ThePalestinian Emirates Plan is a political proposal that envisions dividing thePalestinian territories – specifically theWest Bank andGaza Strip – into a series of autonomous, city-based entities governed by localclan or municipal leadership, rather than establishing a single centralized Palestinian state. Each city, such asHebron,Nablus, orGaza, would function as an independentemirate, managing its own internal affairs including security and economy, while rural areas would be integrated into alternative administrative arrangements, often in coordination withIsrael. The plan reflects the notion that governance rooted in traditionaltribal or communal structures may offer a more stable alternative to centralizednational models, particularly in the context of prolonged political fragmentation, failed peace efforts, and declining trust in existing Palestinian leadership.

The Palestinian Emirates Plan emerged in the context of decades of failed peace efforts and growing fragmentation in Palestinian governance. Following theOslo Accords (1993–95), thePalestinian Authority (PA) was established to administer the West Bank and Gaza. However, the PA has faced persistent challenges, including internal political divisions, most notably theHamas takeover of Gaza in 2007, corruption, and the absence of a final-status agreement with Israel. Parallel to these developments, traditional clan-based structures have retained influence, particularly in areas like Hebron, where large families often operate independently of the PA. Earlier Israeli efforts to empower clan leaders, such as the promotion of the “Village Leagues” in the 1980s over theelected city councils and theNational Guidance Committee, failed amid widespread Palestinian opposition and loyalty to the national project led by thePalestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The emirates concept was later popularized by Israeli scholarMordechai Kedar, who has advocated an “eight-state solution” since 2012. Kedar’s plan is based on the premise that Middle Eastern society is organized primarily along tribal and clan lines, and that Western-style nation-states have failed in the region when they encompass multiple rival groups. He points to the relative stability ofGulf emirates ruled by single families (e.g.Kuwait,Qatar, theUAE) in contrast to the internal strife in multi-ethnic states likeSyria,Iraq,Lebanon,Libya, orYemen. Accordingly, the plan envisions breaking Palestinian society into city-based emirates governed by local clans, each exercising self-rule over a city and its surrounding area. Proposed emirates include the Gaza Strip, as well as major West Bank population centers such asJenin,Nablus,Ramallah,Jericho,Tulkarm,Qalqilya, and the Arab parts ofHebron, all locales where traditional clan leadership remains influential. Under this framework, each emirate would manage its own affairs – from security to economy – potentially coordinating through a council, while Israel would retain overall security control between these enclaves. The plan rejects the idea of a unified Palestinian national government, arguing that a loose federation of city-emirates aligns better with historical tribal identities and could produce more stable governance.^[1][2]

In July 2025, five prominent sheikhs from Hebron, led by Sheikh Wadee’ al-Jaabari, proposed forming an independent “Emirate of Hebron” separate from the Palestinian Authority (PA).^[3] In a letter toIsraeli Economy MinisterNir Barkat, they expressed their desire to normalize relations with Israel and join theAbraham Accords. The letter recognized Israel as the Jewish nation-state and called on Israel to recognize the emirate as the legitimate representative of Hebron’s Arab population. The sheikhs described this arrangement as a replacement for theOslo Accords, which they claimed brought only “damage, death, and economic disaster.”^[3]

The proposal included practical steps: a pledge to reject terrorism, halt incitement, and promote coexistence. They requested thousands of Israeli work permits for Hebron residents and proposed a joint industrial zone. Sheikh Jaabari cited theOctober 7, 2023 Hamas attacks as proof that the dream of a Palestinian state was no longer realistic. He argued that local clan leadership offers a more stable alternative, positioning Hebron as a potential success story akin toDubai. The initiative highlighted Hebron’s strong clan-based social structure, claiming legitimacy as “authentic leadership” in contrast to the corrupt and ineffective PA. The sheikhs accused both the PA andHamas of failing their people and voiced hope that Israeli and international backing could help Hebron thrive.^[4]

The "Hebron emirate proposal" triggered strong backlash among Palestinians and across theArab world. The Palestinian Authority (PA) initially remained silent, possibly hoping to minimize attention, while unofficial responses were scathing.^[5] A statement from Hebron families, circulated throughFatah channels, likened the plan to Israel’s failed “Village Leagues” and condemned it as a betrayal of the national cause. A faction of the Ja’abari clan publicly disavowed Sheikh Wadee’ al-Jaabari, reaffirming support for a Palestinian state withJerusalem as its capital. Hamas also denounced the move as normalization with the occupation.^[6]

Arab media broadly echoed these criticisms, portraying the plan as an Israeli attempt to divide Palestinians. Outlets such asMiddle East Eye reported widespread local rejection of the idea. Analysts warned of parallels to similar efforts in Gaza, where suspected collaborators faced violent reprisals.^[7]

The Palestinian Emirates Plan, particularly the Hebron initiative, has sparked debate over Palestinian identity, the future of thetwo-state solution, and Israel's conflict strategy. Supporters argue that it offers a pragmatic alternative to stalled diplomacy and a fractured Palestinian leadership. They believe empowering local clans could enhance stability, citing Israel’s ongoing control over much of the West Bank and the Hebron sheikhs’ pledge to reject violence as potential models for coexistence. Some also view this localized approach as complementary to theAbraham Accords.^[8]

Critics, however, see the plan as a threat to Palestinian national unity, accusing it of fragmenting the population into city-states under Israeli dominance. They warn it undermines decades of struggle for self-determination and risks internal conflict, with clan rivalries potentially erupting into violence. The plan is seen as bypassing key issues such as borders, refugees, and Jerusalem, effectively entrenching occupation. It has received little international support outside of select Israeli and American right-wing circles, with the global consensus still favoring a negotiated two-state solution.^[9]

• Israeli–Palestinian peace process
• Phrases related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

• Articles with short description
• Short description matches Wikidata
• Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected pages