The David Knight Show - Interview: The Swiss Solution to Israel and Palestine

Episode Date: September 11, 2026

What if the choice between endless war and an impossible two-state solution is a false one? David Beito and Israeli peace activist Phil Saunders make the case for a radically decentralized alternative for Israel and Palestine—modeled on Switzerland’s cantons, where hostile religious, ethnic, and linguistic communities learned to share a country without surrendering local self-government. Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. that is what they want to take away.

Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. The David Knight Show.com. Well, joining us now are a couple of gentlemen who have an interesting approach to what do we do about the problems in Israel and the Middle East.

You know, we hear so much about war all the time, but we don't hear too much about hope and peace. And so we're going to be talking to a founder of a local organization that's in Israel that has had a lot of success at the local grassroots level in terms of bringing people together. And we want to talk about how you get past this long history that is tit for tat that is happening there. I'm very interested to see what he has to say. His group is the path of hope and peace. But also going to be talking to David Beto. And he's got an interesting article that just came out in The Independent. And he's looking at it from the top level.

You know, what do we do in terms of a governance system? Instead of a two-slate solution, is there maybe something else that we could do? So we wanted to talk to him first about that, about the, high-level aspect of it. And then we need to get down to the grassroots because that's really where it has to happen. It's got to happen with the people-to-people attitudes that have to be changed. So we're going to talk to Phil with the path of hope and peace. And we'll be talking to him in just a moment. But let's begin with you, David. Thank you for joining us. Well, thank you so much. This is a very different topic than the last one, which was my book about

FDR. I've always been very, very interested in decentralized, federal solutions, mutual aid kind of thing. So a few years ago, I read an article about this guy Leon Lowe, and he proposed a solution for South Africa based on the Swiss model. This was in the 80s, and he even got Winnie Mandela to write an introduction, but it was too late. And South Africa ended up as a unitarian majority state, which has created some problems and some tensions. So they never really went down that road. But I really liked the idea of a Canton solution and read a little bit about what's going on in Israel, Palestine, and found out that there were some people pushing for that kind of solution there. And so I wrote an article about it a few years ago and got very little attention. But then I got a phone call

from Phil Saunders, who we're going to be speaking with. Phil Saunders is involved with several organizations, including the federal forum. And he said, we really like what you're calling for here, David. A lot of our members agree with it. And basically, what they were calling for was something like us, Switzerland, which has two dozen cantons. They are self-governing. They can have their own official languages, their own official churches. That's where the action is. And they have a very weak federal government, a rotating presidential council. And many Swiss don't even know what the name of their president is, which I rather like. I talked about that many times. I thought, wouldn't it be nice if we didn't know? One year. Yeah. Only served one year. Wow. Wouldn't it be

And we didn't know who the president was in the United States. And it's worked quite well. And if you look at the parallels of Switzerland and Israel and Palestine, they're rather close. About same size, same population. And similar level of ethnic and religious divisions. And we tend to say, well, that's different because, you know, there are various hues of Christian. Well, it wasn't so different during the Reformation. when people all around Switzerland were slaughter each other.

That's right. 12% of the population of neighboring the neighboring Habsburg lands, for example, was wiped out, which makes Gaza look rather tame. So anyway, I've been participating in Phil's groups, one of his groups, the Federal Forum. They are trying to build support among Americans and in Europe to get the message out. They're not asking for U.S. intervention. They're not asking for foreign aid. They just want people to be aware that there's an alternative out here to two-state solution or whatever you call today, which is hopelessness.

And so I guess I'll turn it over to fill. When you go back in a look at Switzerland, as you point out, you know, there were some key religious differences, even though there were Christians. But it's a country that has, you know, part of it is German speaking, part of it is Italian and part of it is French. and they found a way to get around even those language differences, which is a key thing. I mean, we're talking about having a government document. We've got to send things to the Supreme Court, supposedly, to get an interpretation because we can't evidently read it for ourselves. But imagine if it was written in several different languages.

So they do have a common language, I guess, of government Romanish or something like that. But for the most part, you go different parts of Switzerland. You see signs in different languages there. So it was a system that was designed to help people. negotiate these cultural, linguistic, religious differences that they had there. I think you're on to something. But let's talk a little bit to Phil Saunders. Thank you for joining us, Phil.

And again, your organization is Path of Hope and Peace. Tell us a little bit about that from the grassroots up. How did that ever start? It started in one village, but I mean, how do you get to the point where people are not killing each other and they start talking to each other? Okay. Well, it happened for me because I just didn't. happened to move in 2014 to right next to the Green Line. I live in a town named Suhadasa

and it's a modern Israeli town but at the bottom of the hill, on the other side of the Green Line is a small Palestinian village and then on the other side of that is a large ultra-Orthodox Israeli settlement. And so those three communities are very different and there are a few Palestinian towns in this area. And the extraordinary thing is that the Palestinians have become a bridge between the different kinds of Israelis in this area. And, uh, yeah, because there's a different area. And there between the people who are Zionists and the people who are, let's say, ultra-Orthodox. I mean, they've got a lot of issues with the government that's there. And I've covered many times the back and forth that's happening between those two different groups. And so,

the Palestinians have kind of been a bridge between those groups, you say? Yeah. And I'm sure it's other factions as well, right? Yes. And the more variety, it turns out, the better. Because when we're different to each other, it means we have different things to offer each other. And so the relations between the ultra-Orthodox city and the Palestinian towns in this area

are based on economics because the... The ultra-Orthodox have large families, and they don't have a lot of money because they are studying Torah all day. And so they need to be able to buy everything as cheaply as possible. Where's the best place to buy things cheaply in a neighboring Palestinian town? And the Palestinians are very happy to have that business, although I had to say that during the Intifada's, this area was a very, very dangerous place to be. and the main Palestinian town that we've built the relations with was a symbol of resistance against Israel during the interfartes that has now switched over completely as a result of benefiting from the relations

that began with that ultra-orthodox settlement. And so their relations are based on mutually beneficial economics, but also on interfaith. they are all traditional religious people, and they understand each other on that basis too. So whereas my town, we are not such a religious town at all. I'm a secular Jew. And we connect on a cultural level.

For example, I can eat their food there. The ultra-Orthodox can be able to do so because it's not kosher. And also, we are happy to talk about politics, and culture in a way that the ultra-Orthodox don't really want to get involved in that. And so we each engage with each other in a different way. And the fascinating thing is it turns out the fact that there are three very different identities in this area actually becomes a counterbalancing force against Israelis and Palestinians in a tug of war. It turns out that here there's a counterbalancing force against Israelis and Palestinians in a tug of war.

It turns out that here there's a counterbalancing arrangement of three different identities. And that's what made us begin thinking about, wow, there are other places in the world that also have many identities. And Switzerland, as David pointed out, is a wonderful example of that. And during the time in Europe when terrible things were happening all across Europe and Protestants and Catholics were murdering each other, But in Switzerland, they didn't. And as we've said, they have French speakers, German speakers, Italian speakers. They even have Romanish speakers. And here, we also have various other identities, the Druze, the Samaritans.

And it's a wonderful mosaic of identities and really suited to a federal system, as David has mentioned. But there are many other examples, not only Switzerland's that we can talk about. federalism has been used very successfully in many parts of the world. The USA is a very successful federation of 50 states. Yeah, I would actually prefer the articles of Confederation. Well, yeah. So the articles of the Confederation and Bill of Rights, that's what I think I would have my choice about that.

But I think it's interesting when we look at this, that you're talking about how it was really kind of economics and free trade that brought everybody together. And I think about that in terms of the environment that we're currently operating in. You know, when you start sanctions against other people and you start arbitrarily drawing lines there, sanctions are kind of a prelude to war. They actually are, in fact, a kind of war.

And we just had Prime Minister of Canada, Carney, said, they attacked us. You know, it's a war, and it really is an economic war. And that is, I think, where this begins, and it eventually winds up, if it's not checked, it winds up into a shooting war as well. I think the free economic market and the free cooperation between people who are each meeting willingly a buyer and a seller's needs, I think that is essential. And when I was looking through your website, one of the things you said was the guidelines that you had was non-involvement of political entities that have impure interests in the process. I think that's the thing that always poisons it. It seems like war is the lifeblood of the state.

It seems like free market economics are the lifeblood of peace in the sense, I guess. Yeah, absolutely. We made the decision in this area not to wait any longer for the politicians to sort it out. We'd been hoping for that for a very long time. It doesn't seem to be getting any closer. And so we decided, okay, let's take matters into our own hands here. And it began with the basic human needs, which are economics, but also security.

And so that was effectively the deal that was struck. The Palestinians have been suffering economically for a very long time and have not been achieving the quality of life that they want. They are not impressed by their leaders. And they're looking for something new that gives them the ability to enjoy a decent life and dignity. in their towns, but beyond that, they're very flexible. And on the Israeli side, one of the main things we wanted to achieve is security.

We want to be able to go to work in Jerusalem. It's the main city, 20 minutes drive away from here, and without anyone throwing rocks or more or cocktails at us. And so we decided to work together to make sure that that doesn't happen in our area. And it's proven very successful because it's win-win. and in 2021, when there was a war where all sorts of terrible things were happening throughout this land, including inside the Israeli mixed cities, it was notable that it wasn't happening here. And so we were awarded a peace prize that year. And that took the whole conversation

up at upper level. And we decided to start talking to people who have studied these things and came into contact with many people who've been working on the idea of a federal solution to this conflict for years, including David, but many others based here in this flat, Israelis and Palestinians. And so we created a project called the Federal Forum. So bring all those ideas and voices together. So the Federal Forum is one of our projects. The Path of Hope and Peace is another of our projects, which is the local grassroots prototypes. type and they are all projects of an organization that I chair, which is named Challenge. It's about how to affect conflict transformation. That's what we're looking to do. We're not

waiting for anybody to solve the conflict for us. We're looking to transform it even while the conflict is ongoing. And these last few years, we've been in a lot of conflict in this land, but we've made sure it doesn't come to where we are. Well, good for you. you. I think that's a real inspiring story for everybody. We all look at what is happening with politics, and there's so many things we don't like about it. We tend to feel helpless in terms of, you know, what can I do to even have peace instead of war? We keep seeing the politicians creating war in one area after the other. And it feels like there's not really anything that we can do, but of course, your example here is something that you did in terms of reaching out and

interact with people there at the local level and building it from the grassroots up. So I think that's a very positive lesson for all of us. I think there's a lot to be learned there. Let's talk a little bit about this, two-state versus one-state solution, David. As we were talking before the interview began, you pointed out that there's really not any way they're going to have a two-state solution there, is there? No, I don't think so. I mean, I suppose you could imagine some of it happening, but I don't think feasible.

anywhere because you have a family settlers spread throughout West Bank. They're everywhere and they're scattered and they're armed and they're determined and some of them are third generation. Right? So you, how you remove them?

Would it be good to remove them? As Phil points out there's a lot of dynamic interdependence that is developed and could still develop. And we have models about how different groups get along. The Israeli heirs or the Palestinian citizens of Israel have been quite obsessed.

They've lived peace with the Jewish name for a decade. They have members of the connect. They're involved in the government of cities such as Nezareth. So give their cousins on West Bank the same incentives to maybe even enhance through a Canton system where everybody's going to get low control, and you can have the same success. People are poor. And these Israelis Arabs really are example of that.

Now, I'm not glorifying their situation. There's a lot of discrimination and so forth. But at 5th percent of the, I believe it's 50 percent of the pharmacists, I think like 25 percent of the doctors are, Israel Arabs. They served Jews patients priorly. So well-intressed, they've been successful in

integrating selves in. The same control of people in the West Bank. If we, for example, are some of the men of peace and security, but all may prophesate 97% of the land

is rezone by the government. We prioritize that like the Czech did and give the Israeli the old stands sort of stating that. So it can be integrated into this society. So there's a great way to do this. The reality, you've got a one-state reality.

You've got mixing of couples. It's just, that's the way it is. And it's time to give on the one-state idea. That's my opinion. I think Phil agrees me. Yeah, and I guess, you know, when you look at... I mean, to give them the two-state D. I'm excuse me.

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, give us your take on. one state versus two state? Yeah, well, the situation is that the two state solution has never actually been that popular. It was always seen as a painful compromise. Some of us were willing to do so, but the reality is we have two peoples here who love the whole land, the same land. And so cutting it up and giving half to one people and half to the other has, Two negative effects. Number one, it kills the prospects of positive interactions.

And the last thing we want is a great big wall built down the middle of this land. But secondly, it means that we would all lose access to very important places in this land. And so, for example, Haifa and Jaffa and Aco are extremely important culturally to the Palestinians. but they are very much to the west in the states that has always been promised to Israel. And the city of Hebron, deep inside the West Bank, is where Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and their wives are buried. And that's a deeply important cultural location and religious location for Jews. And there are other locations throughout the West Bank. If you read the stories in the Bible, most of them took place.

in what is now the West Bank. And so for us to proceed with the Tuesdays solution has never been popular with either people. And the story we like to relate, and certainly the religious relate this story, is the one of King Solomon and the baby. If you truly love the baby, you don't want to cut it into two.

And so therefore, we've come to the conclusion. We do very much want to share this land. And yet we don't want to merge. into one people. Both peoples have developed strong identities and we don't want to give them up. And so what do you do if you've got two incredibly strong national identities who want to live in the same land? Well, that's where federalism comes in because it can offer a situation of sharing one land

and yet having self-governance for each kind of identity. And there are, in fact, more than two identities, as I referred to just in this area. There are three key identities. And when you add in the Druze and other minorities, you create a very interesting possibility that we can take a lot of inspiration from the way it's been handled elsewhere. And you said that you personally would prefer confederation to federation. Yes, we have many of our members in the federal forum who also favor that. It's easier with a confederation model to retain the separate identities of the Israelis and the Palestinians and yet decentralize them.

There are many different kinds of Israelis and there are many different kinds of Palestinians. And they don't want a one-size-fits-all model on either side. And so the Palestinians are not happy with being centrally governed by Ramallah. They dream of going back to days when there was a Muhtar, a local governor in each city and area. And in the same way, in Israel, we are far too centralised. And if you go to Haifa, you'll find people who are not happy at all about being governed by Jerusalem. Because they say, we're far, far away from Jerusalem. and we know what we need far better than the politicians in Jerusalem.

And so that's what really brought us to this realization that federalism could be the best, the best of both worlds of the two-state and one-state model. I agree, yeah. We have that same type of problem here, of course, the United States with the centralization of power. And as we were saying before, you know, you try to keep the involvement of political entities out

because they have impure motives. And we know what those impure motives are, They want to take land from other, attack other countries. We see that with Trump. We see that with Netanyahu. We see this happening all the time. And I guess the question is, you know, we can cooperate at the local level. What do we do about these monsters at the top who just want to shoot first and don't even want to ask any questions?

I guess that's really the issue. We've had to deal with people with negative interests that want to come to our area and disrupt the kind of coexistence that we built here. But we've made sure to build a model that's very robust and we are working together to make sure nobody does manage to drive a wedge between us. And that applies to anybody in this land, whoever they might be, politician or random anarchist to make sure they are not going to spoil the amazing benefits that we're all experiencing in this land.

We call the project Path of Hope and Peace because we wanted people to actually have hope that peace is possible. There's far too much despondency in this land. Too many people have felt there have been so many false storms. They never delivered anything. And David said that there are indeed many settlers now in the West Bank. The idea of pulling them all out would be incredibly painful and was also very painful in 2005 when we withdrew all our settlements from the Gaza Strip.

There were many who hoped that that would be a major step forward towards bringing peace in this land. And I'm afraid they actually had the opposite effect. And so there's no way we're going to be repeating that. So we have to learn from the lessons. And we have to build something that's actually viable. and we genuinely feel that a federal approach is the one that most closely reflects the actual reality on the ground. We're very interwoven in this land. Our economies are dependent on each other.

If we try to disengage, 2005 was actually called the disengagement plan, and it was a disaster. So now it's time to try a different, better approach. Yes, I agree. And, of course, we can see economically what is happening with our. disengagement program. We're going to erect economic barriers at the border. We see the knock-on consequences of that and increased prices and difficulty for people, even trying to manufacture here domestically, trying to get raw materials that they need as well. So, yes, I agree. It is economic integration. And you work very hard in terms of cultural immigration.

I mean, it's like a relationship, just like husband and wife. You have to work at it, right? And you have a lot of things that you do as part of this organization and try to make sure that you keep contact with the other people that are there. Is that correct? Yeah, absolutely. And we have many other projects within Challenge that are also focused on changing the whole narrative of how we see each other. We want to stop viewing each other as contradictory and start viewing each other as complementary instead. And that way, we can have a win-win. There's no need to fight to the death against each other when actually we see that when we build positive relations,

we discover that it's a symbiosis that produces results better than the sum of the two alone. And so we really want people to get on board with these possibilities. And by the way, it's not even a new idea. In 1947, when the United Nations voted on the partition plan, there was also another plan on the table. It was a federal solution back then in 1947. And unfortunately, it didn't get as many votes.

And so they proceeded down the path to partition. And we feel that that was a historic mistake, which now we need to undo. And so in November, we're actually going to have a conference called the Beyond Partition Conference. November is the anniversary of that partition decision. And so we want to bring people together on an annual basis from now one. This will be the first one. But next year will be the 80th anniversary of that decision. And we want people to actually begin examining this possibility that has been very successful in all sorts of other places.

Why not here? Let's just start talking. talking about it again. That's great. Yeah. We're looking at, yeah, David, go ahead. You got something on? Yeah, that was one, 1947 was a great turning point. And it needs to be seen more. As Phil said, there were local Israelis, including Utah and Maxis, the president of Hebrew University, test-fied before the UN in favor of kind of Canton solution. His argument was very interested. There were the craw-roads of different religions. Why don't we view that? an asset and say today it's a silly one. You're the whole land. Good name for this.

That can be the banner. But you have to support for that, but U.S. government was cool here. There were elements in the true administration, including Secretary to defend, or a still federal solution. True nation is seen before the idea, but he changed his mind. There were in the Bush government for a Fed solution. They were prominent, but they were all sidelined. So there were voted in the way, and there were people that voted for kind of a Canton model, but they sidelines. Had his indifference and the British, for example, Mounted us, we had to vote a lot of bullshit. But they did in 1947, who state?

One of which state? won a Arabs I guess to call and Jewish state almost

50 cent error that's the Jewish Stets so that was asking for troll that was truly a key cutter

approach and a neutral where if you've done something like Kentons I didn't have shot it

and a lot of people of the West and British were men at the time recognize that. Fortunately, leader of those governments chose

a different chart, which lies just disaster. Yeah, we're having a lot of breakup on your side there, but I think I got the gist of that. As you're pointing out, you know, they had an opportunity there to have a Canton system and there's some support for that. But unfortunately, they went

the other direction, and of course the rest of that is now history. And we get a situation when we go back and we look at the Rang Corporation as they were talking about what do we do about the nuclear situation and mutually assured destruction between the U.S. and Israel back in the Cold War. And they said, well, you know, there's always a temptation that if you think you can get away with it, you strike first, and the tit-for-tat approach in terms of conflicts between two different groups. And they found that when they were game that out, that wasn't

always the correct approach, the thing that revealed that you gave essentially gaming algorithms, different rules for how they're going to approach when something happens. And there was like a tit for tat with a little bit of forgiveness that was there. So you had to have some kind of a conflict there. But I guess the real issue, when we look at this back and forth that's gone on now for, I guess, nearly 80 years, the real issue, I think, is what do we do about these governments that are in place? What do we do about Washington, for example? I mean, they're not going to devolve any power. And when you try to devolve any power, and when you try to devolve that away they have their methods to bring that in and i guess the same thing is true in

israel now we were talking before the before the interview david you and i were talking and you said this is maybe really early days in terms of stopping the slave trade and i said yeah you guys are the william wilberforce is out there and you point out you said well maybe we're even before william wilberforce this is really really early days uh talk a little bit about what uh really you see a path of this being able to work its way up from the grassroots when there is opposition from above, as we know there will be. Yeah. Yeah, well, I want to know that Phil grabbed that first.

Okay. I think this one's for me, and you're absolutely correct, that the political forces are not really looking for new paradigms at this point in time. There's plenty of, yeah, they just want to look after their seats. on both sides and maintain the status quo unfortunately they're quite happy with whereas the people on the ground are not okay and we've been going through terrible times in the last three years particularly and actually in conflict resolution studies we learn that a mutually hurting stalemate is often what's required to actually finally start doing something different And so maybe we are now in a situation where people are willing finally to look at new possibilities. And that's really what we need to happen at this point in time. The partition plan was not well thought out and ended up causing disaster.

But also, more recently, Oslo was not well thought out either. it split the West Bank into areas A, B and C that were, in theory, then, supposed to be just temporary steps towards working everything out. But unfortunately, that's as far as it got. We now have different areas of the West Bank in totally different political reality. And the Palestinians feel even more divided now than ever before. And so unfortunately, if you adopt a plan without thinking it through properly, the results can be disastrous. So what we really want is now for us all to get together and actually properly think it through the key stakeholders at the table.

So it's a complex problem. We need to think about it properly as to what the table. optimal solution is we very much do believe that it's going to be federal of some kinds but that could be confederation federation some kind of hybrid between the two that gives some things that we very much share some things that we don't share at all some things that are in between we need to we need to do that and also we very much want the international community to be part of that yeah david you want to speak oh i'm saying that one thing that We have facts on the ground, as we said, in favor of this.

Because you have a de facto single state. You have more and more gathering of settlement. So that's inceptible. You can't do two states anymore. But another thing is this is an escape. If things come really bad, right? And you have all the contradictions that occur, which you have now as a single state, controlled by aerial and franchise.

of others, and you more and more pressure building, this be seen by some more conservative people in Israel as a sketch, a second solution. Because they'll say, well, gee, I don't like idea giving the Palestinians a vote, but maybe if I don't move fast, it's going to like South Africa. Well, just be a majority-checked minority rule. Maybe it could be as an escape hat. Maybe some legislatures to be presentful of the controls by the bi-sector in Israel government. Maybe it comes to our. Maybe they would say this is, gee, we govern ourselves.

Or more regular tips in places like Tel Aviv, who are liberal, they could say, there's a chance for us to govern ourselves. So it's a escape hatch potentially. How does it happen? That's an interesting question. I'm not sure. But you got to get it on the table. Let the idea on the table, get it to discuss, and then it can move to the next level.

I'm sure how that's going to happen. And one thing is the abolitionism or a movement social change will not happen unless the idea is out there on the table and be discussed. So we're really that day. Now, it's my salary back. Who knows? But we're prepared to get it for the long haul. Knock on those door. People are going to keep slamming the door in your face,

knock again on another door. Just get that idea out there. And we could all show. Any Americans, European, want to help. Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's because it's not able. I agree. Yeah.

Let me translate that a little bit for people, because we're getting a lot of breakup on your line there, David. And what he's saying is is that, you know, if we have a, we're just going to get it out there and have that as a possible solution. Because they get to a point of impasse, you know, necessity is a mother of innovation. And so I guess I get to something where they really have to have a turn somewhere. It'd be great if there was a workable solution that was out there. I guess the question I've got, and I would ask this to you, Phil, since you're a

there in Israel. I know there's elections coming up and it's difficult for us to get a feel for what's happening with that internally here in the United States. And of course, it is very vital for us to get an understanding of what's happening with this because we are so connected with Israel in terms of the wars and of the issues like that. We look that it was very difficult for Netanyahu to put together a coalition this last time. And now he's running again and it appears to me looking at it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd like to get your take on it. Is there a lot of pressure from the right saying that Netanyahu is not tough enough from people like Ben-Gavir and others, are they pushing for even more confrontation and more war from that side? Absolutely. There are

many, many voices ranging from the far left to the far right. All of them have totally different ideas as to what we need in this land. And that again pulls us back to the need for something that isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all approach. We're two-dimson. And so, once again, federalism is the system that can accommodate that kind of complexity and give a space for every identity and every kind of living. It's very clear that the way people want to live, in the ultra-orthodox settlement, just three miles east of here, it's totally different to what people in my town want for the future.

And so we're all fighting each other for what the future is going to look like here. Whereas if instead we said, okay, we're all different, and let's create a space for all of us. And that requires statesmanship, shall I say, that unfortunately the politicians are not practicing at the moment. Each of them has their own little party line, and we are not anticipating that any of them is going to lead us out of this. And by the way, we have considered whether we should create a federal party to run in the elections.

But we came to the conclusion, no, if we do that, we'll just become yet another party, competing against all the other parties and we might become part of the problem. And so we decided instead that what we need is to begin to be a lobby for change that can appeal across all of the political spectrum. And so you asked how can we make this happen. Okay. It's going to be a process. It always has been in history that federal solutions were implemented in a grand.

actual form, I believe in Switzerland, they began with just three cantons, I think, and then it grew and grew. And so, we're creating proof of concepts on the ground. Okay, but we are also opening up the discussion so that the right people are at the table, and then we've created something called a federal movement now. We want as many people as possible to join us and become our members. ambassadors to this message wherever they are. And so we are now inviting everybody to join on. What we really need is the conversation to begin throughout the world

because the international community does have significant influence on what happens here. And we've been wedded to the two-state solution for so long. And the international community has been saying for years, the only game in town, as far as we're concerned, is the two-state solution. And we, the people's on the ground, are saying, but guys, you never actually asked us if that's what we want. And it's really not. And by the way, I want to say the Palestinians have been less enamored of the two-state solution

throughout all the time than the Jews. The Jews were willing in 1947 to go with it and accepted the state of Israel. as was being given to it in the partition plan. But the Arab world rejected it. And the Palestinians have never been keen on it. So it's about time we actually considered the genuine needs and national aspirations of the peoples and create a mechanism that will embrace it. But exactly what that mechanism should be is too early to work that out. And we've actually been advised by ambassadors from other countries that we should not try to come to them with a plan with every eye dotted and every T-cross.

Because they'll be saying, okay, right, no, we don't like this, we don't like that. Plus, they won't feel part of it. So the message they received is bring everybody in, open up that discussion, apparently in the theory of negotiation. if you if you open wide in the playing field bring lots and lots of ideas and complex needs all together suddenly there's so much more room to negotiate and then things happen whereas if you just stay stuck in this tug of war and then you're hammering away at every tiny issue then you don't get anywhere so we're saying that okay let's do things differently let's all come together yeah you know as you're talking about this i'm thinking about the

here to our country here in America. We have not a two-state solution. We have a supposed two-party solution, which is no solution at all. And it's led to a lot of centralization and, of course, dissatisfaction because their agenda is not the same as our agenda. And so I think you're right in terms of focusing on being a lobbying group to say, well, here is this one idea that we got out here. We'd like to present that to you because I think that's really what makes change here in America, I think, focusing around different single-party groups, because when you go to the two-party system, it's just a hodge-podge of a lot of different items. And, you know, when you vote for a particular candidate, you don't know what you're going to get, actually. Now, you know,

your system there, the parliamentary system that's a little bit different from what Americans are used to seeing. It's not unusual. You have so many parties there. I have no idea how many parties are in Israel, but I know there's a lot. And you, how many? Countless, I don't know, I don't know, mate, either. I think it's more than 100 parties. Wow. For an entry of only around 10 million people, it's great. But, you know, so they have to, they don't have somebody typically get more than 50% of the vote,

so they always have to put together a coalition. And that was what we saw happen with several subsequent elections with Netanyahu. We couldn't get enough of a majority to put together a coalition. It took a while to put that together. I think the key thing is the decentralization aspect. of it. That seems to me to be the common thread in terms of people's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with government. The more things become concentrated and consolidated, the worst they become. And that was one thing the founders understood about in America. They tried to set up a system that was

decentralized, that had checks and balances and natural divisions, were there to try to prevent consolidation and centralization. But of course, we've been around for 2050 years and got some clever people have been trying to do their best to undo all that, and they pretty much have succeeded here in America. So I'll be looking at what you do with a great deal of interest, because is that a point right now where the American structure of government is highly broken as well. We need to have some major reforms here, I think, as well, don't you think, David? I certainly do, and just sort of enhance a couple of those points. In Israel, you have some very very small parties, the religious parties is sort of the best known, who have very strict rules

about who's a Jew and who isn't a Jew and so forth. And most Israelis might disagree with them. But when they're assembling a government, those small parties can get their way because they can be the difference between, you know, Netanyahu forming a government or not or the opposition. Where if it's local, it doesn't really matter. I mean, Canton's, and Switzerland are about the size of American counties. So if you can just move a few miles to a canton, for example, if you're very religious Jew, where you can, we're there the majority, it's a kind of way to diffuse conflict. The costs of moving are very low for that reason.

And I don't know if I answered your question. I forgot what it was. Yeah, yeah. I think that's the key thing that, you know, we look at the actual structure of it. And, you know, when you go back on the League of the Constitutional Convention, they spend a lot of time analyzing the structure of a lot of different governments throughout history. And I think it really behooves us to go back and take a look at what's worked for Switzerland. I think they are a model state in many regards, and especially in the structure of the government there. I agree. And they really have taken it out of the hands of their national government, which is very much indirect.

You know, they have a parliament based on population. They have a second body, sort of like the U.S. Senate. And it's sort of a winnowing process. And then at the top, and I think they're indirectly chosen, you have a presidential council. They all rotate, right? Every year. And most people don't even, a lot of people don't even know who their president is. And they'll get people like the Romanish who are like one or two percent of the population. They get their own president occasionally. Now, if that were to occur in Israel, you might have a Christian president occasionally. You might have a Jerusalem president. That is not possible to imagine now under current circumstances because it's so polarized in this binary. But in a place like, you know, with a decentralized system in a weak federal government, you can open the door to participation by groups that are normally marginalized. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I'll just add to that.

Polarization is such an issue in this land, but becoming increasingly so throughout the world. And one of our principles is instead of polarization, we need partnership. And instead of being contradictory, we can be complementary. And we really need to change the way we look at each other. And we talk about being enlightened into the nations. The religious people talk about that. And I'm afraid at the moment, we haven't really achieved that at the moment. But this is the Holy Land that is extremely important to the world outside.

And if we could actually create a solution that would transform that polarization into partnership, that really could be a wonderful light into the nation. that are also facing similar, similar problems now around the world. I agree. I agree, yeah. The more we have the movement of people, say anything, the more we are getting these conflicts between different people groups. And as you point out, this is creating increased polarization. Many of us look at that and say, well, I think there's a design behind all of that.

But we've got to find a way from the grassroots up. That's why I wanted to talk to you. because I think that's a very important thing that you're doing. The people, as you point out, who have impure motives, the politicians are going to be coming in. They've got their own agenda of power and other things that they want. And they are pretty ruthless in terms of what they will resort to. And yet it is up to those of us who want to have a hope of peace

to try to come up with some kind of a system that's going to try to counteract those types of impure motivated. motivations, I think. I think that's a key thing that you're doing there. Yeah. And I'll add one other element that we focus on in this area. I also am the chair of an organization named the Abrahamic movement. And we've realized that Abraham is a biblical figure that we all claim dissent from.

And that concept was used. in the Abraham Accords to create positive relations between Israel and some of the Arab countries in this region. But the Palestinians were left out of that and they need to be brought in. And so the aims of the Abrahamic movement is to get all of us to embrace our common Abrahamic ancestry and heritage in this land in particular. But it can extend a, again around the world. The Abrahamic faiths should not need to be fighting each other.

And so again, it's changing the, the perspective. And having it, having a new paradigm, which is positive, finding the positive in each of us. So we're working on all of these ideas.

And we are looking to replicate what we've, built in this locality, in some other localities as well. There are many other places where Israelis and Palestinians are living in close proximity. And we believe this economics and security deal is something that could be successfully deployed elsewhere. And we also want to change the way the people think about this problem. The politicians will follow later. We work that much else. Exactly how it's. all going to play out. We don't know, but we do know that, as you said, it starts from the grassroots.

They're the ones who are really desiring change, and we are leading trailblazing a way of creating change on the ground and changing people's hearts and minds the way they think about things. So that's the aim of the federal movement now. And we would welcome anybody who wants to be all of it. I agree. And of course, I see a lot of similarities in that to what the founders understood in terms of, you look at a declaration of independence. All men created equal, right? So the equality of man, there wasn't a ruling class that had the divine right of kings or anything else like that. And in terms of government, it's going to create an equality of opportunity, an equality of treatment between different individuals. And as you point out, being descended from

Abraham, of course, we could extend that to everybody. We could say, yeah, we're all descendants. from Adam or at least from Noah, right? Adam, we're all part of the human race. If you're not a part of the human race, we've got a problem here. But, you know, God has made all nations of one blood, we believe. And so there's that common humanity. As long as we try to have groups that are going to set themselves up as above and separate, whether it's based on politics or ethnicity or religion or whatever, once you do that, that is the path for war and conflict. It is coming back to the point where you are talking about that we start to realize what things we have in common. One of the things that we have in common, at least for most of the people, we want to

have peace and we want to have the hope of peace. And that is not what the politicians want. They want anything other than a hope of peace. It really is war and conflict is the name of the game for those people. So I wish you the best of success and we'll be following that. And I'd like to keep updated on a to what you're doing. I think it's a noble experiment, and I think it's something that you can win because I think the vast majority of people want that. Thank you so much for what you do.

And thank you, David, for joining us. And I look forward to seeing that article in The Independent, which is about the independent review. It should be online by tomorrow or so. Okay, great, great. And, yeah, give us the title of that again. It's, let me see if I can give you the title to take a second. here. It's a column that's in the back.

Well, they can vote to by your by your name, I guess. Well, basically, it is a, it is a, a, a, a, a column on the Swiss model, the Swiss solution, the Canton solution for Israel, Palestine. That's in the title. And if you just look at my name and, uh, Swiss, Swiss solution, you can find it, I'm sure. David Bado. Great. And by the time, this will be airing on Friday,

so I'm sure that it'll probably be up there by then, right? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay, great. Well, thank you so much again, David Bato and Phil Saunders. Thank you, both of you for joining us, and let's hope that there is a path for peace and all of this.

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you so much. And I agree with you. This is something we can win. We do not need to be stuck in this forever. And so let's just, a course out of this. That's great. That's great. I thank you so much for that attitude. And thank you gentlemen for trying to work this out. And we should never be discouraged about

this kind of stuff. I mean, we've got to remember when we talk about the parallels ending the slave trade, when William Wilberforce started his crusade to do that, that was the biggest industry that was going on at the time. He was allied against all of the major economic and political powers. And he took that on and he persisted in it. And, it was the right thing to do. And because of those two things, because he was doing the right thing and because he persisted, he won. As the saying goes to the Texas Ranger, you just need to have one good man who keeps on coming. And that's the way that worked out. We do genuinely have hope because we can experience it on a day-to-day basis. There are other countries in the world

where you've had just horrible violence, Rwanda, Ulster, Bosnia, and it's been at peace for two decades more, for various reasons. But, But have examples of where people can get along despite bitter conflict. So standard argument we get as well, this is different. No, not necessarily. There were Israelis who, I was surprised when I came here. One of the commonest things they say is malasot. That means what can you do?

And there's a kind of resignation which I did not expect to find here. I thought people were strong-minded. and did what they need to do. But no, there seems to be a lot of despair. And I have voices that said, we've been fighting for thousands of years. We're going to be fighting for thousands of years more. What can you do?

That's our lot in life. And we're like, no, please, you know, we don't want this to be going on for thousands of years. And in other places, they manage to end conflicts. Why not here too? Yes, this is complex, but actually complexity can actually create all the more opportunity. And so it's just a way of changing to look at those possibilities. So we just really want everybody all over the world to start considering these possibilities.

And it is starting to happen. We need to move people out of the two state mindset and to think of something that is actually going to reflect the knees of people. on the ground here and the reality on the ground that we're already so mixed up and you can't separate away from each other. And this applies to the rest of the world. This idea of a homogeneous nation states is something that maybe existed 100, 200 years ago, but no, the world's changed. Globalization means we're all mixed up together. And so we need to, get with the times, and especially in this multiculner land. So, yeah. I agree with what you're saying. And, you know, we're talking about the two-state solution here. Everybody's trying to sell us a two-party solution.

But what you said, I think, is really key. You said, well, it's working for us. And I constantly talk about the fact that we have so little control over what happens in Washington thousands of miles away and these people are distant, they don't listen. And yet we can start to do things in our local community that make it work. And I think that's the most important lesson to take away from what you're doing there. You can establish relationships with people there and once you do that at the local level,

it is a complete game changer. You don't always have to have everything go through Washington. And that is one of the big mindset changes that I've seen for the worst in America in my lifetime. We used to say, well, don't make a federal case out of it. Now everything is a federal case. And we need to get the mindset back to, well, let's just fix things here in our own neighborhood in small town, which is what you did. Yeah, absolutely.

So we want that to be the future for everyone in this land. Everybody would be a lot happier. I agree. I agree. The common man. They created common core to dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons project to make sure.

the commoners own nothing and the communist future. They see the common man is simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything. everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.

Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. The Davidnightshow.com.