When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently sat down with U.S. President Donald Trump, he presented a vision for Israeli-Palestinian relations that many dismissed outright: a Palestinian entity with broad self-governance, but under continued Israeli control of security.

To some, this looks like yet another delay tactic—another excuse to deny full Palestinian sovereignty. But history suggests something more complex and potentially more hopeful: a path that, while imperfect, has guided dozens of nations from conflict to self-rule.

Netanyahu’s proposal may feel controversial, but it’s hardly without precedent. In fact, separating internal governance from external defense has been a pragmatic solution throughout modern history—particularly during times of instability or transition.

After World Wars I and II, much of the world was divided into mandates and trust territories administered by foreign powers under the League of Nations and the United Nations. Places like Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and Tanganyika were expected to develop their institutions under the military protection of colonial powers until they could stand on their own. Sovereignty wasn’t granted in full—it was earned over time.

During the Cold War, client states aligned with either the........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)