Debate over the Palestinian issue intensified after Avigdor Lieberman proposed considering Jordanian control over Areas A and B in the West Bank. In an analysis published by Ynet, researcher Michael Milshtein presents both the proposal and the reactions to it as part of an Israeli discussion that, in his view, is often inward-looking, detached from realities on the ground and shaped by political interests.
The idea would have Israel retain control over most of the West Bank while Jordan assumes responsibility for about 3 million Palestinians and provides a framework for their political aspirations. It was discussed after the 1967 war. Milshtein says it was difficult to implement even then and has become still less plausible almost 60 years later. Most West Bank residents, he writes, did not experience Jordanian rule and feel little connection to the Hashemite monarchy. Jordan itself faces serious pressures and has neither the capacity nor the desire to govern an area with a population five times larger than in 1967.
Milshtein compares the Jordan proposal with other ideas that have gained attention in Israeli politics since October 7: a clan-based administration in the West Bank and Gaza, mass “voluntary” Palestinian emigration, or persuading Egypt to establish a Palestinian state in Sinai. He argues that such proposals are often advanced without adequate consideration of their moral and practical feasibility.
The column also asks whether continued control over the entire West Bank without citizenship for its residents would undermine Israel’s democratic character. Milshtein connects the risk to Bezalel Smotrich’s “decisive victory” plan. In his view, the balance between Israel’s Jewish and democratic identities is shifting towards the former, while structural discrimination affects people on both sides of the Green Line, including Arab citizens of Israel. He also warns that increasingly religious language about control of the land could deepen internal divisions.
Milshtein criticises how international reactions to Israeli policy are presented to the public. He says concern over rising settler violence in the West Bank, the lack of a clear strategy in Gaza and what he sees as an addiction to force is often recast for Israelis as antisemitism or foreign naivety. He argues that this framing obscures events on the ground and the damage to Israel’s standing abroad.
Rather than choosing between immediate Palestinian statehood and extending Israeli sovereignty, Milshtein calls for exploring a difficult form of physical separation between the two peoples. He acknowledges that it would not produce an ideal outcome: it would have to reduce security risks while preserving vital Israeli interests, especially control of borders between a future Palestinian entity and the outside world. The column also questions Israel’s reliance on Donald Trump’s support and the consequences of a drive to reduce dependence on Washington, described by some officials as moving towards a “new Sparta.”