The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is defined by crucial intertwining elements that can, and should be, satisfactorily addressed. Examples of said elements are geography, water, timing, religion, security and dignity. The present consequences to this dynamic, which are nothing short of disastrous, include a bottomless vortex of hatred, rage, death, unaffordable loss of treasure, and indescribable sorrow. Perhaps their respective leaders might benefit from watching the movie Law Abiding Citizen. It realistically depicts, with peerless performances, the extent to which the progression from sorrow to hate and rage can propel someone to lethal unrelenting revenge. As it pertains to the unfolding Israeli-Palestinian saga, untold thousands of such individuals exist, on both sides.

Numerous proposals regarding the fate of Palestinians in general, and of Gazans in particular, have emerged. In 1968 Israel advanced the idea to encourage Gazans to move to the West Bank and then to Jordan and other Arab states. That same year, a U.S. Congressional committee proposed a voluntary relocation of 200,000 Gazans to other countries. Neither materialized, primarily because many intended nations refused to accept them. Another idea is to relocate all Gazans to the Sinai Peninsula, which is part of Egypt. In 2000, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies published a plan whereby Egypt would cede 720 square kilometers in Sinai, including coastal areas and the city of El-Arish to the Palestinians. Israel would then formally annex Gaza and part of the West Bank and compensate Egypt with an equivalent territory in the Wadi Feiran region of the Negev Desert, security concessions, and some economic privileges. However, shortly before his death, ex-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak rejected the proposal fearing that de facto ethnic cleansing to Egypt might drag it into a war with Israel and ultimately threaten his country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Worth noting is that in a manner reminiscent of the 1938 Munich conference where the fate of the Sudetenland was settled between Nazi Germany and the western allies without the consent or even attendance of Czechoslovakia, no one asked Gazans for prior approval.

The most radical solution is the current Israeli’s government avowed destruction of Hamas in tandem with a program to eradicate Palestinian hatred of Israel. This implies that most Palestinians do not, at heart, align with and support Hamas, and that it is possible to mandate and enforce how all Palestinians will henceforth feel about Israel. The reality is that in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority is viewed as ineffective and weak because it has been unable to deliver Palestinian statehood, the popularity of Hamas has soared. If true, then a final solution of Hamas would require a Palestinian Holocaust. Given the long history of virulent animosity between the two populations, a far more modest and reasonable approach might be to aim for each other’s voluntary tolerance and acceptance.

There are three sobering realities that might, in time, help stop the bloodshed. One is that the will to compromise, which exists in all of us, can eventually overcome any barbarian urge. Secondly, never in recorded history has any belligerent won all its battles and wars, including Hannibal, Rome, and the United States. Even Alexander the Great was compelled to retreat from India. On this vein, the fast-growing military symbiosis between Russia and Iran featuring, among other things, planned transfers of SU-35s from the former to the latter has ominous implications for both the U.S and Israel. Thirdly, in view of its current intractable domestic divide, unprecedented acute challenges in Ukraine and Taiwan, enormous perennial budget deficits, ballooning debt, reduced demand for U.S. treasuries, and declining use of the dollar as an international medium of exchange, it seems risky for Israel, a relatively young nation in its present incarnation, to assume that the status quo will remain unchanged.

The religious aspect of this conflict centers around Jerusalem. It is beyond the scope of these few words to enter the realm of theology except to warn, should it be necessary, about the consequences of religious wars. One unrelated and unbiased example is the saga of the ancient lowland Maya. Their admirable civilization collapsed roughly 600 years before the Spanish conquest after centuries, if not millennia, of non-stop warfare with religious undertones.

There’s also the issue of personalities. Some leaders simply will not compromise even if their inflexible attitude does not align with a majority of voters. One way to settle this ambiguity once and for all is to conduct separate binding plebiscites in both Israel and Palestine. That way, based on answers to specific questions, voters would irrevocably instruct their elected representatives which path to follow. Two such questions might be whether they are willing to compromise, without preconditions and limitations, on the status of Jerusalem, and if they are willing to recognize each other’s right to exist in peace in two separate and contiguous but fully sovereign states with inviolable borders.

Incidentally, a suggested comprehensive solution based on direct geographic and demographic swaps between Israelis and Palestinians, including the water dispute, has already been presented.