The Palestinian Peace Formula: Land for Capital
What Gaza was like before the war!
This article was born from the wisdom of Rabbi Asher Kushnir and his brilliant ability to explain the subtleties of Torah in Russian in a manner that leaves no doubt. In one of his sermons, the wise rabbi urged us to reflect on how and why we acquired our property.
This is a vital question, especially when it comes to the Gaza Strip and the protracted underground war that recently ended there. It concerns the very cause of this war and, consequently, the formula for a peace agreement. A real one, not a temporary one.
The land issue in Palestine
The immediate cause of the ongoing conflict is precisely the unjust acquisition of land by Israel and Israelis since 1948.
At that time, all of Palestine's land was divided into three main categories. Arab-owned land comprised 12-13 million dunams (a dunam, in Ottoman usage, was 1000 square meters, or 10 ares, or 0,1 hectares), or 48-50% of the territory. Jewish-owned land comprised 1,5-2 million dunams, or 6-7%. It should be emphasized that, prior to 1948, Jewish land had either belonged to Jews from time immemorial, as local residents, or had been purchased from Palestinians for cash. To achieve this, Zionists organized fundraising and contributions to settle settlers in Palestine. The remainder, consisting of desert, mountains, and other uninhabited land, comprised state, communal, or no-man's-land—11,5-12 million dunams, or approximately 45% of the territory. In 1948, this land was considered a British mandate. In fact, all residents of Palestine, Jews and Arabs, had rights to it.
Jaffa in 1929
In 1948, a plan was developed to divide Palestine into a Jewish state (14 thousand square kilometers or 56% of the territory), an Arab state (11,1 thousand square kilometers or 44% of the territory), and a special Jerusalem under UN control – 1% of the land.
However, as a result of the war that began in 1948, the Jews seized a total of 17 million dunams (17 square kilometers), driving approximately 750 Arabs from their lands and cities. The Arabs were left with approximately 6 million dunams (6 square kilometers) of land. This primarily consists of the West Bank (5,6 square kilometers) and the Gaza Strip (365 square kilometers). Of the West Bank, approximately 60% of land (Area C) is under Israeli military control. In terms of ownership, 62% of the West Bank and 98% of the Gaza Strip are privately owned.
In Israel, 93% of land is owned by the state or the Jewish National Fund and is leased only. Jewish and Arab private owners each own 3,5% of the land. Arab land ownership in Israel amounts to approximately 770 dunams.
As a result of all the upheavals, Palestinians were left with approximately 4,6 million dunams of land, or approximately 35% of the previous private land area.
Property disputes typically avoid accounting for who owns what; they instead rely on emotions. However, the fact is that Palestinians lost most of their land, 8,4 million dunams, as well as real estate—houses, buildings, and other assets, mostly looted during the 1948 war and its immediate aftermath.
And this is the root of the conflict. Deprived of land and property, Palestinians were expelled from Israeli territory and found themselves in neighboring states: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. The population of the Gaza Strip is the descendants of these exiles, and they remember everything very well. Reconciliation with Israel without compensation for these property losses is impossible. Land is a source of livelihood; Palestinians were primarily farmers. Being expelled from their land deprived them of this source of livelihood.
Why did this happen? The answer is simple. Back then, it was "allowed." Among the Palestinians, there were plenty of supporters of the Jerusalem mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a friend of Hitler's. For this reason, when Jews who had suffered at the hands of the Nazis rushed to rob Arabs in Palestine who had supported Hitler's friend, the great powers turned a blind eye. But 80 years have passed, generations have passed, and the problem remains, tinged with the question: why should the grandson of an Arab landowner robbed by the Israelis be denied his inheritance rights?
Israelis and Israel's supporters often asked: why didn't the Arab states settle the Palestinians? Why would they? Firstly, arable land in neighboring countries is scarce, and allocating land to Palestinians would mean infringing on their own farmers. But most importantly, secondly, why did neighboring countries commit to compensating for the plunder committed by the Israelis?
Reconciliation without compensation for the loss of land and property by Israel to the Palestinians—the descendants of the owners—means consent to and approval of this robbery. If the Palestinians reconcile under these conditions, they officially acknowledge their own robbery, are deprived of all rights, and may be expelled from both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. If neighboring countries reconcile under these same conditions, they are approving an act of robbery, which could lead to further acts of robbery against them. But why? It already has—in the form of the seizure of parts of Syria and Lebanon. Therefore, the conflict, periodically escalating into war, has lasted for decades and shows no sign of abating.
External powers are joining this internal conflict. For example, the war in Gaza was very actively supported by Iran, which supplied the Hamasites. weapon and supplies, and Egypt, which allowed huge piles of weapons and cargo to be transported through its territory from the ports to the tunnel entrances. The ceasefire in Gaza was achieved by the US pressuring Egypt to freeze its support for Hamas. But the conflict immediately found another channel of escalation— rocket war between Israel and Iran, with subsequent expansion throughout the region.
Money or capital for land
You can fight for a hundred years or more, but a formula for peace is still needed. In this case, the formula for peace is obvious, though it is hysterically rejected by Israel and all who support it: compensation for seized land and property.
Incidentally, the price tag wasn't all that high in 1948 either. Back then, a dunam of agricultural land cost between 5 and 20 pounds sterling. The UN Commission on Palestine estimated the value of Arab land, rural and urban, seized by the Israelis at 100 million pounds sterling. At the then exchange rate of 4 dollars to the pound sterling, that's 400 million dollars.
Even taking into account the value of houses, buildings, movable property and valuables, the amount of compensation would hardly have exceeded $1 billion in 1948 prices.
In many cases, Palestinian real estate was a rather arbitrary concept at that time.
Moreover, during the war years, from 1939 to 1945, Jews in the United States raised a total of $125 million, and in 1946–1947, over $500 million was raised for aid and repatriation of Jewish concentration camp survivors. Financial aid was provided to Israel continuously. For example, from 1948 to 1967, Israel received approximately $7 billion in aid from the United States. There are numerous other examples demonstrating that Israel, in principle, had the funds to resolve this issue. Moreover, had such a request been raised, the funds would undoubtedly have been found, perhaps not all at once, but in tranches over several years.
This would solve a number of serious problems. First, the Israelis would no longer be subject to any claims regarding the land—it would have been purchased. Second, the Palestinians, with the money for the land and houses, would indeed disperse to other Arab countries, where they would be welcome guests and could buy land, houses, and businesses.
Even after a series of upheavals and wars with neighbors, the issue of compensation for land and property could have been resolved quite elegantly. The Gaza Strip could have been transformed into a kind of "Middle Eastern Singapore."
Singapore, before its economic boom, had conditions very similar to Gaza.
This is also Singapore in the 1950s - the slums have long since disappeared.
The Strip's area wasn't much smaller than Singapore's (Gaza is 365 square kilometers, while the original Singapore, excluding the added land, was 580 square kilometers) and was located in a very busy spot—from Gaza to the entrance of the Suez Canal is 122 miles, or 6 to 10 hours of shipping time for a bulk carrier. Several port areas lined the Strip's coastline, followed by warehouses, various processing and manufacturing facilities, all staffed by Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, services, finance, banks, and its own airport (it exists, but has long been closed).
Naturally, investment would be required. Capital could be raised through Jewish businesses in the US and Europe. A management fund would then be created, which would own and invest, distributing the resulting profits among both investors and Palestinians, who would be registered as shareholders in the capital, based on their land and real estate holdings, and various compensation payments. These shares would be paid out of the profits until a specified amount was reached. After this, the owner or their heirs could either receive the cash or invest their shares in the fund and become investors, receiving dividends on the profits.
The fund has a supervisory board consisting of representatives from Palestine and Israel. Once the shares are paid out, a comprehensive agreement on mutual settlement of claims is signed.
Land as a source of livelihood can be replaced by capital. Israel could and had every opportunity to exchange land once seized in the heat of the moment for capital, which would have been earned immediately. The sums involved aren't that large. $400 million in 2026 prices is only $5,5 billion. What would it be like to earn $15-20 billion in net capital and use it to cover all the losses?!
Moreover, the "Middle Eastern Singapore" scheme is advantageous because it provides for repayable investments, solves an important political problem, and creates a strong economic and mutually beneficial relationship between Israel and Palestine. This "Middle Eastern Singapore" would continue to serve the interests of both countries and the investors who invested their capital. Finally, it would be possible to regulate relations with all neighbors.
Rav Kushnir explains the subtleties of the Torah
From this perspective, one can appreciate the wisdom of Rabbi Asher Kushnir: plundered property also breeds enmity, enemies, and conflicts, including armed ones, which Israel loses. It loses because the war in Gaza was not resolved on its terms and in its interests. It is more of a truce than an end to the war.
The peace formula—exchanging land for capital—remains. Achieving it has become more difficult than in the 1980s. Bills are mounting, and compensation will have to be paid not only for what was taken in 1948 but also for what was destroyed in 2024–2025. The capital required to restore Gaza to its former glory has also increased exponentially. However, even so, the door to compromise has not yet closed.
Information