Israel faces one of the most difficult periods in its history. Militarily, it remains strong, but diplomatically, morally, economically, and demographically, it confronts challenges that are likely to worsen unless a new political path is found. While no solution is risk-free and success cannot be guaranteed, a negotiated two-state agreement appears to offer the best available path to preserving Israel as a secure, Jewish, democratic, and internationally respected state.

Judaism calls upon Jews to be “a holy nation,” “a kingdom of priests,” “God’s witnesses,” and “a light unto the nations.” Regardless of how one interprets these ideals politically, Israel’s international standing has deteriorated sharply in much of the world, while antisemitism has risen dramatically in many countries.

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 avoid displaying symbols of their faith in public.

These developments may also have contributed to Israel’s recent migration deficit. Many of those leaving are highly skilled professionals in fields such as medicine, education, and high-tech, contributing to shortages in some sectors.

Similarly:

Many Jews leaving are talented…

could become

Many of those leaving are talented and come from significant fields such as medicine, education, and high tech, contributing to shortages in some sectors.

In addition, prospects for normalization with Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations have significantly lessened.

Jews have much to be proud of in terms of our  values, traditions, and accomplishments, but it’s essential that  the above conditions be improved/

While it would require painful concessions, the best hope for a positive future for Israel is a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This conclusion is shared not only by many world leaders but also by Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), an organization of more than 550 retired leaders of Israel’s military, intelligence, police, and diplomatic services. While reasonable people may disagree with their conclusions, few organizations possess greater collective experience in assessing Israel’s long-term security needs.

The status quo offers little reason for optimism. International isolation has increased, relations with important allies have become strained, and prospects for broader regional normalization have diminished

Among the potential benefits of a two-state conflict resolution would be improved international standing, reduced antisemitism, a lessened migration deficit, and enhanced prospects for Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations to join the Abraham Accords.

What follows are common objections 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.

Nothing in this article minimizes the horror of October 7 or Israel’s unquestionable right and obligation to defend its citizens against terrorism.

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: A negotiated agreement could include monitoring mechanisms, security cooperation, international oversight, and clear consequences for violations.

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

Response: This remains perhaps the greatest obstacle, as there are many reasons to question the Palestinians’ willingness to come to the peace table. However, there are also reasons to believe that, under proper conditions, this can change.

The Palestinian Authority has, for many years, officially recognized Israel and has continued security cooperation with Israel in Judea and Samaria, despite periods of severe tension. Polls have periodically shown that significant numbers of both Israelis and Palestinians continue to support a negotiated peace under certain conditions. Many prominent Palestinian business leaders, academics, and civil society organizations have argued that economic development and political stability are preferable to continued conflict. Since a resolution of the conflict is so essential for Israel, it should join with other nations and take steps that increase the chances of finding a sincere peace partner.

5. What about the future for 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 justifies 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 rejectionism and violence, failures of leadership on both sides, mutual distrust, and changing political circumstances. 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. The alternatives should be judged not against an ideal peace but against the likely consequences of continuing the current trajectory.

Many Israelis who once supported a two-state solution changed their views after the Second Intifada, and especially after October 7. Their fears are understandable. The question is not whether those fears are real—they are—but whether an indefinite continuation of the current situation offers a safer long-term future.

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.

Israel has repeatedly demonstrated extraordinary courage on the battlefield. Today, it also requires courage in diplomacy and statecraft. A negotiated peace may ultimately prove unattainable, but refusing to pursue one almost guarantees continued conflict, growing international isolation, and mounting costs for Israelis and Palestinians alike.