Confederation Models

Overview of Confederation Ideas

Confederation models imagine Israelis and Palestinians living in two distinct political entities that cooperate closely instead of fully merging into one state or fully separating into two sealed states. In a confederation, each side would normally have its own government, parliament, and citizenship, but they would share certain institutions, coordinate security, and allow significant movement of people and goods across borders.

This idea is often presented as a middle path between a classic two state arrangement and a single state. Confederation models try to respond to realities on the ground, such as the geographic intermingling of populations, the importance of Jerusalem to both peoples, and the political difficulty of large scale population transfers. At the same time, they seek to preserve some form of national self determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Key Principles of Proposed Confederations

Although there are many different plans, several principles appear repeatedly in confederation proposals. The first is the idea of dual or layered sovereignty. In this approach, Israel and Palestine would exist as separate states with their own sovereignty, but they would also agree to share some authority in specific areas through joint institutions. Sovereignty would not be purely exclusive within hard borders. Instead, certain powers would be delegated to shared bodies, for example in water management, environmental protection, or shared economic zones.

A second principle is free movement under regulation. Many confederation plans assume that Israelis and Palestinians could cross the border relatively easily to work, visit family, or worship at religious sites, subject to security and immigration rules. This is different from a rigid partition with sealed borders. Some plans even imagine that residents could live in the other state while keeping their original citizenship, for example Israeli settlers living under Palestinian sovereignty or Palestinian citizens living inside Israel, protected by minority rights frameworks.

A third principle is shared or coordinated security. Because both populations live so close to each other and have long histories of confrontation, confederation plans usually include a system where each side maintains its own security forces, but with joint mechanisms to coordinate against violence and terrorism. In some proposals, an international presence would help monitor and mediate security arrangements.

A fourth principle is the protection of national symbols and identities. Confederation ideas typically aim to preserve an Israeli national home and a Palestinian national home, with their own flags, languages, and official narratives, yet within a structure that encourages cooperation and reduces zero sum competition over land and sovereignty.

Historical Inspirations and Comparisons

Confederation proposals borrow ideas from various comparative cases, while recognizing that none match the Israel Palestine situation exactly. One common reference is the European Union. The EU model shows how states can retain sovereignty, boundaries, and separate citizenship, yet allow free movement, shared markets, and some common institutions. Confederation advocates often point to the Schengen Area as an example of internal borders that are formally present but practically open, while external borders remain jointly managed.

Another point of comparison is the relationship between Bosnia and Herzegovina's internal entities after the Dayton Accords, where different communities share a single international personality but retain significant autonomy. Some features of Swiss federalism, where multiple linguistic and cultural groups live under overlapping federal and cantonal systems, are also sometimes cited. In addition, the complex arrangements in Brussels, where multiple linguistic communities and regional authorities share space and institutions, offer a partial analogy for Jerusalem.

These comparisons are used not to claim that any one model can be copied directly, but to show that political systems can be designed to accommodate mixed populations, overlapping identities, and shared spaces without total assimilation or complete segregation.

Major Israeli Palestinian Confederation Proposals

Over the past decades, several specific confederation plans have been developed by academics, former officials, and civil society groups. One influential family of ideas is sometimes described as "two states, one homeland." In these proposals, Israel and Palestine are recognized as two sovereign states, largely based on the 1967 borders, but with an agreed system of open borders, shared institutions, and residential rights that cross state lines.

A central feature of such plans is the decoupling of citizenship from residence. Israelis would hold Israeli citizenship and Palestinians would hold Palestinian citizenship. People could live in the other state as permanent residents, but their political rights, such as voting in national elections, would remain tied to their home state. This is presented as a way to address the presence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Palestinian attachment to lands inside what is now Israel, without mass expulsions.

Another group of proposals comes from joint Israeli Palestinian think tanks and grassroots projects. These plans often include a detailed vision of a joint council or confederation assembly, composed of representatives from both states, responsible for cross border issues. Some include common institutions for infrastructure, health emergencies, and environmental policy. Most stress that the confederation would be entered voluntarily by two independent states rather than imposed from outside.

There have also been proposals for a "Jordanian Palestinian Israeli" confederation, which imagine Jordan joining or rejoining some political framework with the West Bank, and sometimes with Israel as well. These ideas vary widely, from loose economic coordination to speculations about shared security arrangements along the Jordan River. They are politically sensitive, because they intersect with Jordan's internal politics and past debates over a "Jordan option" for resolving the Palestinian question.

Territorial Arrangements and Borders

Confederation models offer different ways to draw and manage borders. Many keep the basic principle of two states along the 1967 lines, with land swaps to accommodate certain settlement blocs. However, they usually combine this with high permeability. Instead of a hard separation with extensive walls and fences, confederation ideas prefer controlled but open crossings, at least for residents and citizens, and often for goods as well.

Settlements are a key test case. Instead of insisting that all Israeli settlers must leave the West Bank or that all settlements must remain under full Israeli sovereignty, confederation plans sometimes propose a third option. Settlements might stay, but they would exist under Palestinian legal sovereignty, with the residents becoming permanent residents of Palestine but citizens of Israel. Similar arrangements are envisioned for Palestinian returnees or residents inside Israel who might choose to retain Palestinian citizenship but live within Israel under a residential regime.

Jerusalem often occupies a special chapter in confederation schemes. A common vision is that Jerusalem would serve as the capital of both states, with separate municipal or sub municipal administrations for different neighborhoods and holy sites, combined with a joint or confederal authority for shared services and archaeological and religious sensitivities. Borders in and around Jerusalem might be more symbolic than physical, with various forms of shared policing and international safeguards.

Security Structures in a Confederation

Security is one of the most challenging elements of any confederation plan. Proposals typically try to balance Israeli concerns about terrorism and regional threats with Palestinian concerns about freedom from occupation, military raids, and surveillance. In a confederation, each state would control its own internal security and law enforcement. At the same time, there would be joint mechanisms to manage cross border threats and disputes.

Some plans imagine a joint Israeli Palestinian security council, staffed by officials from both sides and possibly by international advisers. This body would coordinate responses to serious security incidents, share intelligence, and set rules for cross border pursuit of suspects, if allowed at all. There might be agreed procedures to handle violations, such as independent investigations or joint tribunals.

There are also debates over external security. In some scenarios, Israel keeps primary responsibility for defending both states from external attack, at least for a transitional period, due to its superior military capabilities. In others, each state maintains its own limited military forces, but they commit to a mutual defense agreement and to restrictions on the presence of foreign troops. International peacekeeping or monitoring forces are frequently included as a confidence building measure, although their long term role is contested.

Citizenship, Rights, and Identity

Confederation designs pay close attention to the relationship between citizenship, residence, and rights. One goal is to prevent either community from feeling that its national identity is diluted or overridden by the other. Another is to reduce discrimination and statelessness.

Most proposals keep separate citizenship regimes. Israelis would continue to be citizens of Israel, Palestinians of Palestine. Rights would then be divided into political rights, such as voting and running for office, which are linked to citizenship, and civil and social rights, such as equality before the law, non discrimination, and access to services, which apply to all legal residents regardless of citizenship. This is similar to how some federations and unions treat non citizen residents.

A possible innovation in some confederation plans is the idea of optional dual citizenship in the long term. For example, a Palestinian who lives and works in Israel might eventually be allowed to hold both Palestinian and Israeli citizenship, or an Israeli who lives in Palestine could acquire Palestinian citizenship without losing Israeli citizenship. This is highly controversial and usually described as a distant possibility rather than an immediate step.

Protection of minorities is also central. A confederation framework would almost certainly need strong constitutional provisions against discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, or national origin, and independent courts to enforce these provisions. Some advocates argue for a shared human rights charter, binding both states and interpreted by a joint or international court.

Economic Integration and Shared Resources

Confederation plans nearly always involve some degree of economic integration. The level of integration can range from a customs union, in which both states maintain a common external tariff and allow free movement of goods, to a more ambitious monetary union or shared currency. Supporters argue that economic interdependence would create incentives for cooperation and make renewed conflict more costly.

A key area is labor mobility. With freer movement, Palestinians could more easily work in Israel, and Israelis could invest or work in Palestinian areas, under agreed regulations. There might be joint industrial zones or technology parks, shared energy grids, and coordinated transportation networks. Taxation systems would need to be harmonized to avoid large distortions or smuggling incentives.

Shared natural resources, particularly water, are another focus. A confederation might create a joint water authority responsible for managing aquifers, desalination projects, and water distribution based on agreed quotas and scientific assessments. Environmental issues such as pollution of shared rivers, waste management, and climate adaptation would likely be assigned to common bodies, since they ignore political borders.

Handling Refugees and the Right of Return

For many advocates, confederation offers additional tools for dealing with the sensitive issue of Palestinian refugees and their claimed right of return. Instead of treating return exclusively as a demographic threat to Israel or as a symbolic demand by Palestinians, confederation ideas present more flexible options.

One mechanism is to separate the place of residence from the political effect on demographic balances. Palestinian refugees could be offered several choices. They might resettle in the State of Palestine with full citizenship. Some could receive compensation and remain in their current host countries with enhanced rights. A limited number might be allowed to live inside Israel, but under confederal rules that connect their political representation primarily to the Palestinian state. This way, physical return does not automatically transform the internal political composition of Israel.

Furthermore, a confederation might establish a joint refugee commission with Israeli and Palestinian participation, tasked with processing claims, overseeing compensation, and managing international funding. Symbolic recognition of suffering and responsibility, truth telling mechanisms, or memorial projects could accompany these practical arrangements, although they are often left to specialized transitional justice proposals.

Advantages Claimed by Supporters

Supporters of confederation models argue that they offer several advantages that more conventional solutions may lack. One claimed advantage is realism about existing population patterns. Since Israeli and Palestinian communities are already deeply intertwined geographically, especially in and around Jerusalem and the West Bank, a confederation acknowledges that clean separation is nearly impossible without severe human and political costs.

A second claimed advantage is flexibility. Confederation is presented as a framework that can start modestly and deepen over time. Two states might begin with limited cooperation on security and economics, then gradually expand joint institutions if relations improve. This step by step approach is argued to be more achievable than expecting a single agreement to resolve everything at once.

A third advantage is that confederation may lower the stakes of territorial compromises. If borders become more open, then debates over specific villages, neighborhoods, or access roads become somewhat less existential. People who lose formal sovereignty over a piece of land might still be able to visit, live in, or invest in that area, reducing the sense of irreversible loss.

Finally, some see confederation as better suited to long term regional integration. If Israel and Palestine can cooperate within a confederal framework, this might later connect to wider economic or political structures in the Middle East, offering broader benefits and stability.

Criticisms, Risks, and Practical Obstacles

Confederation models also face serious criticisms from many sides. One concern is that they may be too complicated and fragile for a context marked by deep mistrust and periodic violence. Sharing sovereignty, security, and space requires high levels of cooperation and strong institutions, which critics argue are hard to build in the shadow of long conflict.

From some Israeli perspectives, confederation seems risky because it could open borders in ways that are seen as dangerous for security and for the Jewish character of the state. Fears include uncontrolled migration, infiltration by hostile groups, and the gradual erosion of a clear Jewish majority if many Palestinians come to live or work in Israel, even without formal citizenship.

From some Palestinian perspectives, confederation is criticized as a way to avoid full decolonization and to preserve Israeli dominance. They argue that if Israel remains much stronger economically and militarily, shared institutions could be tilted in Israel's favor, and Palestinian sovereignty would remain limited in practice. There is also concern that confederation could legitimize settlements and the outcomes of past displacement without sufficient redress.

Another practical obstacle is political will. Confederation demands significant concessions and changes in thinking from both societies. At present, major political parties on either side rarely place confederation at the center of their platforms. Public opinion is mixed, with many people unfamiliar with the details, skeptical of the other side, or attached to more traditional visions of separation or supremacy.

Finally, there is the question of timing. Some argue that confederation can only be considered after a basic two state agreement and withdrawal from occupation are implemented. Others think that planning for confederation might inspire new approaches earlier in the process. This debate affects how seriously political actors treat confederation options today.

Confederation in Current and Future Debates

Although confederation is not currently the dominant approach among official negotiators, it is part of the growing public and academic debate about possible futures. Think tanks, universities, and civil society groups organize workshops, simulations, and draft treaties that explore different confederation structures. These efforts sometimes involve detailed maps, constitutional texts, and economic models, not only abstract principles.

In international discussions, confederation appears as one among several creative frameworks for moving beyond stalemate. Some diplomats and analysts see it as a possible fallback if traditional two state negotiations continue to fail. Others see it as a long term horizon, to be approached gradually through confidence building steps, such as shared infrastructure projects or pilot schemes for freer movement in specific areas.

For people studying the conflict, confederation models are useful even if they never fully materialize. They highlight the limits of simple territorial partition in a small, densely populated land. They also encourage thinking about how law, institutions, and shared interests might reduce violence between communities that cannot easily be separated or merged. Whether or not a confederation is adopted in practice, the debates around it shed light on the complex relationship between borders, sovereignty, identity, and everyday life in Israel and Palestine.