The illusion of “self-rule” is what the Israeli leadership is actually planning for the Palestinians

Writer: Hazem Al-Qawasmi

What is the final solution that the Israelis want with the Palestinians, while the Israeli leadership of all sects and parties does not support the two-state solution! We know what the most extreme Israeli leadership, such as Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and Netanyahu, who supports them, wants. They have repeatedly stated that there is another genocide in the West Bank similar to what happened in Gaza, or mass expulsion and ethnic cleansing. As for the Israeli leaders who appear to be less extremist, such as Bennett, Lieberman and Eisenkot, they are clear about permanently annexing East Jerusalem to Israel, continuing to expand settlements and establishing an apartheid regime in the West Bank, and maintaining the occupation forever, which makes all Palestinians in Palestine under permanent Israeli control. Even if this less extremist leadership adopted a system of self-government for the Palestinians, this system must be subject to complete Israeli control from the air, land, and sea. This means that any Israeli leadership will not be able to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict radically, because the Palestinians will not accept a solution that will not give them their full freedom and keep them under occupation, apartheid, or Israeli control. The two-state solution is dead in Israeli political discourse. This is not a claim or assessment on my part, but rather the explicit position of the current Israeli government and the leaders nominated to rule Israel in the coming period to maintain complete security control over “the entire region from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” All of these leaderships share one non-negotiable principle: permanent Israeli control over security, borders, and airspace. I will present models hereThe four main ones circulating in Israeli political circles, their repercussions for the Palestinians, and why none of them can permanently resolve the conflict.

The first model: “Autonomy without sovereignty” by Netanyahu

In his 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan University, Netanyahu supported what he called a “demilitarized Palestinian state”—but under conditions that stripped it of any real sovereignty. By 2026, even this limited vision has evaporated. Netanyahu is now not talking about a demilitarized state, but rather about permanent Israeli security control over the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is not an incomplete state; Rather, it is an extra occupation. What this means in practice is a Palestinian authority running internal civil affairs—education, health, local police, waste collection—while Israel retains control over borders, airspace, military intervention, settlement expansion, and Jerusalem. Critics call this “autonomy on a leash.” More precisely, it is ruling my country under military occupation.

The second model: “annexation plus autonomy” by Bennett

Naftali Bennett's position is clearer from a regional perspective. It calls for the formal annexation of Area C, which constitutes 60% of the West Bank under full Israeli military and civilian control, while granting “limited self-rule” to the Palestinians in Areas A and B. Bennett's plan would create full Israeli sovereignty over Area C, including all settlements and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians will gain autonomy in separate enclaves, without geographical contiguity and without control over borders, airspace or external security. There will never be a Palestinian state. This model is sometimes marketed as pragmatism and “conflict management” rather than conflict resolution. In fact, it perpetuates apartheid: two populations living on the same land under two different legal systems, with different rights, and different futures.

The third model: “An entity, not a state” by Eisenkot

Gadi Eisenkot, the former IDF chief of staff and the leading candidate to head the next government, has developed a multi-stage model: destroy Hamas, create an “Arab-American-Israeli alliance” to transfer civilian affairs in Gaza to local leaders, maintain Israeli “freedom of action” in Gaza with a buffer zone, and postpone any final status decision for about five years. Most importantly, Eisenkot calls for an Israeli-American agreement to create a “Palestinian entity”—not a state. The entity means no sovereignty, no army, no control over borders or airspace, and limited self-rule subject to Israeli security oversight.

Fourth model: Lieberman's rejection of any Palestinian entity

Avigdor Lieberman was the most vocal in rejecting any form of Palestinian state. “I don't care about a Palestinian state,” he said in 2018. “I'm interested in a safe Jewish state.” His position seems to go further than others, framing Israel's Palestinian Arab minority as a "problem that needs to be solved." This indicates a model based on no Palestinian state in any form, demographic separation if possible, or permanent control over the Palestinians without any political rights.

All Israeli models share one non-negotiable principle: Israel must retain ultimate security control. This creates an impossible situation for any Palestinian leadership. An “autonomous” authority that cannot control its borders, airspace, or security is not a state—it is a municipal government under occupation. No Palestinian leader can accept this and maintain legitimacy among his people. There are about 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, and any model that creates permanent Israeli control without granting citizenship to the Palestinians creates an apartheid system — a fact acknowledged even by some Israeli analysts, who warn that annexation without voting rights “would lead to apartheid.” The history of the twentieth century is full of examples of oppressed peoples who endured decades of occupation to eventually achieve liberation. No people accept permanent submission, and the Palestinians will not be the exception.

The system of autonomy contemplated by the Israeli leadership is not a solution to the conflict – but rather a management strategy that seeks to maintain Israeli control while delegating the day-to-day management of Palestinian affairs to a subordinate authority. This system has several features: First, it is permanent. None of the models suggests a path toward full sovereignty. “Entity” or “autonomy” is a final state, not a transitional phase. Second, it is completely under Israeli control. Third, it is fragmented. Palestinians live in separate enclaves – Gaza, Areas A and B and East Jerusalem – without geographical contiguity or freedom of movement. Fourth, it is unequal. Two populations living on the same land under two different legal systems. One has full rights, including the right to vote, travel, and self-determination. The other has limited autonomy under military occupation. This is not a formula for peace. It is a formula for permanent conflict. It will be managed indefinitely - through walls, checkpoints and periodic military operations - until the next explosion. The question is not whether this will lead to another war. The question is when?