Israel at a Dangerous Crossroads — and Its Best Possible Future

Israel is confronting a deeply troubling reality. Hatred of Israel has intensified in much of the world. Antisemitism has become frighteningly widespread. More Israelis are leaving the country, creating a troubling negative migration balance. And the once-promising prospect of normalization with Saudi Arabia and other Muslim-majority countries has become considerably more difficult.

These developments should set off alarm bells.

Israel faces genuine and formidable enemies. The October 7 massacre, Hamas terrorism, Iranian threats, and attacks by Hezbollah and other extremist organizations cannot be minimized. Israel has every right—and responsibility—to protect its citizens.

But Israel must also ask a difficult question: Are some of our own policies contributing to the increasingly hostile environment in which Israel finds itself?

Unfortunately, the answer appears to be yes.

One particularly serious problem is Jewish violence against Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. Attacks on Palestinians, destruction of their property, intimidation, and efforts to drive Palestinians from their homes are not merely moral wrongs. They are also strategically disastrous.

When Israeli extremists attack Palestinians, they deepen Palestinian hatred and despair, undermine those who might otherwise support coexistence, strengthen Palestinian extremists, and provide powerful ammunition to Israel’s international critics. They also make it harder for Israel’s friends abroad to defend Israeli policies.

Israel must therefore distinguish clearly between legitimate security measures and extremist violence. Palestinian terrorism must be confronted forcefully, but so must Jewish terrorism and vigilante violence. Those who attack Palestinians should be prosecuted and punished, regardless of their ideology or political connections.

This is not “giving in” to Israel’s enemies. It is defending Israel’s long-term interests.

The international consequences are becoming increasingly serious. Antisemitism is surging in many countries, and Jews are once again facing threats and hostility because they are Jews. Nothing can justify this. Responsibility for antisemitism lies with antisemites, not with Israel.

Nevertheless, Israel should recognize that the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict—particularly highly publicized images of Palestinian suffering and settler violence—can intensify hostility toward Israel and sometimes spill over into hatred of Jews who have nothing to do with Israeli government policies.

Israel’s migration figures provide another warning.

A country created as a refuge and national home for Jews should be deeply concerned when substantial numbers of its citizens decide that their futures may be better elsewhere. Economic considerations certainly play a role, but prolonged war, political instability, and uncertainty about Israel’s future can also influence decisions to leave.

If significant numbers of young Israelis, professionals and highly educated citizens increasingly consider emigration, the consequences could extend well beyond population statistics. Israel’s economy, scientific leadership, military capabilities, and social vitality depend heavily on retaining talented people.

The deterioration in Israel’s prospects for normalization with Saudi Arabia is another indication that the current approach carries substantial costs.

Only a few years ago, Saudi-Israeli normalization seemed a realistic possibility. Such an agreement could have been a historic breakthrough, bringing enormous economic, diplomatic and strategic benefits while helping reshape the Middle East.

Today, however, normalization has become much harder. Saudi Arabia and other Arab states face intense domestic and regional pressure over Israel’s conduct toward the Palestinians. Increasingly, meaningful progress toward Palestinian statehood is being treated as an essential component of broader regional agreements.

This should not be dismissed simply as anti-Israel hostility. Israel must address this strategic reality.

What might happen if the present course continues? Israel could face increasing international isolation, more countries recognizing a Palestinian state, deteriorating relations with important Western allies, growing economic pressure, and fewer opportunities for regional cooperation. Continued Jewish violence against Palestinians could further radicalize Palestinians and make a future peace agreement still more difficult.

There is an alternative.

Israel’s best hope for a positive future is to pursue, seriously and persistently, a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A two-state agreement would require painful compromises from both sides. Palestinians would have to abandon terrorism, prevent attacks against Israelis, and accept Israel’s permanent existence as a Jewish state. Israel would need to make difficult territorial and political concessions while ensuring that its security requirements are met.

But no realistic alternative offers comparable potential benefits.

A viable Palestinian state could provide Palestinians with dignity, self-determination and hope while enabling Israel to remain both Jewish and democratic. Ending the conflict could dramatically improve Israel’s relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds, revive the possibility of Saudi normalization, strengthen Israel’s relationships with Western countries and reduce a major source of international hostility toward Israel.

Most importantly, it could begin reversing the dangerous cycle in which Palestinian suffering produces greater Palestinian and international hostility, which in turn produces greater Israeli insecurity and increasingly hard-line policies.

Israel should not wait until circumstances become even worse before reconsidering its course.

Israel needs security—but security cannot mean permanent war.

Israel needs strength—but strength should include the courage to pursue peace.

And Israel needs friends—not only those who will support whatever its government does, but those who will tell it when its policies are putting its future at risk.

It is especially significant that Commanders for Israel’s Security, an organization composed of over 550 retired senior leaders of Mossad, Shin Bet, the IDF, the Israeli police, and the diplomatic service, strongly supports a two-state resolution of the conflict.

The choice before Israel is increasingly stark: continue down a path that risks greater isolation, emigration, antisemitism, and regional estrangement, or begin building a different future through a determined pursuit of two states for two peoples.

The second path is difficult and uncertain. But the first is becoming increasingly dangerous.

For the sake of Israel’s security, democracy, Jewish character and international standing—and for future generations of Israelis and Palestinians—the search for a just and workable two-state solution should become one of Israel’s highest national priorities.