A proposal for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Previously, I argued that a democratic republic like the US cannot be expected to have a foreign policy based a coherent national interest. For example, MAGA Republicans support Russia over Ukraine, while the US government (under a Democratic president) supports Ukraine. I also wrote about the likelihood that America’s days as a hegemonic power are coming to an end. I suggested in this same article that America could prepare for this day by beginning a selective withdrawal from various regions of the world in which the US has no necessary role to play.

One region was Europe where the original purpose of the NATO alliance was to serve as a bulwark against the military threat posed by the Soviet Union and her Warsaw Pact allies. This objective has long been obsolete, the Russia of today is a shadow of what it once was and most of its Warsaw Pact allies now belong to NATO. The European members of NATO are more than capable of paying for an adequate defense from Russia; an American role is unnecessary. I had suggested that by offering an American departure (something Putin values) in exchange for Russian withdrawal from Ukraine the US might accomplish some good in Europe in a final exercise of her hegemonic power.

Another region was the Middle East, where the original purpose for American involvement in the region was its vast oil resources and a desire to support Israel. The boom in North American oil production made possible with fracking technology and the rise of electric vehicles makes the first obsolete. The recent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel brokered by President Biden largely completes a US project to secure peace between Israel and surrounding Arab states begun by President Carter more than forty years ago. There is no longer any reason to remain involved in this region.

However, before we make an exit, could there be a way to use our hegemonic power to achieve a solution of sorts to the stubborn Israel-Palestinian issue? The current war provides an opportunity. It started with a surprise attack by Hamas that was shocking in its brutality. Israel has responded with a fury that promises the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and the utter devastation of their homes and infrastructure. If there is to ever be a time for action, that time is now. 

Hamas is a religious military order engaged in holy war (jihad). This particular jihad calls for the death of all Jews, so those members of Hamas brutally slaughtering women and children are doing God’s work. If they are killed, they go straight to paradise, and if they live, they have achieved great prestige for their work on behalf of God. The only rational policy with respect to Hamas is to grant them that ticket to heaven. But they will embed themselves in the civilian population requiring Israeli soldiers to butcher many Palestinian civilians in the process of achieving that objective. By the time they have dealt with Hamas they will be so covered in blood as to be indistinguishable from the terrorists, which likely was the objective of the attack.

Is there another way? It seems clear than Palestinians and Israelis cannot live together as the existence of fundamentalist Muslims (and, increasingly, fundamentalist Jews) means that civil war is inevitable. Likewise, a two-state solution cannot work as they will share a border, again making war inevitable. The two populations must be separated.

My proposal involves the US prevailing upon the Israelis to temporally suspend their war in order to try this new strategy. The option of emigrating from Palestine is offered to Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza which will come with generous compensation for giving up their right to the land. Some people might be interested in moving to another Arab country where the language and culture would be familiar in exchange for money to get them settled in their new country. Others might opt to emigrate to America, again with some money to get them started. Finally, there will be those for whom neither option is acceptable. They will eventually be moved to Gaza, if they are not already there, by force if necessary.

When all the Palestinians who want to emigrate have left, those left behind will be the hardliners, now all concentrated in Gaza. With the West Bank recovered, Israel has won the Gazan war and so there is no need to resume of the war. With the Palestinians who are sick of war and want a chance to just live their lives now settled elsewhere, the Gazan War will have bettered the lives of most Palestinians, making the war a victory for those Palestinians. Gaza returns to the prison it was before October 7, 2023, but there will no longer be anyone left there who doesn’t want to be there. So, if another attack happens, Israel can simply slaughter everyone, they made their choice. In any case, the US will have exited the region.

Right now, Egypt and Jordan are unwilling and unable to accept any emigrants. They are poor countries and settling immigrants is expensive and disruptive. To change this, compensation would be provided to host governments to facilitate (and incent) accepting immigrants. During WW II American war spending provided stimulus equivalent of about $90 thousand per person today, which produced very positive economic results after the war. The GDP per capita of Eqypt is about a fifth that of the US and Jordan’s is lower. A economy-boosting stimulus to Eqypt, Jordan or other poor Arab countries in the region might be achieved with a payment of $18K per person. If each immigrant came with an $18K bonus attached to them, might not poor Arab countries be willing to take in Palestinian immigrants? There are 5.2 million Palestinians, so the total cost of placing all of them would be $94 billion. Right now, President Biden is calling for $100 billion in military aid to Israel and others. Might it not be a better idea to deploy this money towards a solution of the problem rather than just punish Hamas (and a lot of innocents who are going to get in the way)?

Getting host countries to be willing to accept emigrants is just part of the solution. You also have to get all the non-hardliners to voluntarily emigrate. This is critical. It is the separation of the innocent from the combatants. The deaths of innocents in war in a tragedy, while those of combatants is just what happens in war. It is necessary to remove all the innocents so that when the next war begins it only involves the combatants. Many Palestinians hold to an ideology that they have a right to return, and many in the Arab world agree with this sentiment. Those who emigrate will need to give up their claim to a right to return. They should receive compensation for what they are giving up, That is, they are selling their claim to this land in exchange for funds to help them set up a new and better life in another country. A country who will welcome them (because they too have been paid to do so).

It seems to me that this is a honorable way to resolve the dispute. Both sides cannot win, but the losing side receives compensation for their loss. In civil society, harmed parties typically receive monetary compensation and often are able to get on with their lives and even thrive. I have no idea on how much compensation it will take to get all but the Hamas-style hardliners to formally relinquish their claim to Palestine and leave their homes to go to another country. I will guess $100K per household, which comes to about $90 billion.

Israel stands to gain a great deal from this and I would expect they could pay $50 billion (10% of their GDP, or about what the US spent on the war on terror). There are other countries in the region who can afford to contribute to a solution and who owe us. The most obvious of these are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The US has been a friend to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We booted Iraqi forces out of Kuwait on the Saudis behalf in 1991. A decade later, 15 Saudi nationals, led by a Saudi multimillionaire, killed 3000 Americans on 911. Although the attack was carried out by jihadists, the source of their fundamentalist brand of Islam was Saudi, and wealthy Saudis fund fundamentalists like them. America has grounds for a beef with the Saudis.

I suggest the Saudis and Kuwaitis take 20% of the Palestinians and pay all costs out of their own funds. This influx would amount of 2.5% of their population. Settlement of the remaining Palestinians in Sunni Arab Levantine and North African countries would represent less than a 2% increase in their population and they would be colingual and coreligionists, so they should not be too disruptive. The Gulf contribution would save 20% of the American stimulus cost, leaving $25 million of the US contribution and reduce the $90 billion of compensation costs to $72 billion, which would be covered by the Israeli contribution and the remainder of the US contribution.

But why should the Saudis take any responsibility for dealing with the Palestinian problem? They did not create it, they don’t border the region and so don’t have to worry about refugees. Here is where the US can deploy her hegemonic power. First, we would point out that fifty years ago, the Saudis enacted an oil embargo that jump-started the inflation that destroyed the postwar economic order. They claimed this action was made on behalf of the Palestinians. Since then, they have done nothing to address the plight of the Palestinian people. Now is the time for them to make good on this claim. 

Next, we can note that both the 1973 embargo and 911 are acts of war. While Saudi oil and the special relationship certain members of the Saudi royal family they had with the Bush and Trump families have shielded them from any consequences from their hostility to America, that is over; it is a new day in America. If they and the Gulf Nations assist with this project, then the US can let bygones be bygones. Otherwise, things will be different. In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan we might find a US blockade of Gulf oil exports a useful policy. That is, we will ignore or even harm Saudi interests in what we choose to do.

In a post-hegemonic world, the US would still be a first-rate great power, just not the only one. The US Navy would remain the dominant power in the Western Indian Ocean for a long time. America would be able to make trouble for the Saudis and other Gulf states which China won’t even attempt to stop. The president will no longer need to issue a statement if pirates start hijacking tankers—after all, they might be ours (Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to issue Letters of Marque). My point is the US can make things difficult for them, so they might as well go along with what we want.