The Failsafes chapter described the insurance Israel keeps against Palestinian state failure. This chapter is about the opposite and better investment: what the region does, before Israeli withdrawal, to make the new state succeed. It exists because the most realistic way this plan fails is not an Israeli betrayal or a Palestinian rejection. It is a vacuum.
The worry, stated plainly
Israel has withdrawn from Palestinian territory before, and the aftermath is the strongest card in every skeptic's hand. Within two years of the 2005 disengagement, Gaza fell into a brief civil war, and the faction with the most guns won it. Nothing about today's starting conditions is more reassuring. The Palestinian Authority is weak and unpopular; its leadership is very old; its security forces are distrusted by the public they police; and no obvious successor, party, or process commands broad legitimacy. A withdrawal that creates a vacuum invites a contest for the vacuum, and the contestant with the most rifles and the most money from abroad starts with the advantage.
The plan's mechanism is built to survive that scenario. A contested or even failed Palestinian state does not break the schedule: attacks are priced, the queue advances, the incentives keep operating, and the plan simply runs as written while those incentives do their slow work (Objection 8 on the Objections page treats this in full). But surviving the worst case is the floor, not the goal. It is in nearly everyone's interest — Israeli, Palestinian, and regional — that the mechanism is never tested at scale, and that Palestine remains as whole as possible, as close to its full 110% as possible, for as long as possible. That outcome does not happen by hoping. It happens by preparation, and the preparation cannot come from Israel.
The steward: an Arab-led compact
Israel cannot midwife Palestinian institutions; anything Israel builds is delegitimized by the fact that Israel built it. The West cannot do it either: its attention is short and its fingerprints carry their own history. The actors with the legitimacy, the proximity, the money, and the self-interest are the Arab states.
The plan therefore assigns the central regional role to an Arab-led stabilization compact, endorsed by the Arab League and executed by a coalition of the committed: Egypt, which shares the Gaza border and gains the Rafah logistics economy; Jordan, with its long security-training tradition and its deep stake in a stable West Bank; Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whose capital funds the development program and whose normalization is the plan's regional prize; and plausibly Qatar, whose long relationship with Hamas becomes useful the moment the task is persuading militants to stand down rather than up. The trade at the heart of the compact is straightforward, and it is the same trade the region has been circling for years: full recognition and normalization for Israel, in exchange for Israeli withdrawal, Palestinian statehood — and stewardship of that statehood's success. The third element is the new one, and it is the one that matters most.
One structural point keeps the whole arrangement workable. The compact is not part of the Israeli framework, and it does not implement "the Israeli plan." It is a sovereign Arab-Palestinian undertaking to build the Palestinian state: a state that will exist regardless of anyone's opinion about how its independence came about. As part of this design, Palestinian leaders can denounce the framework and enroll in the compact's programs in the same week, without contradiction. Like the adjudication body, the compact demands no blessing of the plan from anyone; it simply builds.
The runway: the years before independence
The plan's execution sequence (see The Path to Adoption) leaves a period of roughly two to three years between Israel's border declaration and independence day. That period is the runway, and the compact spends it on state formation:
- A transitional government, convened with the compact, drawing on the Palestinian Authority's existing institutions, technocrats, business figures, and the diaspora: a government of administrators for the transition, not a government of factions.
- The gendarmerie, built, vetted, trained, and equipped during the runway, so that the state's security force exists before the state does. Establishing a monopoly on the use of force is job one; everything else in this chapter depends on it.
- A demobilization path for militia members: vetting into the gendarmerie for those who qualify, jobs on the development projects for those who disarm, and prosecution for those who do neither. The escrow's construction boom is deliberately timed to be hiring during exactly the years the militias are shrinking.
- The machinery of daily statehood: a currency and a central bank, customs, courts, a civil service, tax administration, land registries, and the practical thousand things a functioning state runs on. Much of this exists in embryo within the PA; much of it does not, and the compact's job is to close the gap on a schedule, with Gulf financing and Arab technical staff.
- Quiet Israeli assistance where both sides want it (intelligence, deconfliction, technical cooperation): always invited, always deniable, never advertised, exactly as the Failsafes chapter's assistance doctrine prescribes.
Ballots after barracks
The hardest sequencing question is elections, and the plan answers it with the lesson of 2006 and 2007: a state must own its violence before its ballots can be safe. Elections held while factions still keep private armies are not a referendum; they are a contest to see which armed movement can convert popularity into permanent power, and the last time this was tried, the winner used its victory to throw its rivals off rooftops.
So the sequence is: the transitional government governs the runway and the state's first years; the first national elections occur on an automatic, published date, in the state's second or third year, consistent with everything else in this plan, which fixes its dates in advance and lets no one's behavior move them. Any party may contest those elections, including Hamas, subject to one condition that applies identically to every party: parties, yes; private armies, no. A movement that wants to govern Palestine may do so by winning votes, once it no longer maintains a militia. This is not an ideological test, and it is not an Israeli demand; it is the ordinary rule of statehood everywhere, and it has a working precedent in exactly this kind of transition: Sinn Féin contested elections while the IRA decommissioned its weapons.
Beyond that single rule, the plan imposes nothing: no vetted candidate lists, no banned ideologies, no required attitude toward Israel or toward the framework itself. The compact, as a sovereign donor and steward, may attach whatever conditions it likes to its own money and its own assistance. That is the ordinary leverage of those who fund a transition, and it belongs to the Arab states, not to this document. The plan's own dates and rules stay automatic.
A neighbor, not a project
It is worth being explicit about what the finished product is, because the finished product is not a friend. Egypt is at peace with Israel and sets its own tone toward Israel: cooler and warmer by the decade, hostile in its press and cooperative in its security services, entirely as Cairo sees fit. Jordan is the same. The plan expects nothing more from Palestine, and it is designed to need nothing more.
Palestine, in this sense, becomes just another neighbor of Israel — the most important one and the trickiest one, given how close the border runs to Israeli population centers, but a neighbor, not a project. Its government's attitude toward Israel will oscillate the way Egypt's does, and that is what normal looks like in this region.
A cold, correct, oscillating peace is the realistic ceiling here, and the plan says so. Measured against every other page of this conflict's history, a cold peace is a transformed world.
If the worst government wins anyway
Preparation improves the odds; it does not guarantee the outcome. So the plan must answer the scenario every Israeli reader is already imagining: some years in, a rejectionist government takes power in Palestine, through a coup the compact fails to prevent, or through the very elections this chapter defends, and begins, openly, to dig tunnels and build drone factories. What then? Israelis watching a hostile neighbor arm itself would pay a psychological cost every single day, even if deterrence ultimately holds. Would the plan really ask Israel to watch in silence?
No, and this scenario is why the mechanism prices violations, not only attacks. The weapons tiers and the foreign-forces ban are adjudicated obligations, and an adjudicated violation is a ledger event: development tranches are struck, permanently, with findings that repeat and escalate as long as the violation persists. The pricing is in money only, never in land (land prices blood, money prices metal), but the meter runs, visibly, in the calculator, on the tunnel program itself. Israel's instrument is the ruling and the running meter, not the airstrike: under a live framework, an Israeli strike on Palestinian territory is an Israeli violation, and violence that follows it would be adjudicated as provoked. The self-binding cuts both ways or it cuts nothing.
And at the top of the ladder sits the provision built for the true nightmare. If the violation reaches industrial scale (ballistic missile production lines, a foreign garrison, armament that can only be read as preparation for war), the adjudication body can certify it as crossing the act-of-war threshold before a single rocket flies. Certification suspends the framework, publicly and with published reasoning, and the parties revert to the conventional world, where Israel's options are governed by ordinary international law rather than by the schedule. Israel never faces the choice between watching in silence and unilaterally shredding its own plan: below the threshold, it points at the meter; above it, the framework suspends first, formally, and Israel acts second. (One temptation deserves honest mention: covert sabotage. Every Israeli government will feel it, and if caught, it carries the same provocation consequences as an open strike. The plan's answer is to make the two lawful instruments effective enough that the third is never worth its price.)
Suspension, finally, is not designed to be the end of the story. The framework is built to be reinstated after the war that suspension implies: unilaterally by Israel, exactly as it was first imposed, so that no faction holds a veto over restoration, and better still with the compact's concurrence or by mutual agreement with a post-war Palestinian government, which is the likeliest ending, since the war that suspends the framework is most plausibly ended by the fall of the government that caused it. Reinstatement restores the pre-war ledger; the borders will not have moved, because they never move; the war itself is not additionally priced in land, because the war was the consequence; the sunset clocks resume where they paused; and the escrow, frozen during the suspension, reopens. The case for re-entering the plan after a war is the same as the case for adopting it before one: every alternative will have just failed again, at the usual cost.
For more discussion, see the FAQs "Won't Israeli withdrawal cause a Palestinian civil war?", "Who governs Palestine on day one?", and "What happens if the framework is suspended and a war follows?" on the FAQ page.
Next: Jerusalem