In a recent Haaretz opinion piece, leading Israeli security expert Chuck Freilich wrote that it’s time to give up on the “mindless ‘two-state solution’ mantra.” There’s no way that Israel will get the security guarantees it needs in a two state solution, so it’s time to get honest and to move on.

That, he believes, is the main contribution of the Trump “Riviera” plan—it’s likely not realistic, but it shakes things up and will now get people to think outside the tired, old box.

In our conversation which covers a lot of territory and a host of issues, Freilich explains the new idea for a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation, what land Egypt gives up, what Israel gives up, what Jordan gives up.

And, he shares his thoughts about the future of Israel, even in these very troubled times.

The link at the top of this posting will take you to the full recording of our conversation; below you will find a transcript for those who prefer to read, prepared for our paid subscribers.

Prof. Chuck Freilich, a former deputy national security advisor in Israel and long-time senior fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School, now teaches at Columbia and Tel Aviv University. He is the author of three books on Israeli national security affairs, as well as numerous academic articles, policy studies and op-eds. A frequent commentator on TV and radio, he is a riveting speaker, with a lively and at times irreverent approach to the foibles of Israeli life. A New Yorker by birth, Freilich made aliyah (immigrated) to Israel in his early teens. For a more comprehensive bio, click here.

To read his recent Haaretz article, click here.

To view Chuck’s books, click the images below.

I'm delighted, especially in these confusing and intellectually titillating to have back someone who's been on the podcast many times, someone from whom I always learn and whose appearances on the podcast always elicit many positive responses. Chuck Freilich is a former Deputy National Security Advisor in Israel, a longtime Senior Fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, who now teaches at Columbia and Tel Aviv University. He is the author of three books, which we've discussed in the past here on Israeli National Security Affairs, as well as numerous articles, policy studies, op-eds.

We're going to speak actually today about a more recent op-ed of his, which appeared in Haaretz just a week or two ago, which is called "Israel won the war. This is how Trump can help it win the peace," but we're going to come back to that. Chuck's full bio is on the notes for today's session. He is also now a senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies here in Israel and is really just one of the most highly regarded experts on Israeli security and related to that, diplomacy and so forth. Delighted to have him back on the program to help us understand what's going on. Chuck, I want to talk about two basic things. One of them is, they're related, but one of them, of course, is the Trump plan. You were quoted in the New York Times a few days ago saying that it's never going to happen, but it's actually a good thing that it's in the mix.

I'd like you to explain at greater length to us today than the New York Times was able to do why you think that is. Then I want to talk about your broader vision for the region. You wrote in Haaretz that it's time to stop, and here's the quote, "a mindless two-state mantra." A two-state solution is not going to happen, but you have in mind something else. I'd like to hear what you think that is, what it would take both on the Israeli side and the Palestinian side for that to even be remotely possible. We have a ton to talk about. Let's get started. First of all, thanks again. Tell us what a thoughtful, moral, Zionist, hopeful person should think and feel as they watch this Trump proposal for Gaza unfold?

Well, first of all, it's good to be back on this program, and thanks for having me. Let me say it's hard in the current political climate in the US to say anything positive about either side because the people on the other side just won't countenance it. Of course, most of the Jewish community is on the democratic left. If Trump comes up with a new idea, people are instinctively against it. I'm not saying that to support the idea because I don't think it is in any a way, a realistic one. I don't think it was thought out. As the President's spokesperson said, it was written as he was speaking.

Do you believe that, by the way? I mean, do you really think he was standing in front of the podium and he, hu shalaf et zeh, as we say in Hebrew, just pulled it out of his pocket?

Well, he was reading at least part of the time from a prepared statement, so it wasn't totally ad-libbed. Trump has the advantage and disadvantage of not really knowing a great deal about what he's talking about at any given moment. Now, two million Palestinians are not going to be transferred from Gaza. It's not going to happen, and nobody's going to support forcibly doing that.

And they don't want to go on their own, right? So you're not voluntarily removing-

I think a fair number actually would like to. Would you really want to go home to a pile of rubble?

Well, No. But let me just say, are you talking about a permanent move or a temporary move? Because if you were going to say a temporary move and I'm going to go somewhere else while the United States and other international forces rebuild Gaza, fine. But I think sometimes we tend to underestimate their attachment to the land and assume that our attachment to the land is a deeply held thing. This is, by the way, Jabotinsky pointed this out more than a century ago or about a century ago. But their love of their land is, I think, as powerful as our love of our land. So, yeah, nobody wants to go back to rubble, but do you think that they would voluntarily move out for good, even a substantial number of them?

I think a substantial number, yes, and I'm not in any way taking away from their commitment to their cause, to their land. I think it's just human nature that at least a certain and not insubstantial number of people would want to dramatically improve their quality of life. Much to my regret, I'm trying to think of a much stronger word, 80,000 Israelis left Israel last year.

And you think that's part of the same thing? They think that they can find a better way of life given that Israel is facing what it's facing now?

Our situation is infinitely better than that of the Gazans. But let me step back for a minute. Trump, in his just shoot in all directions, free-thinking manner, did identify a very, very serious problem that no one has really paid attention to in all of the talk about the two-state solution. Gaza has a population of just over 2 million today. Its population doubles approximately every 20 years, meaning that in 2045, there will be 4 million people there, and in 2065, 8 million, et cetera, et cetera. Gaza is tiny. It isn't viable. It's not a place that people can live in in any semi-decent way in its current borders.

So if one wants to reach, whether it's a two-state solution or some other solution, but a viable one, you have to address that problem. And you can do that either by decreasing Gaza's population, as Trump was indicating, or by expanding Gaza's size. And I'll come back to that. There are ways of doing that. But I think by raising the problem, throwing it out there, and raising an idea which really enraged the Arab world, as anyone who knows anything about the Arab world would understand that it would do, and the Palestinians, first and foremost, he is forcing them to think about the issue and maybe to come up. And he said himself, by the way, at one point, They don't like this, so come back with a different proposal. So from that point of view, I think there is something positive in what he did.

Now, so what you're saying is, look, we're not going to... The current situation is untenable. And as you say in the Haaretz article, what you call the two-state mantra, you call it mindless. In other words, there are certain people certain groups, certain populations, a lot of them Jews, a lot of them Jews in the diaspora, who keep coming back to the two-state solution as being the only equitable way of solving this. And your point in that article, and we'll come back to it, is, come on, guys, give that up. That's just simply not happening.

What you're saying essentially is the current situation is untenable, and it's going to get even more untenable. Two-state solution is pie in the sky, not going to happen in any way as far as the eye can see. Therefore, what Trump has done is to shake things up, to try to everybody to understand business as usual is not going to work. We have to think completely out of the box. Is that a fair assessment of what you're saying so far?

It is. But it's important for me to say I've been a lifelong supporter of the two-state solution. I was coming to the conclusion in ...