Pros and cons of a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians

Over the decades of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a two-state solution has been mooted as the most viable path towards lasting peace. 

But after the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October and the subsequent conflict within Gaza, the possibility of a two-state solution coming to fruition seems further away than ever.

Yet as the world's attention is focused on the deadly hostilities, the idea, which would see Israelis and Palestinians living in two separate sovereign nations, is "getting a new hearing", said The New York Times (NYT). It's "not just in foreign-policy circles" either, the paper added, but "among the combatants themselves". That's primarily due to the "lack of any other viable alternative".

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Here are some of the arguments for and against a two-state solution.

Pro: best prospect of peace

The two-state solution is the "only possible road to peace between Israelis and Palestinians", said Caroline De Gruyter, of the Dutch paper NRC Handelsblad, in an article published by Carnegie Europe. To come about, it needs "political will", which has been "sorely lacking so far".

Though a two-state solution currently looks "implausible", wrote Erik Levitz in New York Magazine, "it remains far more conceivable" than the possibility of Israel opting for a one-state solution, which could spell the end of the majority Jewish state. Currently, he added, it is the "most likely to yield a modicum of peace and justice".

Con: imbalance of power makes it impossible 

If a two-state solution was created along previously drawn lines it would still create "a deep injustice to the Palestinians in myriad ways", argued Chris McGreal in The Guardian. A sovereign new Palestine would "comprise only about 22% of historic Palestine", he wrote, despite Arabs making up "roughly half the population of the area now divided up as Israel, the West Bank and Gaza".

The 1993 Oslo Accords "ignored the power imbalance" between the two sides, imposing bilateral negotiations "between a powerful state and a stateless people", said Maha Nasser, from the University of Arizona, on The Conversation. Because of Israel's greater "military, economic and diplomatic power", the "prospects for a viable, independent Palestinian state were undermined".

Pro: no viable alternative 

The prospect of a two-state solution seems "fanciful" in the current circumstances, but it remains "on the table" if only "for the lack of any viable alternative", said Virginia Tech professor Joel Peters on Carnegie Europe. The two sides have "paid lip service to its implementation" in the past, and it would require a significant commitment from both sides to work, as well as from the international community, which would need "to hold Israel and the Palestinians accountable for their actions".

The "alternatives are even more unrealistic", added Luigi Scazzieri from the Centre for European Reform. A one-state solution, and the "trust required" for both sides to coexist, is "more remote than ever", he said.

Con: demographic changes in West Bank make it harder to implement

The increasing "physical and demographic changes" in the West Bank because of Israeli settlements have made the idea of a two-state solution "that much harder to implement", said Ben Scott on The Interpreter.

There are around "half a million Israeli settlers" now living in the West Bank, said Bruno Maçães, from The New Statesman, and many Palestinians are "being expelled from their homes". The idea of a two-state solution "will always depend on a balance of power" between the two sides, and "Israel now feels so powerful it no longer needs to compromise", he added.

Pro: self-determination for both sides

While a two-state solution may not be perfect, a "genuinely sovereign Palestine would still be a vast improvement" on the current situation, said McGreal in The Guardian.

There is a "moral core to the two-state vision", said Zack Beauchamp at Vox – "self-determination for two peoples". It is that aspect that "makes two states not only more feasible than one but also in certain respects more desirable", he added. The "struggle for collective rights" between "two distinctive peoples" is more achievable in two states, even if it is "exceptionally difficult to imagine" both sides changing their current "national aspirations".

Con: the push for one state instead

There has been a recent "surge in interest in a one-state solution", added Beauchamp at Vox, predominantly because the sides "cannot negotiate a two-state solution".

The one-state solution does avoid some of the "daunting obstacles" that the two-state plan throws up, while it would also offer "unique forms of reparation for Palestinians" displaced during Israel's creation, said Levitz in the New York magazine. Currently, the idea of a single democratic state seems "politically fantastical", but it remains, in theory, "appealingly simple to implement".