How To End Israeli Apartheid

First published in +972 by Jonathan Adler| November 5, 2025

In an interview with +972 Magazine, authors Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man and Sarah Leah Whitson lay out a detailed proposal for ending what they describe as apartheid and occupation in Israel-Palestine, outlined in their new book, From Apartheid to Democracy.

The authors argue that decades of diplomacy centered on the Oslo framework and the two-state paradigm have failed to halt deepening inequality and territorial fragmentation. In their view, the political reality between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea has consolidated into a single regime that privileges Jewish Israelis over Palestinians. Rather than attempting to revive stalled negotiations, they propose dismantling discriminatory structures first and allowing a democratic process to determine the territory’s political future afterward.

At the core of their plan is a three-year transitional period governed by a representative caretaker administration. During this phase, laws seen as discriminatory would be repealed, security forces unified, and institutions restructured to ensure equal rights for all residents. Only once legal and political equality is established would residents vote on their preferred constitutional arrangement — whether a single democratic state, a federation, confederation, or another model.

The proposal draws on comparative transitions in places such as Northern Ireland and South Africa, where entrenched systems of ethno-national division were eventually replaced through negotiated settlements. The authors emphasize that their blueprint is meant to be practical rather than rhetorical, shaped by consultations with legal experts, policymakers, and civil society actors from both Israel and Palestine.

While acknowledging that political conditions remain volatile and deeply polarized, Omer-Man and Whitson contend that articulating a concrete pathway forward is essential at a time when international diplomacy appears adrift. Their book, they argue, is less a prediction than a framework — an attempt to shift debate from managing conflict to structurally resolving it.

Read the full interview in +972.

©TNPP