Frequently asked questions

Not in the sense of being close to happening. We're not claiming this draft is a few negotiating sessions away from adoption. What we're claiming is narrower: that it's possible to specify — in real structural detail — what a just, safe, shared state could actually look like. Most proposals stay at the level of principle without working through what the courts would look like, who controls the currency, or how a transition would be sequenced. This draft tries to do that work. Whether it's ever adopted and whether it's worth doing are two different questions.

Many wouldn't, certainly not as currently written, and we don't expect otherwise at this stage. That's part of why this project exists as a collaborative process rather than a finished pitch — the current draft is a detailed starting position, built to be argued with. If people who actually have a stake in this land's future engage with it, disagree with it, and rebuild parts of it, that's the process working, not failing.

No. Ordinary voters are not assigned to caucuses, asked to declare a community identity, or reviewed by community representatives. Voter registration records geographic eligibility, never caucus affiliation. Every eligible voter receives all three ballots in their district: Israeli Caucus, Palestinian Caucus, and Minority Caucus. They may rank candidates separately in each contest and leave any contest blank without affecting the others.

The eligibility and community-support requirements apply to candidates. A candidate voluntarily chooses one contest and demonstrates a substantial, continuing connection to its represented community through an independent Electoral and Boundary Commission process, with written reasons, privacy protections, and judicial review. Community-support endorsements are authenticated confidentially, with identity verification separated from endorsements and ballots; they cannot create a permanent voter-caucus or identity-community registry. No ideological or religious-observance test is allowed. The aim is to provide representative seats for each community while keeping every district contest open to every voter. See Article 4, Article 13, Sections 2–4, and Design Rationale.

Related: the unresolved Inherited Property Claims reservation and delegated Return and Restitution implementation.

No. Article 3, ¶2 gives an adopted descendant — specifically, someone adopted as a minor, or someone raised in a genuine, enduring equivalent parent-child relationship begun while they were a minor — the same return-eligibility effect as biological descent, including in later generations, as long as the parent is independently eligible in their own right. ¶3 draws a deliberate line against abuse of that rule: a relationship formed mainly to obtain immigration or citizenship status doesn't count, adult adoption alone doesn't independently qualify, and DNA evidence can't be required — nor can its absence be treated as evidence of fraud. It's also worth being clear that return eligibility is separate from property title or inheritance: who may return, reside, and hold citizenship is a different question from who owns what, and inherited-property claims remain marked in the draft as [RESERVED — Inherited Property Claims].

Related: proposed Sacred Sites regulations. These implementing proposals are separate from the constitutional rights and institutions in Article 19.

The draft treats holy sites as distinct from political sovereignty — administered by an independent, cross-faith authority rather than by whichever government controls the surrounding territory. These are among the most sensitive provisions in the whole document, and we expect and want significant pushback and revision here specifically.

We've tried hard for it not to be, but we're aware that intent isn't the same as outcome, and that any document produced primarily by one person is at risk of blind spots. This is one of the central reasons this project is structured as a collaborative process — the draft needs sustained, serious engagement from all communities to actually earn the claim of balance, not just assert it.

The draft text is committed to full trilingual equality, and we take that commitment seriously — which is exactly why we haven't published Hebrew or Arabic versions yet. Machine translation of a legal document this dense risks introducing subtle errors or shifts in meaning that could sit undetected in the text, and getting a legal-register translation right, especially across three languages meant to be equally authoritative, isn't something we're willing to publish without a fluent human reviewer verifying it directly. Rather than post a version we can't personally stand behind, we're keeping this site English-only until qualified Arabic and Hebrew speakers can review and confirm the translations. If you can help with that, see Get Involved.

Category: deliberately delegated implementation. The constitutional basis and safeguards are proposed in Article 13, Section 6; the remaining technical method is not a reserved constitutional question.

This is addressed directly rather than avoided. Article 13, Section 6, ¶35 requires the enumeration process to offer an indirect counting method to anyone with a sincere religious objection to being directly counted, and specifically names the concern reflected in the Talmudic tractate Yoma 22b — without the State issuing its own religious ruling on the question. The exact technical mechanism is left open: the protected Organic Population Enumeration Law has to work it out with professional statisticians, privacy specialists, and religious authorities, and the draft is explicit that no single method is presumed to satisfy every interpretation of halakha, and that no religious authority gets sovereign control over the census (¶37). It's a genuine unresolved technical question — flagged honestly as one, rather than papered over.

Yes. AI tools were used throughout the drafting process — including structural review, consistency auditing, and peer feedback. Every piece of that feedback was checked against the actual document text rather than accepted on authority, consistent with our methodology. We think this is worth disclosing plainly rather than downplaying.

Category: current proposals open to criticism through Public Deliberation. The Transition Implementation Plan develops supporting readiness measures; the Ratification Protocol remains constitutionally reserved.

This is a legitimate and central concern, not a talking point to wave away. The draft addresses it through provisions on unified but vetted defense forces, equal protection guarantees from day one of any transition, and emergency powers structured to prevent abuse. Whether the draft's specific answers are adequate is a genuine open question, and one where security-focused expertise would meaningfully improve the work.

Currently, this project doesn't attach a name to the initial draft. That's a deliberate choice at this early stage — the aim is for this to become a genuinely collaborative work, not a document identified with one person's authorship. As the project grows, we may revisit how we present who's involved.