Israelis and Palestinians: options for the future

Where we start

This part of the site stands on three principles: Israel's right to exist as an independent, sovereign state, in security; the Palestinian people's right to an independent, sovereign state; and security and dignity for both peoples. These are the site's principles. They do not claim that a settlement exists, or that its borders are agreed.

Each proposal here has authors, a date and a text you can read. Some are official, like the Clinton Parameters and the Arab Peace Initiative. Some come from private citizens, like the Geneva Initiative. None of them is an agreement, and none is a guaranteed solution.

Even Oslo left the hardest questions open. The 1993 Declaration of Principles put off Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security and borders to permanent-status talks,² and those talks have never been finished. People on both sides kept trying; their story is on the page Efforts that did not ripen.

Why is it so hard to agree?

One small land, two peoples

Most proposals start from the 1967 lines with land swaps, but the scale varies widely. The Clinton Parameters spoke of a Palestinian state on 94% to 96% of the West Bank.³ The Trump plan spoke of Israeli sovereignty over about 30% of it.⁴

Security and fear

In 2001 the Mitchell committee described two fears. Israelis fear terror and doubt they can live side by side. Palestinians experience the occupation, the army and the settlements as daily humiliation.⁵ So many proposals pair a non-militarised Palestinian state with an international force.³

Jerusalem

Both sides see Jerusalem as their capital, and the Old City is holy to more than one faith. Even the Clinton Parameters offered not one formula for the Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif, but two.³

Settlements

The Mitchell committee and the Roadmap called for a settlement freeze, and Sharon's government had reservations.⁵⁶ Evacuation is painful: in the 2005 disengagement Israel removed about 8,500 settlers from the Gaza Strip.⁷ As of October 2026, building in the E1 area east of Jerusalem is still disputed.¹

Refugees

The Arab Peace Initiative asks for a just and agreed solution in line with UN Resolution 194.⁸ The Clinton Parameters offered five possible destinations for refugees, among them the Palestinian state.³ The Trump plan ruled out return to Israel.⁴ The gap is still open.

Distrust

In a 2020 joint poll by Palestinian and Israeli researchers, 90% of Palestinians and 79% of Israeli Jews said the other side cannot be trusted. Fewer than one in five on each side believed the other side wants peace.⁹

Who decides, and for whom?

In June 2007 Hamas, a terrorist organisation, took control of the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian rule has been split between Gaza and the West Bank ever since.¹⁰ In Israel, too, decisions are close: the Interim Agreement passed the Knesset in 1995 by 61 votes to 59,¹¹ and in July 2024 the Knesset voted 68 to 9 against a Palestinian state.¹²

One side has a state, the other does not

The power gap is wide. In July 2024 the International Court of Justice found, in an advisory opinion that is not binding, that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful.¹³ According to the researchers Shira Efron and Evan Gottesman, income in Israel is roughly 30 times higher than on the Palestinian side.¹⁴

Violence against agreements

Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli who opposed the Oslo process.¹⁵ According to the US State Department's Office of the Historian, the Hamas bombings that followed wore down support for the government leading the process.¹⁶ On 7 October 2023 Hamas led a terrorist attack in which civilians were murdered and hostages taken, and the war in Gaza followed.¹⁷ Each blow like this hurts people first, and then trust.

What can build trust?

Something real for each public

In the peace treaty with Egypt, Egypt got all of Sinai back within three years. Israel got an end to the state of war and diplomatic relations.¹⁸ Each side could see what it had gained.

Step by step, with someone checking

The withdrawal from Sinai went in stages, and the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) monitors the security arrangements.¹⁸¹⁹ The Roadmap, too, was built on step-by-step progress watched by the Quartet, but it was not implemented.⁶

Protecting civilians

The Mitchell committee asked the Palestinian Authority to make a full effort to stop terror and punish those who commit it. It asked Israel to use non-lethal means against demonstrations and to lift closures.⁵

No facts on the ground in the meantime

For the Mitchell committee and the Roadmap, a settlement freeze and an end to violence were meant to leave the decisions to the table.⁵⁶ The statement that closed the Camp David summit in 2000 also called for avoiding unilateral steps.²⁰

A leader who speaks to the other side's public

On 19 November 1977 Egypt's President Anwar Sadat landed in Jerusalem, and the next day he spoke in the Knesset;²¹²² see Sadat's Visit to Jerusalem. Less than a year and a half later the peace treaty was signed.¹⁸

People who meet

ALLMEP, a coalition of more than 200 Israeli and Palestinian organisations, says studies show that encounters change attitudes, but they have never been funded on a scale that changes whole societies.²³ Groups working on the ground include the Parents Circle – Families Forum,²⁴ Women Wage Peace and Women of the Sun,²⁵²⁶ and Combatants for Peace.²⁷

A shared need: water, the economy

Since 1994 EcoPeace Middle East has brought Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli environmentalists together around water, the Jordan River and the Dead Sea.²⁸ The 2025 New York Declaration calls for a review of the Paris Protocol and the release of withheld tax revenues.²⁹

Education against dehumanisation

The Mitchell committee called on both sides to denounce incitement and act against it,⁵ and the 1998 Wye River Memorandum included such a commitment.³⁰ In the bilingual Hand in Hand schools more than 2,000 Jewish and Arab pupils learn together.³¹

The proposals in brief: who, what, for and against

The Clinton Parameters, 2000

Who: US President Bill Clinton, 23 December 2000. What: a Palestinian state on 94% to 96% of the West Bank, and Jerusalem divided by neighbourhoods.³ For: the White House said both sides accepted them with reservations, and called that a step forward.³² Against: the Palestinian negotiating team wrote that they secured neither a viable state nor the refugees' return;³³ the White House did not spell out Israel's reservations.³²

The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

Who: the Arab League, on a Saudi proposal, March 2002. What: full withdrawal to the 1967 lines, a Palestinian state and an agreed solution for refugees, in return for normal relations with all Arab states.⁸ For: Marwan Muasher, who helped draft it, describes a collective peace with all Arab states and an end to all claims.³⁴ Against: according to the Washington Institute, Israel objected to the reference to Resolution 194 and to the demand for full withdrawal on all fronts.³⁵

The Geneva Initiative, 2003

Who: an unofficial team led by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, 1 December 2003.³⁶ What: a full text of a permanent-status agreement. For: its drafters say it is a complete deal: an end to the conflict and to all claims, and mutual recognition.³⁷ Against: Sharon's government said only it could negotiate and the text did not bind it;³⁸ a statement in Fatah's name rejected it over the right of return.³⁹

Olmert's offer, 2008

Who: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who showed Mahmoud Abbas a proposal and a map in September 2008, after Annapolis.⁴⁰ For: Olmert says it was a far-reaching offer and Abbas never replied.⁴¹ Against: Abbas says he saw the map but was not given it, and the refugee arrangement fell short.⁴² No agreement was reached.

The Trump plan, 2020

Who: President Donald Trump, alongside Benjamin Netanyahu, January 2020. What: Israeli sovereignty over about 30% of the West Bank and a demilitarised Palestinian state, with conditions. The Palestinians had no part in drafting it.⁴ For: the US ambassador to the UN called it realistic and implementable, and Israel's ambassador called it a sane new approach.⁴³ Against: Abbas said it legitimises settlements and annexation and leaves Palestine fragmented.⁴³

The New York Declaration, 2025

Who: a conference co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia; the General Assembly endorsed it on 12 September 2025 by 142 votes to 10.⁴⁴ What: time-bound steps to a Palestinian state alongside Israel, with Hamas handing over its weapons and leaving power in Gaza.⁴⁴ For: according to France, it condemns the 7 October attack and offers a path to security for both peoples.⁴⁵ Against: Israel rejected it, saying it ignores Hamas's responsibility;⁴⁶ the United States called it a “gift to Hamas”.⁴⁷

Confederation ideas

Who: the movement A Land for All, and the Holy Land Confederation proposal by Hiba Husseini and Yossi Beilin (2022). What: two independent states with an open border and shared institutions.⁴⁸⁴⁹ For: its authors say it eases the way to two states without a mass evacuation.⁴⁹ Against: according to Efron and Gottesman, an open border clashes with Israel's security doctrine, and the power gap remains.¹⁴

Civil society: who is already working on it