The Palestinian arena in Judea and Samaria is unstable, and the current situation poses a serious and continuous threat to the State of Israel. The Palestinian leadership does not accept Israel’s very existence, indoctrinates the next generation with profound hatred toward Israel, and remains committed to the phased plan for establishing a Palestinian state from the river to the sea. Persistent terrorist threats exist, and the forces of the Palestinian Authority (PA) are either unable or unwilling to confront them, alongside the risk that these forces themselves could turn their guns against Israel. The PA leads international efforts to weaken Israel’s international standing, is systematically taking over Area C, is unilaterally creating facts on the ground, and is harming natural resources and the environment. These threats have intensified since Oct. 7th, and the PA does not meaningfully distance itself from Hamas’s aspirations. There is no realistic prospect that, under the current conditions, a Palestinian leadership genuinely seeking true peace with Israel will emerge. It is also clear to most Israelis that the establishment of a Palestinian state would mean the creation of a “Hamastan” in Judea and Samaria and constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel. Therefore, the illusion of separation inherent in the Oslo paradigm must be abandoned once and for all.
In light of these threats, Israel should adopt the long-term goal of a single sovereign state—Israel—while granting the Arab population the broadest possible scope for local self-governance, alongside the opening of pathways both for voluntary emigration and for a gradual process from residency to Israeli citizenship.
Defining the end-goal as a single sovereign state would be a strategic shift and requires careful planning in order to prevent, on the one hand, Israel from becoming a bi-national state, and on the other hand, the creation of a prolonged situation of unjustified discrimination that parts of the Israeli public would not accept and that would also generate significant international pressure. Nevertheless, this goal is feasible and, has more potential for success than the alternative establishing a Palestinian State to live in peace alongside Israel.
However, defining the end-goal as a single sovereign state does not necessarily require the immediate application of sovereignty over all areas of Judea and Samaria. Rather, this objective can be pursued gradually and flexibly, according to circumstances and emerging opportunities. Four parallel courses of action are proposed here to be implemented simultaneously based on the political feasibility and international circumstances.
First Axis: Gradual application of sovereignty and reform of land management policy – there are areas where the application of sovereignty can be done relatively easily, namely: the Jordan Valley and Greater Ma’ale Adumim. From there, the process can advance to the large settlement blocs and eventually to the entire territory. In parallel, the government should formalize all land claims by updating the official land registry (Tabu) with proper documentation. This would provide legal protection, prevent unlawful seizure, and enable a functioning, economically viable real estate market.
Second Axis: Taking responsibility for infrastructure and upgrading Israeli administrative offices – The State of Israel must assume responsibility for all civilian infrastructure in Judea and Samaria (hereinafter J&S), which is currently handled inadequately and partially. This includes overseeing transportation, electricity, water, gas, renewable energy, air quality, wastewater treatment, waste management, and key natural resources like the mountain aquifer. At the same time, the roles of the Civil Administration and COGAT should be redefined to operate proactively, efficiently, and with a clear focus on maintaining Israeli sovereignty.
Third Axis: Dissolution of the Palestinian Authority and transition to decentralized local governance, voluntary emigration or residency process – Decentralized local governance, like Arab municipalities within Israel, would have incentives to avoid funding terror and incitement against the state. As part of the transition to local governance, a fundamental reform of educational content is required, removing all incitement and promoting recognition of Israel and its positive benefits. Israel should carefully dismantle security infrastructures that threaten its safety, including PA security forces, while considering incentives. Two pathways should be offered: (1) a voluntary emigration program with fair compensation and property, and (2) a residency and citizenship track conditional on renouncing terrorism and accepting civic obligations. This dual-pathway approach will help achieve sustainable demographic balance within the region.
Fourth Axis: Effective international advocacy – A well-structured public diplomacy program is required to explain the plan to other countries. While it is not necessary for all to be convinced, Israel must present its rationale and explain why this is a fair measure and the only approach capable of ensuring prosperity and security for all populations.
While no perfect alternative exists, this single sovereign state model offers the best prospect for guaranteeing Israel’s existence and security for future generations, whereas continuing the current situation carries much higher costs and risks.
