As an American Zionist, I’m used to defending Israel. Lately, that’s been getting more difficult to do because of the Palestinian problem. Instead of seeing the thriving, positive aspects of Israel, for too many people around the world the images of Israel are checkpoints, walls, barbed wire, and wreckage in Gaza. Netanyahu’s constant whining about Iran’s nuclear bomb program hasn’t helped either.

Having lived in Israel, I appreciate the existential threat posed by Muslim rejection of the very concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East. The constant stream of hate over the airwaves from Israel’s neighboring countries gave me nightmares. The gut-level desire to purge Israel of all non-Jews was something many Israelis didn’t even try to hide and I have to admit I felt that way too from time to time. However, the vast majority of Israelis are comfortable with both Christian and Muslim Israeli citizens, as long as they remain a small minority. And that is precisely the root of the current problem.

Many political commentators have correctly pointed to the demographical reality that Israel cannot remain both a democracy and a Jewish state in the long run unless the Palestinians get their own state. Even Ariel Sharon, long a proponent of an all-Jewish Greater Israel, came to that conclusion. The present situation, Gaza under the control of Hamas and the West Bank under the control of Fatah, with neither one an independent state is inherently unstable.

The basic concept of trading occupied land for peace worked once, with Egypt, and failed once, with Gaza, which demoralized Israel’s left wing. Then, there are two neighboring states still at war with Israel: Syria and Lebanon. Within ballistic missile range, Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Israel’s posture has become bi-polar; on the one hand offering to negotiate with a unified Palestinian entity (which doesn’t exist), and on the other incrementally buying and occupying West Bank land.

The Greater Israel movement thinks they will eventually get their wish. By reducing Palestinian territory to lacework filled in with Israelis, they aim to “de-Palestinianize” the West Bank. With respect to Gaza, they count on Hamas to start another round of rocket fire and bombings. Their idea is that the next time Gaza has to be invaded Israel will finish the job. By that, they mean deport all the Gazans to Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. I think these strategies are doomed to failure. At some point, West Bank Palestinians will revolt and I doubt the global community would countenance the ethnic cleansing of Gaza no matter how many rockets land on Tel Aviv.

My concern is that if the situation remains as it is and present trends continue we’ll face some version of the Greater Israel debacle within the next decade. The alternative is for Israel to take a pro-active role to establish two viable Palestinian entities, Palestine Gaza and Palestine West Bank that might someday unite politically, or not. The key word here is viable, in the economically successful sense. That means trade with Israel and Israeli jobs for Palestinians.

For Gaza, Israel should accept the long-term, open-ended truce offered by Hamas and call it peace. Recognize Hamas as the legitimate government in Gaza with no conditions other than renunciation of violence against Israel while the truce is in effect. Then, open the border even if it means body scans for every person and neutron scans of every truckload. Reopen Gaza’s airport and harbor. Do everything necessary to make Gaza both flourish and interdependent with Israel.

The West Bank Jewish settlers will have to be given a choice: move back to Israel proper (more or less pre-1967 borders) or give up voting rights in Israel. Those who stayed in the West Bank would become Jewish Palestinians and Israeli expatriates. In the West Bank they would be politically much as they were under the Ottoman caliphate and the British Empire, minus the pogroms. It’s anyone’s guess how many settlers would elect to live that way, but many will, holding onto the fantasy that the Palestinians will fail and leave the land to the Jews.

Israel should help Palestine set up a capital in East Jerusalem, similar to the way the Vatican has its own little city inside Rome, complete with fancy uniforms. I’m sure Hamas and Fatah will figure out how to sit in the same room with each other once they have their state, if only to argue about how to be represented at the United Nations.

But won’t “caving in” to the Palestinians weaken Israel and open them up for a bigger war, later? No. History teaches us that countries heavily interconnected economically don’t try to blow each other up. Third party enemies of Israel, such as Iranian or Syrian supported terrorists could attempt to use a weak Palestinian state as a launching pad for attacks. To the extent that Israeli-Palestinian peace is seen as beneficial to Muslims, Sunni and Shia alike, the risk of such “outside” terrorism may be reduced.

I haven’t said a thing about what the U.S.A. can do to move towards the two-and-a-half-state solution I sketched, above. That’s because I don’t think we Americans can do much except support the process once it’s initiated by Israel. We simply don’t have any real leverage. Withholding some aid or arms is politically impossible, thanks to broad support for Israel and a very effective quasi-lobby, AIPAC. Nor is there much American public support for Arabs or Muslims in general, which makes incentivizing the Palestinians difficult.

I’d like to celebrate Israel’s’ 100^th anniversary 38 years from now. But unless the Israelis come to realize the status quo is working against them and start moving rapidly to work with the realities on the ground I doubt they’ll get there.