Israelis and Palestinians: possibilities for the future

Where we start

This part of the site rests 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 life in security and dignity for both peoples. These are the site's principles. They are not a claim that a political settlement has been reached, or that its borders are agreed.

The proposals shown here are documented: each has authors, a date, and a text or a record that can be read. Some are official, such as the Clinton Parameters and the Arab Peace Initiative. Some are initiatives by private individuals, such as the Geneva Initiative. None of them is an agreement already reached, and none is a guaranteed solution.

The Oslo Accords themselves did not settle the hard questions. The 1993 Declaration of Principles deferred Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders to permanent-status negotiations². Those negotiations have never been completed.

Why is it so hard to reach an agreement?

Territory and borders

Both peoples are attached to the same small land. Most proposals start from the 1967 lines with land swaps, but they differ widely on scale: the Clinton Parameters spoke of a Palestinian state on 94% to 96% of the West Bank³, and the Trump plan of Israeli sovereignty over about 30% of it⁴.

Security, and the fear of terror and of war

In 2001 the international Mitchell committee described two fears: Israelis fear terrorism and lose faith that the two peoples can live together, and Palestinians experience the occupation, the military presence and the settlements as daily humiliation⁵. Many proposals therefore try to combine a non-militarised Palestinian state with an international force, as in the Clinton Parameters³.

Jerusalem and the holy places

Both sides see Jerusalem as a capital, and the Old City holds places sacred to more than one religion. Even the Clinton Parameters did not offer a single formula for the Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif, but two alternatives³.

Settlements

The Mitchell committee and the Roadmap called for a freeze on settlement construction; the Sharon government had reservations about the freeze⁵⁶. Evacuation is a hard step: in the 2005 disengagement Israel removed about 8,500 settlers from the Gaza Strip⁷. As of October 2026 the dispute over construction in the E1 area east of Jerusalem is still open¹.

Refugees

The Arab Peace Initiative speaks of a just and agreed solution in accordance with UN Resolution 194⁸. The Clinton Parameters offered five possible destinations for refugees, among them the Palestinian state³. The Trump plan ruled out return to Israel⁴. The gap between these formulas has not been closed.

Distrust after violence and failed rounds

In a joint poll by Palestinian and Israeli researchers in 2020, 90% of Palestinians and 79% of Israeli Jews said the other side cannot be trusted. Fewer than a fifth on each side believed that the other side wants peace⁹.

Divided leadership and internal politics

In June 2007 Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian rule has been split between the Strip and the West Bank ever since¹⁰. In Israel, too, the decisions are hard: the Interim Agreement passed the Knesset in 1995 by 61 votes to 59¹¹, and in July 2024 the Knesset approved by 68 votes to 9 a resolution opposing the establishment of a Palestinian state¹².

Unequal power and the reality of occupation

One side is a state, and the other has no state. 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 unlawful¹³. According to the researchers Shira Efron and Evan Gottesman, income in Israel is roughly 30 times higher than on the Palestinian side¹⁴.

Those who use violence to stop agreements

Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli who opposed the Oslo process¹⁵. According to the US State Department's Office of the Historian, the Hamas attacks that followed weakened public support for the government that led the process¹⁶. Violence of this kind harms people first, and it also harms the trust an agreement needs.

What can build trust?

An agreement that gives each public something visible

In the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty Egypt got the whole of Sinai back within three years, and Israel got an end to the state of war and diplomatic relations¹⁷. Each public could see what it gained.

Implementation in phases, verified by a third party

The withdrawal from Sinai was carried out in stages, and the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) was set up to monitor the security arrangements¹⁷¹⁸. The Roadmap, too, was built on performance-based progress accompanied by the Quartet, but it was not implemented⁶.

Protecting civilians and preventing terror

The Mitchell committee recommended that the Palestinian Authority make a full effort to prevent terrorist operations and punish the perpetrators, and that Israel use non-lethal means to disperse demonstrations and lift closures⁵.

Halting steps that decide the outcome in advance

According to the Mitchell committee and the Roadmap, a freeze on settlement construction and an end to violence were meant to leave the decisions to negotiation⁵⁶. The statement that closed the Camp David summit in 2000 likewise called on both sides to avoid unilateral steps¹⁹.

Leaders who speak to the other side's public

On 19 November 1977 Egypt's President Anwar Sadat arrived in Jerusalem, and the next day he addressed the Knesset²⁰²¹; see Sadat's Visit to Jerusalem. Less than a year and a half later the peace treaty was signed¹⁷.

Civil society and people-to-people encounters

ALLMEP is a coalition of more than 200 Israeli and Palestinian organisations. It says that studies show encounter programmes change attitudes, but that they have never been funded on a scale that could change whole societies²². Those working on the ground include the Parents Circle – Families Forum²³, Women Wage Peace and Women of the Sun²⁴²⁵, and Combatants for Peace²⁶.

Economic and environmental cooperation

Since 1994 EcoPeace Middle East has brought together Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli environmentalists around a shared need: water, the Jordan River and the Dead Sea²⁷. The 2025 New York Declaration calls for a review of the Paris Protocol and the release of the withheld tax revenues²⁸.

Education against dehumanisation

The Mitchell committee called on both sides to recognise incitement of every kind, denounce it and work against it⁵, and the 1998 Wye River Memorandum included a commitment to act against incitement²⁹. In the bilingual schools of Hand in Hand more than 2,000 Jewish and Arab pupils learn together³⁰.

Civil society: who is already working on it