OK- now time to define B.

There are 2 requirements that B must meet:

REQUIREMENT #1: B is a state that is at peace.

REQUIREMENT #2: There is a path to get from A to B, and this path does not violate Rule #1 or Rule #2 from the previous chapter.

One final comment, before I dive into the specifics of B… I’d just like to point out why I presented things in the order that I did: the reason for the ordering I chose, is that given these restrictions I’m imposing on B, the possibilities for what B can be, become fairly limited. In fact, the restrictions limit B to such a narrow range, that it’s practically as though they dictate what B is…

And now, (at last), B:

A Palestinian state. Yup, that’s right- a full-fledged, free & independent Palestine, in the area which today is the Occupied Territories- the West Bank and Gaza. A Palestine with its own government, laws, currency, postage stamps, national holidays, seat at the UN, etc. etc., yea, “the whole 9 yards”. And its own army too- sure, why not.

Oh… but what if this newly formed Palestinian nation is not satisfied with just having the land that was formerly the Occupied Territories, and, feeling entitled to Israel’s land as well, turns its army against Israel with the objective of acquiring it, and ending the existence of Israel as its own free & independent state? No, no, no… that would SUCK. More to the point- it violates Requirement #1, as this would not be peace. Which brings us to the second point in our specification of B

Whatever the borders of Israel and Palestine are at the time of the creation of the new Palestinian state, shall forever be the borders of Israel and Palestine. Neither side shall take up arms against the other in an attempt to gain land from the other.

Hmm… neither side really gets a whole lot of land, do they? It’s readily apparent from a glance at any world map that Israel and Palestine are much smaller area-wise in comparison with most other countries. But that actually isn’t such a problem, because both Israel’s and Palestine’s populations happen to also be relatively smaller, compared with the populations of most other countries. Oh, but then, there’s the birthrates… yeah, they’re fairly high, on both sides…

Oh yes, I’m going to go there. And you can’t stop me.

There’s just some math here so basic, I feel it must be noted. (And as I hope will become evident as you continue reading, the analysis that I am attempting of all this is primarily a mathematical one. Why a mathematical analysis, of a political issue? Well, why not- nothing else seems to be working so far, so if none of the prior and current approaches have been successful, then might as well try something new, right?) So, the basic math here: if there are rapidly growing populations, in small finite spaces… that just doesn’t seem optimal to me, for long term stability.

But you could protest, that the number of children a person chooses to have is a very personal decision, and so it would be wrong for outside forces to exert pressure on individuals to influence this decision. The only thing that ought to matter, is what the individual wants- what they feel would be best for themselves, based on their own personal circumstances and temperaments. And to that I would say- YES, EXACTLY!!! (HA!!!!)

Yes- for some people, the environment they thrive best in is the bustling, boisterous one of a large family. Alright, so for them, fine- they should go right ahead and have their many children, and enjoy. But what’s bustling and boisterous for some, is chaotic and stressful for others… I would count myself among the latter. What I feel is best for me, is what I’ve chosen- a number of children on the low side- 2 (and this is working out pretty well, I’m glad to say). But for others, what could be best is no children at all… My only point here, is that external cultural forces should not factor into this decision, as this might result in an outcome which is not necessarily best for some people.

Moving right along…

Each country has sole and complete control over who they allow to immigrate into their country.

Thus, Israel can continue its policy of granting Jews preferential consideration for immigration. And, likewise, Palestine is free to formulate whatever immigration system it may choose to, which could even be allowing in anyone except Jews (as the old saying goes, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”). However, considering the previous point, about the size of the countries being fixed, it does not seem advisable to get too out of control in terms of opening the immigration floodgates… just something to be mindful of.

But it wouldn’t be going too far out on a limb to speculate that if Palestine were to have absolute control over who could immigrate, then in all likelihood no further Jewish immigrants would be allowed into the country. But, what of the Jews already living within Palestine, in the settlements? Because of Requirement #2, they cannot be forced out, sooooo…

All of the land upon which the Jewish settlements were built, shall be incorporated into Palestine. And an “amnesty” shall be granted to all of the Jews residing within these settlements.

Thus the Jews are free to continue living in Palestine, but if they choose this, then they will henceforth be citizens of Palestine (with full rights, protections, and privileges, equal to that accorded to all Muslim and Christian Palestinians). If however they wish to remain citizens of Israel, then they would have to move back to Israel.

Why this? Well as I’ve said, Palestine can’t have both the settlement land, and force this land be “Jew-free”, as the latter would violate Requirement #2. So therefore the options are to either have the settlement land, along with its Jewish residents (what I’m proposing), or forfeit the settlement land, and consequently not have any Jews as citizens of the new Palestine.

It is conceivable for the second option to be another possible B, as it is consistent with my requirements- it would just be a matter of re-drawing the Israeli-Palestinian border so that Israel envelopes all of the settlements (the settlements are for the most part clustered near the current Israeli border, so this would be somewhat feasible). So, why I prefer my choice… essentially, it’s because I think it’s better for everyone. If the Jews now in Palestine really want to be in Palestine that badly, then fine- they can get that wish. And what it seems the Palestinians want most of all, is the land- and in this way they’ll get that, since once the settlements are transferred to their control, the land can’t be “off-limits” to them.

Well, I guess this doesn’t make everyone happy… Israelis who had been hoping to move to Palestine wouldn’t be able to, and Palestinians who don’t want any Jews in Palestine wouldn’t be happy with this either. But in the case of these groups of people, I think they should be made happy not by giving them these things they want, but instead they should become happy by deciding that they no longer need to have those things in order to be happy.

Published in 2016 by Sandra Goldstein.