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.
> The guideline for me ... It's not far from the situation now.
The situation now is that vast parts of the West Bank are ultimately under Israel's control- Israel can decide to appropriate portions of land and build on it, build infrastructure for the exclusive use of settlers, and deploys the army to protect Israeli squatters from Palestinians trying to retrieve their possessions. Of course the settlers are allowed to vote for Israel's government, while the non-Israeli Palestinians living all around them have no rights and cannot vote for the government that has these powers on their land. This is de facto apartheid.
You're saying that this is "not far from" the ideal solution for you, and you'd be happy to turn it into apartheid de jure?