For the past 24 years, both the U.S. and Israel have been wedded to the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, an idea that has been endorsed officially by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations. Giora Eiland argues that, given the evident failure of this plan, the time is ripe for Israel, in concert with the incoming American presidential administration, to give serious consideration to the alternatives:
[The two-state solution] is based on four assumptions. One, the solution to the conflict should be geographically restricted to the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Two, the solution requires the establishment of a Palestinian state with full sovereignty. Three, the border between Israel and Palestine should be based on the pre-1967 lines. Four, the West Bank and Gaza must constitute a single diplomatic entity.
These four assumptions create very limited room for negotiations. . . . If we free ourselves from them and try to look into the entire range of possible solutions, we will find that some of the other solutions have outstanding advantages over the only solution currently on the table. . . .
Among the other solutions, we can talk about a “regional solution” with land swaps between four players—Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Palestine—or about the creation of a federation between Jordan and the West Bank, or about a functional, not necessarily territorial, division between Israel and the Palestinians. And yes, even the plan advanced by Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party, to annex Area C [of the West Bank, where most of the Jewish settlements are concentrated] and establish Palestinian autonomy in the remainder of the territory.
Read more on Ynet: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4879436,00.html?