The Palestinians (which do not act as a nation and never did, their loyalty is to their tribe) have autonomy, and they should be given as much autonomy as possible (without bad security implications).
No, democracies don't work well when different groups in the country hate each other. Palestinians have their own autonomy, where they would manage it by their own standards.
> Palestinians have their own autonomy, where they would manage it by their own standards
And how would this "autonomy" be different from full sovereignty? And in case it were different, to which superior body would this autonomy be subjected? And who would have democratic control of this superior body?
Because if the answers are respectively 'different', 'Israel' and '(current) Israeli citizens', then what you're talking about is proper, institutionalized apartheid.
They already have autonomy. They might would like it to be better armed, and they are free to accept the deal of the century proposal, but they won't get more.
I don't know how you define sovereignty, as distinct from autonomy. The guideline for me (and I believe this is also the way the conflict will end in real life) is the most autonomy possible, without any security risks to Israel. It's not far from the situation now.
Wait, are you saying that they would not vote for Israel's government?