Published: 30 June 2025
Last updated: 30 June 2025
Despite the complexity of the history and the many dimensions of the current conflict, the possible futures for Israel-Palestine are few.
Dr Alex Sinclair has boiled them down to four words, conveniently starting with the letters A,B,C and D.
Sinclair, who is Chief Content Officer at Educating for Impact, and an adjunct lecturer at the Melton Centre of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explained the four possible at Limmud Oz in Melbourne.
A is for Apartheid
Failure to resolve the status of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would create an apartheid Israel, with different regimes within pre-1967 borders, which has a majority Jewish population, and the West Bank's majority Palestinian areas.
Jews and Arabs would continue to have full equality in pre-1967 Israel. But Palestinians in parts of the West Bank would be subject to Israeli military governance, justice and army control while Jews in the settlements would be governed by Israel’s civil governance, justice and police system. This system currently applies in Area C, which comprises 61% of the West Bank, where most Jewish settlements are situated.
Sinclair acknowledges the inflammatory nature of the term “apartheid” but quotes former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo to justify the term. “In a territory where two people are judged under two legal systems, that is an apartheid state,” Pardo told the Jerusalem Post in 2023.
B is for Binational State
Also known as the “one-state solution”, a binational state posits the entire population, Jewish and Palestinian, living together under one system of government.
This state, which might be called Israel-Palestine, would include the whole region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, what is currently Israel proper, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It would be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state operating in both Hebrew and Arabic with a population that is close to 50/50 Jewish and Palestinian, though the number of Palestinians is expected to grow and the proportion of Jews to shrink.
The model assumes the capacity of the two warring populations to live peaceably under a shared system. Many people believe it amounts to or would lead to the removal of Israel and its replacement with Palestine.
C is for Cleansing
This extreme solution posits Israel taking control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but without the current Palestinian population.
While not even extremists have gone so far as to explicitly promote expelling entire populations, there is a strong subtext in favour of this options in the rhetoric of Religious Zionist leaders Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. They have argued for totally destroying Gaza so that large swathes of the population will leave, and expanding settlements in the West Bank to squeeze out the Palestinian population.
The argument that Israel’s military actions in Gaza constitute genocide is based on the belief that Israel’s true military agenda is to significantly reduce the Palestinian population, rather than simple to remove the Hamas terrorists and their infrastructure.
D is for Division
The two-state solution first proposed at Oslo in 1993 remains on the table, despite its failure to come to fruition 20 years ago.
In various follow-up meetings, Israelis and Palestinians have worked toward a negotiated two-state solution, notably at the Camp David Summit of 2000 and the Olmert-Abbas negotiations of 2008.
The broad strokes of a viable potential future agreement were set out in the Geneva Accord in 2009:
- End of conflict. End of all claims.
- Mutual recognition of Israeli and Palestinian right to two separate states.
- A final, agreed upon border.
- A comprehensive solution to the refugee problem.
- Large settlement blocks and most of the settlers are annexed to Israel, as part of a 1:1 land swap.
- Recognition of the Jewish neighbourhoods in Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and recognition of the Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.
- A demilitarised Palestinian state.
- A comprehensive and complete Palestinian commitment to fighting terrorism and incitement.
- An international verification group to oversee implementation
Analyst Shaul Arieli argues division is the only solution which would allow Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic.
“The demographic and land data in the West Bank paint a clear picture: Palestinians hold a significant demographic majority and spatial dominance, both in terms of land ownership and built-up area. This reality presents annexation advocates with an insoluble dilemma: either losing the Jewish majority or giving up Israel's democratic character. Nevertheless, separation can be achieved through land swaps of about 4% of the West Bank's area.
“Such a solution would allow preserving 80% of the Israeli population currently living beyond the Green Line under Israeli sovereignty, while maintaining territorial continuity and the fabric of life for both Palestinians and Israelis.“
Comments5
Steve17 July at 08:31 am
The article refers to four “futures”, none of which is a viable possibility nor under any serious consideration. The war started by Hamas on 7 October 2023 has proven, to anyone who still didn’t see it before, that there is no viable political solution to the 100-year-old conflict with the Arabs of Palestine until those Arabs finally stop trying to destroy Israel and kill Jews by perpetuating their fictional “refugee” status, using their population as cannon fodder and human shields for terrorists, glorifying “martyrdom”, indoctrinating their children and paying their youth to murder Jews. Regretfully they’ve been doing that for 100 years and it will take at least a generation or more to undo that damage. The only possible motivation for presenting these four fictional “futures” at this time, instead of focussing on plans to de-radicalise Palestinian Arab society, is to discredit and undermine Israel.
Simon Krite2 July at 06:32 am
Wesley,
You’re horrified by the idea of a demilitarised Palestinian state, not because Hamas slaughters civilians, but because you think it’s “racist”? And then you claim Palestinians are actually the original Jews? You’ve clearly overdosed on the pro-Pali Kool-Aid.
Ian Light1 July at 09:22 am
Because the Jewish People of Israel are a minority in the Middle East seven to eight million Jewish People surrounded by hundreds of millions of Arabic People and two billions of Islamic People harsh and stringent Security Protocols are Mandatory.
So the D is for Defence against massacres and violent expulsion .
Wesley Parish1 July at 07:42 am
When I first heard about one of the characteristics of the “Two-State Solution” then under discussion, namely that Palestine would be disarmed, I was horrified, on two counts – firstly, it assumed that Palestinians are naturally savage and vicious, and anything more racist is hard to imagine, and secondly, it would give the IDF free reign to continue the Occupation under other names. I mean, doesn’t it give you the collywobbles to accept a claim that Palestinians are naturally vicious and savage, while knowing that since they hadn’t moved from their current locations until the Nakhba, they were the original Jews in the First Century Common Era? That’s a bit sus to me. From what I can see, that attitude is not far different from that behind the Mediaeval “Blood Libel”, that Jews were so naturally savage and vicious that …
Simon Krite1 July at 07:21 am
D for Division – But With a Door Open
Division remains the only viable path to preserving Israel as both Jewish and democratic. But instead of a tired return to failed roadmaps, we need a strategic, conditional, phased division with clear incentives. PEACE in exchange for PROGRESS.
Israel should proactively define its borders, reinforce its security, and finalise its claim to a Jewish homeland alongside a demilitarised, sovereign Palestinian state. But here’s the shift:
Upon verifiable emergence of a peaceful Palestinian leadership committed to nonviolence, incitement-free education, and secure coexistence, Israel opens the door to:
• Free movement zones under international supervision
• Trade corridors that deepen economic ties and reduce dependence on terror-supporting actors
• Shared infrastructure projects, from water to tech
• Gradual cultural and academic exchange programs
Until then, a hard separation with secure borders and international enforcement must be non-negotiable.
Call it Division with Contingent Integration. A realistic, defensible path out of the zero-sum deadlock. It buys Israel time, protects Jewish democracy, and keeps the door open – but only for a partner who’s proven they’re no longer trying to burn the house down.