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.

This is one of the hardest tensions in the draft. The caucus system exists because, without some mechanism ensuring cross-communal consent, a bare majority could impose laws on a minority community. The draft limits the harm in specific ways: registration is by self-identification, never state assignment; no single factor is disqualifying; it's reviewed by community representatives; and caucus membership carries no policy requirement. Whether that's the right tradeoff is exactly the kind of question we want people with lived experience to press on. See Design Rationale for more on why the caucus structure works this way.

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.

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.

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.