The international community is adamant about a two state solution. So one option for the Israeli government is to grant Palestine independence. Hamas has not always been a majority government in Palestine and chances are that an independent Palestine will not support Hamas in it’s skirmishes against a separate Israel state.

Another option is a one state solution. Israel could grant every Palestinian a citizenship and with it a right to vote in national elections. There is zero chance that Hamas will have significant power in a unified parliament, and if they continue acts of terrorism in a unified non-apartheid state they can be tackled with a standard police force.

Basically what Israel shouldn’t do, is continue this current affair of keeping Palestine an occupied territory with accompanying apartheid system.

Your option 2 is that Israel should annex Palestine? I can't imagine palestine would like that very much and i think that's also a war crime.

The two state solution seems like the most likely way forward, but if it was easy it would have happened already. After all, it failed in the 40s, and since then a lot of hate has built up on both sides.

No, Annexation is apart from the single state solution. The gist of the single state solution is that there will be one state (lets call it Israel-Palestine for this purpose) with a new constitution. One benefit of the one state solution is the fact that resettlements of west-bank Israelis can be avoided. Of course that might mean that the current settlements which are illegal under international law will not be answered for. Although ideally, along with the formation of the new Israel-Palestine an international war tribunal would find the people responsible for planning these settlements guilty of war crimes and make them pay with a hefty prison sentence.

This is different from annexation which would basically mean a surrender for the Palestinians. Israel would continue as is with the current constitution. Palestinians would become Israeli citizens but on the terms of the Israelis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution

Sure, if both sides agree to a one state solution, then its not annexing. But Israelis doesn't seem to like the idea and Palestinians don't seem to like the idea, so that seems unlikely.

Are you sure about that? Has there been recent polling that shows low support? The linked wikipedia article shows some support among Israelis and a high support among Palestinians. I would imagine that support would skyrocket among both nations if two state solution were to be taken off the table (which is increasingly likely).

> The linked wikipedia article shows some support among Israelis and a high support among Palestinians.

The thing is “one-state solution” means three different incompatible things: displacement of Israeli Jews, displacement or political suppression of Palestinian Arabs, and a multiethnic, multireligious democracy. You can’t really add up support for all three and call it support for one thing.

on israeli side one state solution is acceptable only by ultra-left (kumbaya and peace forever) or by ultra-right (lets annex and have israel from jordan river to the sea).

two state solution won't be taken off the table, it's just a scare tactic. but even if it were, chance that support for it will skyrocket in Israel is non-existent.

I think even countries like the U.S are having a problem maintaining their democracy, how does an Israel Palestine work? Half of Palestinian or more support Hamas, in Israel the numbers of orthodox and ultra right jews is growing. Constitutions mean something in Denmark, not in the Middle East.

I don’t think you mean to sound racist, but a statement like “constitutions mean nothing in the Middle East” sure does make you look racist. It sounds like you are stating that your country needs to be of European origin to have a constitutional democracy. You know very well that that is not true.

There is literally not a single democracy in the middle east, not one. If you wanna call me racist (is middle east a race?) for saying something glaringly obvious go ahead. Btw some people simply look down on democracy, like China. They truly believe they have a better system. So its not for everyone, definitely not in the middle east.

Depending on where you draw the line for middle east, and what counts as a democracy Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Yemen, Iraq, Kurdish autonomous regions, Afghanistan, and more have currently (or in recent history) had democracies. Those that have had democracy and lost it have done so usually because of foreign influence and wars (e.g. Afghanistan), although some have gained it because of wars (Kurdish autonomous regions). Now none of these might count as a true democracy in your books, and that is fine, but it is far from obvious.

I don’t think it is fair to generalize over such a vast region by making grand statements like “they truly believe...”. In fact most Kurdish autonomous regions were pretty quick to adopt democracy as their system of choise after they liberated them self from the Islamic State terrorist group during the Syrian civil war. And popular pro-democracy uprisings in Yemen would suggest counter to your statement.

Both options are not very likely to succeed and I am being generous here.