First things first. I put Israel first because it’s first alphabetically in English.
I may have floated this idea on the SDMB before but don’t recall and really don’t feel like searching for it, mainly because I’m sure I didn’t work on developing it beyond just a kernel of an idea. So here’s the idea.
It seems to me a big part of the conflict in the area is two different groups want the whole area. Well, why not? Both groups get the entire area. I believe it’s called co-location. Everyone in the area will be subject to their group’s rules.
Of course there will be some things where the two groups need to get together, such as infrastructure. I see that as little different than how neighboring countries or states deal with issues such as use of common waterways.
Mind you, Israel seems to have already started this concept long ago without even realizing it. The Israeli government has ceded marriage and some other family law matters to the religious establishments. What I’m suggesting here is extending the concept.
Yeah, I’m sure it’s a “pie in the sky” idea. But, really, what’s so wrong about this idea? Is it completely unworkable and if so, why?
No, each group gets a fraction of the area that is dispersed across the whole area. Take your QR code avatar for example–black and white are spread across an area, but black doesn’t get the whole area, and neither does white.
Look at it at a smaller scale–there is a Palestinian family that lived at 1315 Olive Tree Lane from 1876 to 1950. There is an Israeli family that has lived at 1315 Olive Tree Lane from 1950 to 2024. Both families want to live at 1315 Olive Tree Lane. How do both families get 1315 Olive Tree Lane? If it doesn’t make sense to say that both familes get all of that house, it doesn’t make sense that says both groups get all of Israel.
As I mentioned in the OP, they’re already doing this somewhat. Each group has control over the entire area for certain aspects of life in the area. The broader question is why does control have to equal exclusive control of an area?
You could have a system of power-sharing between communities, as in Northern Ireland. Or you could envisage two states in an EU-style relationship, with a high degree of economic unity, freedom of movement, and so on. But those assume goodwill and compromise by all parties (or all but tiny minorities without internal or external support).
The negative comparator would be the power-sharing system in Lebanon: the downside of governmental gridlock and corruption.
Lebanon is a very relevant example. Citizens there are registered by religion, and some services typically provided by a central state are instead provided by each religious community.
As @PatrickLondon says, it takes goodwill and compromise. And it didn’t exactly work in Lebanon: the country is still reeling from the catastrophic 1975-90 civil war.
Personally, I think a similar setup in Israel/Palestine would end in a conflict that was orders of magnitude worse than the Lebanese civil war.
Fatah and Hamas disagree as to who decides the rules for Palestine.
Saudi Arabia insults Israel. Israel passes retaliatory tariffs. Palestine declines to reciprocate.
Israel passes taxes to fortify its military defense systems in anticipation of future Jordanian aggression. Palestine declines to lend any support to the initiative.
Palestinian law prohibits same sex marriage. Israeli law permits it if legal in the jurisdiction the marriage was entered into. A Palestinian man marries an Israeli man via a remote service in Utah.
Israeli employee works for Palistinian employer or vice versa.
Israeli citizen buys product from Palistinian merchant or vice versa. Tax implications, liability for defective product.
Majority Israeli citizens in a region want to organize a local ordinance (curfew, noise level, parking, etc) binding upon minority Palistinian neighbors, or vice versa.
A child is born to a Palestinian father and an Israeli mother.
Belgium has tried something of this sort. The country comprises three regions that are geographically defined (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels) and three communities which are ethnically defined (Flemish, French, German). The idea was that regions and communities would each have their own institutions, and that the communities would be in charge of cultural affairs such as schooling, but not confined to the territory of the respective region. As I understand it the distinction between regions and communities has been largely abolished, with each community having jurisdiction over the territory of the corresponding region; with the exception of Brussels, where both the Flemish and the French communities operate schools. It’s a complete mess, and Belgium is not generally considered one of the better run countries in the EU.
Another “problem” is when a smaller group is spread out into a larger group over the long term the smaller group tends to be absorbed into the bigger one and lose its distinct identity. That used to be one of the stated ideals of the United States, to be a “melting pot”. And from a purely logical stance that makes sense to me as a solution. But people aren’t purely logical, they not only want their children to survive, but to maintain their traditional culture identity going forward. And the more diluted you are in the stew the less you are thought of as a specific ingredient. Lots of carrots don’t want to be a mushy orange bit.
That’s, at best, only half of the “melting pot” concept. The newcomers change, yes, but so do those who were already here. When you melt tin into a cauldron of copper, the tin doesn’t turn into copper. Rather, the whole thing becomes bronze.