palestinian cause” is a very powerful ideology, and Israel can utilize that cause and turn that energy back against Iran (or even Russia and China for supporting Iran) for causing the Palestinian suffering by supporting Hamas for Iran’s own political gain.

Explained another way; if Israel displaces the Palestinians, Israel faces 100% of the global pressure. If Israel tells the world Iran is the problem, the world won’t listen, because it’s easier to just put pressure on Israel. But if Israel says it doesn’t want to but may have to displace Palestinians unless Iran stops terrorism and nuclearization, and if Israel offers a potential solution if Iran stops, then Israel has created a polarity, and Iran faces increased pressure.

As the Palestinians continue demanding a state but fail to meet the reasonable prerequisites, the debate will increase regarding a Palestinian state in the Sinai.

Of course, Egypt will vehemently oppose, but as Palestinians fail to meet Option #1, the debate will increase around Egypt and Arab states taking refugees, Option #2 and Option #3, disbursing pressure that is currently united 100% against Israel. The Arab states are added to the negotiating table, as they would rather have a Palestinian state in the Sinai than take in refugees, and Egypt vice versa. Egypt is over 1,000,000 square kilometers, with over 2,450 kilometers of coastline. It is 45 times the size of Israel at only 22,000 square kilometers. The Sinai alone is 60,000 square kilometers or about three times the size of all of Israel. Not only would the Sinai make more sense for Palestinians whose aim is not destruction of Israel, but the economic opportunities would be massive for the entire region.

The media, experts, and world leaders will vehemently discuss all the Arab opposition. But after they’ve covered every conceivable story about why it won’t work, some might start asking how it might. Some might ask, “why should countries take in suffering Palestinian refugees?” Or, “How can countries support a better life for the Palestinians while also protecting Israel?”

Eventually, Palestinians will realize that unless they get their act together, they will be displaced. Egypt will realize that unless it takes some Palestinians, it may get stuck with all of them. The Saudis will realize that unless they work with Israel now, Mecca and Medina will soon be controlled by Iran. And poor Arab countries will realize, that the West will pay billions to take in some Palestinian refugees. And so on.

And the world will realize the value of asking not binary, but open-ended constructive questions:

What are the benefits of a Palestinian state in the Sinai?

What are the benefits of relocation for the world?

If Israel must eventually relocate the Palestinians, Israel will have given the Palestinians yet another option for peaceful statehood first. The plan will allow the world to better accept relocation, and for political channels to form around relocation as a natural product of the pressures of the conflict.

If Palestinians continue to fail to meet the prerequisites, relocating them becomes an increasingly-attractive solution to much of the world because they can still have a state, that they claim they want, just in the Sinai, where they are not increasingly conquering Israel. The plan takes the pressure off squarely Israel and puts it on three different groups, drawing ideological lines between those who want a Palestinian state in the Sinai and those who do not, and between those who want Arab states to take in Palestinian refugees and those who do not. If the Palestinian problem continues, it is the Palestinians’ fault for wanting to destroy Israel, AND Egypt’s fault for not allowing a state in the Sinai, AND the other Arab states’ fault for refusing take in refugees.

The plan unites those wanting a Palestinian state in the Sinai with Israelis who want to transfer Palestinians.

The plan can also be based on aspects of Trump’s Deal of the Century.

The plan fuels increased global debate as many believe Arab states should shoulder their burden and take in Palestinian refugees. If keeping Palestinians in an “open-air prison” is immoral, and if crimes against Israel are alleged, then all Arab and all other global states who refuse to accept Palestinian refugees are complicit. This debate also parallels a broader debate about African, Arab, Asian and South American countries shouldering more of a regional refugee burden rather than mass migration to other continents where cultural differences make integration difficult.

The plan fuels debate between Muslims who want to conquer Israel, and those who believe in following the literal Qur’an which says Israel belongs to the Jewish people, empowering the latter. As the Qur’an states, “Remember when Moses said to his people: ‘My people, remember Allah’s favour upon you when He raised Prophets amongst you and appointed you rulers, and granted to you what He had not granted to anyone else in the world.” (Qur’an 5:20). “My people! Enter the holy land which Allah has ordained for you; and do not turn back for then you will turn about losers.” (Qur’an 5:21) “And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land” (Qur’an 17:104). Maybe the Nakba and 75 years of suffering is because Muslims went against the language of the Qur’an, and maybe following the scripture and giving up trying to destroy Israel and letting Israel “dwell securely in the promised land” will yield better results. Maybe it’ll be better for all Arabs.

It’ll change the current dynamic from increasing pressure on Israel the longer there is no Palestinian state, to increased global acceptance for relocation of Palestinians the longer Palestinians continue their conflict against Israel. It’ll give the Palestinians a better chance at a state if they are peaceful, a chance at another state if they are not, and a better chance at better lives regardless. It’ll place the choice between a peaceful state and relocation in the hands of the Palestinians. If the Palestinians can act in their own independent best interest and separate themselves from an external genocidal “cause” against Israel’s existence, they may have a state, and if not, they themselves may be better off elsewhere.

If Arab states have a path forward, they can realign with Israel to address Iran’s nuclearization, and they and the whole world will be better off than being in a never-ending stalemate that increasingly threatens to draw the whole world into conflict.

By decreasing pressure on Israel, decreasing the benefits from continuing conflict and the status quo, and exploring different options simultaneously, all parties will have a greater stake in exploring solutions more constructively.