In my last column, “Annexing Judea and Samaria now: Israel should, but doesn’t need to do so” (The Jerusalem Post, September 21), I wrote that “anyone with even the most superficial understanding of the conflict, its history, and its current condition knows that a Palestinian state has never been further from coming to fruition than today.”
I continued by writing that the “decades-old lack of imagination expresses itself in the claims that annexing Judea and Samaria would create one of three untenable situations: (1) the ethnic cleansing of 3.4 million Arabs there, (2) absorbing Palestinians as Israeli citizens, and (3) ruling over Palestinians as non-citizens in a close-to-apartheid situation. [Critics] assume that annexing Judea and Samaria leaves Israel with an essentially binary choice – be a democracy with a minority Jewish population, or at best, set up Bantustans that make the Palestinian population separate and unequal. And at worst, forcibly expel them – which, they incorrectly claim, borders on genocide.”
I explained the error in these critics’ thinking, and concluded that whether Israel “annexes Judea and Samaria today, next year, or in a decade, it has already established the land as its own.”
Andy Rogers, one of my readers, criticized my column: “These delusional editorials are for the books. [She] states that it’s not a binary choice – apartheid or expulsion. But never explains what these other options are. This crew always talks in circles.”
Rogers made a valid point: I didn’t offer alternatives in my column to the two-state solution. In today’s column I will offer four alternatives, but many more options exist and can be found with a little research.
THE FIRST alternative to the two-state solution was written by Sari Nusseibeh in his book What is a Palestinian State Worth? Nusseibeh is a Palestinian philosopher and former president of Al-Quds University who advocates for Israeli-Palestinian peace. He suggested that “Israel officially annex the occupied territories, and that Palestinians in the enlarged Israel agree that the state remain Jewish in return for being granted all the civil, though not the political, rights of citizenship. Thus, the state would be Jewish, but the country would be fully binational, all the Arabs within it having their well-being tended to and sustained.
Given Israel’s demand to be recognized as a Jewish state, and as long as it refuses to grant those Palestinians full citizenship, their next best option is to have full civil rights even without the right to hold elective office, so that they can enjoy the civil benefits of the de facto single state without being accused of diluting or ‘defiling’ its Jewishness. In any case, such a scenario would provide them with a far better life than they have had in more than forty years under occupation…”
The second alternative to the two-state solution was written by former US ambassador David Friedman in his 2024 book, One Jewish State. Friedman proposed Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as the biblical and practical path to peace, rejecting a two-state solution amid Palestinian rejectionism and the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. Grounded in practicality, the plan extends full Israeli sovereignty, granting Arabs permanent residency, economic rights, and local autonomy, akin to Puerto Rico’s status in the United States.
Palestinians would not be granted the right to vote for Knesset members. Funded by redirecting $1 billion in US Palestinian aid to a sovereignty trust, it envisions Abraham Accords expansion for regional buy-in, ensuring security, prosperity, and holy site access for all.
A THIRD suggestion was written by journalist Caroline Glick, currently international affairs adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in her 2014 book, The Israeli Solution. Glick dismantles the two-state paradigm as a failed, US-imposed policy rooted in historical distortions, demographic myths, and Palestinian rejectionism, which has only fueled violence and weakened Israel.
She advocates Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria as the sole viable path to peace, granting Palestinians personal rights, economic integration, and local autonomy akin to US territories. Palestinians would not be granted citizenship or voting in national elections. Glick wrote that this one-state model upholds Zionist principles, ensures security, and rejects partition’s perils.
The fourth alternative to the two-state solution was authored by Israeli scholar Dr. Mordechai Kedar. In his “Eight-State Solution” or “Palestinian Emirates” plan, Kedar rejects the two-state model as a Western imposition, ignoring Arab tribal realities, which breed instability in forced nation-states like Lebanon or Syria.
He proposes dividing Judea and Samaria into eight autonomous emirates: Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem, and Hebron. Each emirate would be governed by local clans for cultural harmony and prosperity, akin to the UAE’s success, and Gaza would be split into five districts. Under Kedar’s plan, Israel retains security and borders, fostering peace via economic ties and recognition.
Prominent two-state solution supporters lack imagination for alternatives
THERE ARE many former Israeli prime ministers, Palestinian advocates, and American presidents and officials who lack the imagination necessary to consider alternative plans to the two-state solution.
Consider former secretary of state John Kerry, who famously ate his own words, dismissing Israeli-Arab normalization without a two-state solution, saying, “The two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people.”
These people’s lack of imagination hinders their ability to investigate, let alone consider, more effective plans than the two-state solution. Their vision deficiency has proven dangerous for both Israelis and Palestinians. For both Israelis and Palestinians living in the region, as opposed to those looking in from the outside, it is obvious that such a solution will never come to fruition. Supporting the two-state solution has become the latest performative fad for politicos losing their left-wing base and support. Their statements aren’t serious; they take no steps to help actual Palestinians.
People who are serious about ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, like Nusseibeh, Friedman, Glick, and Kedar, among hundreds of others, are developing practical plans that will help Israelis and Palestinians lead safe, secure, and peaceful lives. For these people, and millions of people in the region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t a prop to use in performative statements devoid of practical application – it is real life with dire consequences.
The writer is a certified interfaith hospice chaplain in Jerusalem and the mayor of Mitzpe Yericho, where she enjoys spending time with her family.