At a time when the Israeli–Palestinian conflict appears trapped between a deteriorating status quo and increasingly extreme alternatives; it becomes necessary to return to first principles and re-examine the range of solutions that have historically been considered viable. Rather than viewing peace as a binary choice between separation and unity, this article argues that a more nuanced approach—grounded in shared sovereignty, regional integration, and gradual institutional cooperation—offers a realistic pathway forward. By revisiting past proposals and situating them within contemporary realities, we can begin to outline a framework capable of transforming conflict into a sustainable and inclusive political order.
In contemporary Israel, the shattered political peace camp is far from monolithic. It is broadly divided into three principal currents. The first are the Two-States, represented by frameworks such as the Geneva Initiative, who advocate ending the occupation through a negotiated partition into two sovereign states. The second are the Federalists, like our own movement Atid-Fed, who argue that long-term stability requires shared institutions and gradual integration alongside sovereignty. The third are the Regionalists, associated with trends emerging from the Abraham Accords and broader “Abrahamic” thinking, who believe that Israeli–Palestinian peace is unlikely to succeed in isolation and must be embedded within a wider regional framework of normalization and cooperation. While these approaches often appear to compete, they in fact reflect different emphases on sovereignty, interdependence, and regional context.
