Israel’s Best Chance for a Positive Future

The Jewish people have long understood their mission in the world through the words of the prophet Isaiah: to be “a light unto the nations.” It is an inspiring ideal, but also a demanding one. It calls upon us not only to celebrate our achievements but also to examine honestly where we have fallen short.

Today, Israel and the Jewish people face challenges unlike any we have confronted in generations. Since the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, Israel has been engaged in a war forced upon it by one of the most barbaric terrorist organizations in modern history. Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, murdered entire families, committed acts of torture and sexual violence, and took hostages, only some of whom were returned home, and whose suffering continues to this day.

Israel had every right—and indeed every obligation—to respond. It is virtually impossible to imagine any nation doing otherwise.

Yet the war’s consequences have extended far beyond the battlefield. Images of destruction in Gaza, mounting civilian casualties, multiple transfers of Gazans, and the continuing absence of a political horizon have profoundly affected world opinion. Even nations that have historically supported Israel have become increasingly critical. International organizations, universities, professional associations, and cultural institutions have become battlegrounds in a growing struggle over Israel’s legitimacy and standing in the world.

At the same time, antisemitism has surged to levels not seen in decades. Jewish students on university campuses have faced harassment and intimidation. Jewish institutions have required heightened security. In countries long regarded as safe havens for Jewish life, many Jews now think twice before displaying symbols of their faith or identity in public.

The growing hostility directed toward Israel often ignores crucial facts. Too many critics overlook Hamas’s responsibility for initiating the war, its systematic use of civilians as human shields, and its explicit commitment to Israel’s destruction. Too often, Israel is judged by standards not applied to any other nation confronting a similar threat.

At the same time, honesty requires us to acknowledge that not every criticism of Israeli policy is rooted in antisemitism. Some concerns deserve serious consideration. Acts of violence committed by extremist settlers against innocent Palestinians are morally indefensible and strategically disastrous. Such actions violate everything Judaism stands for—its values and its fealty to its moral and ethical code—undermine Israel’s standing and strengthen those who seek to portray Israel as indifferent to justice.

Jewish law is cited as the reason for occupying Judea and Samaria and Gaza because it requires us to settle in all of biblical Israel, not just a portion of it. Yet Jewish law is routinely violated by the settlers who commit violent acts. Pikuach nefesh, the preservation of life, is so important that it overrides nearly all the Torah’s other commandments. Running a close second is sh’fichut damim, the shedding of blood—in other words, committing murder. So important is it that it stands on the short list of commandments that even pikuach nefesh does not override.

Israeli leaders across the political spectrum—sadly, however, not all— have expressed concern about the ongoing settler violence. President Isaac Herzog has condemned attacks on Palestinian civilians as “shocking and serious.” Senior military and security officials have repeatedly warned that lawlessness in Judea and Samaria threatens both Israel’s moral standing and its national security.

These developments should concern every person who cares about Israel’s future.

The question before us is not who is entirely right or entirely wrong. The conflict has inflicted suffering on Israelis and Palestinians alike for generations. The real question is what course offers the best hope for preserving Israel as a secure, democratic, and Jewish state while reducing the likelihood of endless future wars.

After much reflection, I have concluded that a negotiated two-state solution—however difficult, imperfect, and politically unpopular as it may currently be—remains the most realistic path toward achieving that goal.

I recognize that many readers will strongly disagree. Reasonable people can and do differ on this issue. Yet because the stakes are so high, I hope even those who disagree will consider the argument before dismissing it.

Many people assume that support for a two-state solution has become unrealistic because of the trauma of October 7. I understand that reaction. The massacre shattered assumptions that many Israelis held about the possibility of coexistence. It deepened the mistrust many have because of decades of Palestinian leaders agreeing to peace proposals only to unleash reigns of terror. We saw it after Oslo, and we saw it after Camp David, and it has convinced many Israelis that territorial compromise would only invite further attacks.

Yet the status quo offers little cause for optimism. Israel remains locked in a conflict that has no obvious endpoint. International isolation is growing. Relations with important allies have become strained. Prospects for broader regional normalization have diminished. At the same time, demographic, diplomatic, and security trends increasingly raise questions about Israel’s long-term future as both a Jewish and a democratic state.

This is not an argument that Israel alone bears responsibility for the conflict. Far from it. The duplicity of Palestinian leaders regarding their acceptance of compromise is well established. Hamas and its ilk remain committed to Israel’s destruction. Corruption, incitement, and political dysfunction have weakened Palestinian society and leadership. Any honest assessment must recognize these realities.

Nevertheless, the central question is not who bears the greater share of blame. The central question is what course best serves Israel’s future.

My conclusion is shared by many former Israeli military, intelligence, diplomatic, and security officials. Commanders for Israel’s Security, an organization composed of over 550 retired senior leaders from the IDF, Mossad, Shin Bet, police, and diplomatic corps, argues that the continued drift toward a one-state reality threatens Israel’s future as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people.

As one Israeli political leader once stated it, “In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect.” Israel, this leader added, should be prepared “to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.”

The political leader who spoke those words was Benjamin Netanyahu. They were the highlight of a speech he delivered 17 years ago at Bar-Ilan University when he was trolling for votes from Israeli moderates.

While reasonable people may disagree with the conclusions espoused by former military and intelligence officials, their experience and expertise deserve serious consideration.

Jewish tradition also compels us to think beyond immediate political calculations. The Torah repeatedly commands us not to oppress the stranger, reminding us that “you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” This teaching appears in one form or another three dozen times. It reflects a fundamental Jewish principle: power carries responsibilities. Having achieved sovereignty after centuries of exile and persecution, we are called upon not only to defend ourselves but also to ensure that our actions reflect the values we claim to cherish.

A negotiated two-state solution is not a perfect solution. It carries risks. It demands painful compromises. It would require difficult concessions by both Israelis and Palestinians. But every realistic alternative also carries risks, many of them potentially greater.

For that reason, I believe that efforts toward a negotiated two-state solution deserve renewed attention and support.

What follows are common objections heard and my responses to them:

1. Wouldn’t providing the Palestinians with a state be a reward for Hamas and its horrific attack on October 7, 2023?

Response: No. Hamas does not support a two-state solution. Its stated goal remains the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. The question is not what Hamas wants, but what best serves Israel’s long-term interests.

2. Since our withdrawal from Gaza led to such deadly consequences, shouldn’t we be concerned about attacks from a Palestinian state?

Response: Any future agreement would differ fundamentally from the unilateral Gaza withdrawal. It would require negotiated security arrangements, demilitarization provisions, international guarantees, and mechanisms to prevent Hamas or similar organizations from assuming control.

3. How can we ensure that a Palestinian state remains demilitarized?

Response: Absolute guarantees are impossible in international affairs. However, a negotiated agreement could include monitoring mechanisms, security cooperation, international oversight, and clear consequences for violations. Israel would retain the right and obligation to defend itself against threats.

4. Is there a partner for peace on the Palestinian side?

Response: So far, there has not been, at least not on the highest levels of Palestinian governance, which is something Israel’s critics simply ignore. This remains one of the most difficult questions. However, elements within the Palestinian Authority have cooperated with Israeli security forces for many years. Regional initiatives, including the Arab Peace Initiative, demonstrate that many Arab states continue to support a negotiated solution. Whether sufficient Palestinian leadership exists today is uncertain, but abandoning diplomacy altogether guarantees failure.

5. What about Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria?

Response: Most serious proposals envision territorial exchanges that would allow major settlement blocs to remain part of Israel. Other residents could be compensated and assisted in relocating. Such measures would be painful but not unprecedented.

6. How can we justify relinquishing land that holds profound significance in Jewish history?

Response: There is no denying the emotional and historical significance of Judea and Samaria to the Jewish people. Any territorial compromise would be deeply painful. The question is whether preserving Israel’s long-term security, democratic character, and international standing may require difficult sacrifices.

7. Why should we believe such efforts can succeed now when they have failed in the past?

Response: Success is not guaranteed. Previous efforts failed for many reasons, including Palestinian duplicity, rejectionism, violence, and political failures on both sides. Yet the devastation of recent years has also demonstrated the costs of maintaining the status quo. If regional powers, the United States, Europe, and moderate Arab states work together to support a serious diplomatic effort, the prospects for progress may be greater than many assume.

No one can predict the future. A negotiated two-state agreement may ultimately prove impossible. But absent a credible alternative, Israelis and Palestinians seem destined to continue an endless cycle of violence, fear, and mutual distrust.

The choice before us is not between a perfect solution and an imperfect one. It is between maintaining the status quo, which appears increasingly unsustainable, and pursuing a path that, despite its risks and uncertainties, may offer a better future.

For the sake of Israel, the Jewish people, and all who live in the region, I believe that path deserves serious consideration when choosing who should lead us into the future.

May we choose wisely.