The Two-State Solution; Still a Possibility, or Has It Overstayed its Viability?

By Randy Pinsky

 

For decades, state leaders have echoed the belief that the means for resolving the Middle East crisis is the two-state solution. The proposition seems almost impossibly evident; two states for two peoples = no more fighting; right? 

But is this proposed ‘solution’ really all that simple or is it naive to the significant security implications? Does it address the truly nuanced issues at hand or is it more a feel-good - and some say, no longer even relevant - catch phrase? Most importantly, do those who would be most impacted, even believe in it as a realistic next step? 

Hard Work

In December, Toronto’s famed Munk Debates hosted their most controversial - and in their words, ‘consequential’ - debate in their 17 years existence, discussing the feasibility of the two- state solution. “The Gaza war has ended for the time being, in a shaky ceasefire,” opened the event description. “Now starts the hard work of finding a lasting solution to the conflict.”

The world has changed in significant ways since the most recent attempt of the two-state proposal (for there have been several). 

While some hold onto the assertion that two states for two peoples is the “only viable path to a lasting peace” and stability in the region, others just as vociferously assert that the past two years of regional war have unequivocally proven that “Israel’s national security, now and into the future, [is] irreconcilable with Palestinian statehood."

What the Public Wants

In the 2000 film Miss Congeniality, FBI agent Sandra Bullock goes undercover to protect the participants in a Miss Universe-type pageant. In the interview portion, the contestants are asked, “What is your greatest wish?” to which they recite one after the other, “World Peace!” to great applause. Rather than follow the trend, agent Bullock responds, “Harsher punishment for repeat offenders,” only to be met with silence. After an awkward pause, she gives in and adds “...and world peace” to great relief in the room. 

When confronted with a new wave of tension in the region, a world leader will invariably state, “What about the two-state solution?” to be the one to ‘solve’ the crisis. 

Yet is this position still viable? And perhaps most importantly, does it acknowledge that it has already been attempted several times - without success? 

Flawless on Paper

Like many great plans, the two-state solution seems simple, direct, even obvious. In fact, “when [it] was [first] envisioned, as reflected in the Oslo Accords, it seemed like a good idea,” shared Canadian political commentator Michael Diamond. 

“It took almost a decade of disappointing facts on the ground to realize that such a solution was not going to happen any time soon.”

The Million Dollar Question

For one thing, how would this two states for two people policy be effected and actualized?

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a simple solution of just cutting the contested area in two as the lands in question are not two neat parallel blocks next to one another. More specifically, if the Palestinian state would consist of Gaza and the West Bank, Israel would be in the middle. How would Jerusalem be shared as capital? How much of the West Bank would be divided, given the thousands of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria?

Appeasement can also not come at the expense or sacrifice of Israeli national security. Inherited refugee status and the fact that 60% of Palestinians believe the goal of their national movement should be “to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea,” does not allude to a willingness to peacefully coexist.

Whither the Difference 

To paraphrase the question at Passover, given this proposition has been attempted before without success, why would it be different now?

The offer of two states has been offered six times already (including the Partition Plan of 1947, the Camp David Accords of 1978, the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1996, and Trump’s Peace Plan 2025) only to be rejected and responded with renewed violence

There does not appear to be any evidence of a change in openness or willingness by the Palestinians to accept Israel as a sovereign neighbouring state. The closest to this was when Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority Mohammad Shtayyeh claimed in 2024 he would be willing to work on a two-state solution with an alternate Israeli government. Raja Khouri of The Walrus also claims the PA supports the idea of two states, however, reinforced the point was irrelevant as the governing body “has been greatly discredited by its corruption and incompetence.”

First Step

In order for the two-state solution to have any hopes of succeeding, it is first crucial to address numerous critical issues: mutual recognition, borders, security, Jerusalem, and how to handle the issue of refugees and extremists. 

Without the most basic conditions being met or demonstrated evidence of being able to govern a state of their own, Lebanese research fellow Hussain Abdul-Hussain of The Foundation for Defense of Democracies has significant doubts on the viability of this plan. 

“As long as the prerequisites for peace remain unfulfilled, the status quo will persist; a Palestinian hodgepodge of autonomy meshed with Israeli policing and occasional flare-ups of war.” He continued, “Unless America is willing to go back to state-building and spreading democracy, it will have to wait until Palestinians figure out how to build a state that Israel can make peace with.”

But Did They Not Already Get a State?

In the summer of 2025, one of new Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first steps was to state a conditional acceptance of a Palestinian state should certain stipulations be met by his September speech at the United Nations. These included Hamas playing no part in the future governance of Gaza, the release of all the hostages, and a demilitarization of the region.

It seemed like an important diplomatic step - until he soon after unilaterally declared recognition of the state of Palestine without any of the pre-conditions being achieved.

The result was instantaneous- Hamas stepped away from the negotiating table and publicly thanked Canada for its actions. Israel and the US condemned it for rewarding terrorism and setting back crucial diplomatic time. If Hamas claimed to want a state and received it, what would be the incentive for them to engage in negotiations? 

It was acts like this that caused Israelis to react with indignation of the world's insistence of a two-state solution; nothing has changed in terms of intentions towards Israel, or any expressions of a desire to peacefully coexist. Why should this be rewarded?

A Test Case Gone Awry

Perhaps the best example of this is the 2005 ‘land for peace’ deal. In a desire to offer the Palestinians land to start their own state and lessen the outbursts of violence, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon agreed to withdraw from the settlements in the Gaza Strip, known as Gush Kati. Settlers were forcibly removed, leaving fields, greenhouses and businesses and it could have been a critical start for self-determination and development.

Immediately after, all the greenhouses and businesses were destroyed, and Hamas eliminated opposition, using materials to set up launching pads to attack Israel.

In reflecting on giving up land for peace, Israeli diplomat Dani Dayan said, “if partition of this contested land was ever just the solution to the conflict, it ceased the moment one side refused. It was not a mere rejection; they launched repeated assaults to take it all by force.” 

He was echoed by Mike Huckabee, US Ambassador to Israel; “there cannot be two states polling for the same piece of real estate…when one of those states does not believe that the other one even has a right to exist, much less exist peacefully.”

Munk Debates

In November, the Munk Debates proposed the motion, “Be it resolved, it is in Israel’s national interest to support a two-state solution.”

It is revealing to note that there were protestors and hecklers at the event; not only about the topic itself but rather against the Israeli speakers. The co-founder stated this reaction particularly proved without a doubt the essentiality of civil dialogues like this. 

Arguing against the motion was former Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren and Israel’s former justice minister Ayelet Shaked, and in favour, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and former justice and foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who had in fact been the country’s chief peace negotiator in 2008 and 2014. 

According to Oren, after October 7, most Israelis feel the two-state idea is delusional, devoid from reality, and proved exactly why it was unfeasible. “[It is difficult] to explain to an incredulous world why Israel would turn down this seemingly innocuous and simple Solomonic solution of dividing the land…as if it hasn’t been tried. And tried repeatedly for close to 90 years, and every time, with the exact same result.”

He continued, “we were told, ‘take risks for peace.’ We did, and we paid for it with blood.”

On the ‘yes’ side, Livni likened Israel’s situation to a “rocky, violent marriage that needs to end…for the sake of the children,” arguing the proposition still had potential.

Do the Two Sides Believe in the Two-State Solution?

While the two-state solution is endorsed by outside actors, eager to be the one to ‘solve’ the Middle East conflict, what do both sides think? 

At any given pro-Palestinian demonstration, it is starkly evident to see the absence of any signs proclaiming a desire to coexist with Israel, or for two states for two people. The endlessly repeated slogan of ‘to the river to the sea’ implies a desire to completely take over. The belief that Israel is an illegitimate state, evidenced by comments such as “Go back to Poland’ and “We don’t want two states, we want 48”, do not evoke much faith in a collaborating partner. 

Such a concern is also corroborated by the fact that 70% of Gazans support Hamas and what they did on October 7. Contrary to popular belief that this was an issue of militants with innocent civilians caught in the middle, rockets and weapons were found under children's beds, in mosques, hospitals and daycare basements, with teachers and journalists holding hostages in captivity in addition to engaging in the attack itself. 

As a result, the majority of Israelis do not believe the two-state solution would be feasible or desirable; the one thing that they and the Palestinians agree upon. In a survey conducted by the Palestine Center for Public Opinion sponsored by The Washington Institute, the majority of those polled rejected the two-state solution though were in favour of “tactical compromise.”

Of the 35% of Israelis and 27% of Palestinians who would consider a two-state solution, the Palestinians said nothing about Israel’s security considerations or the refugee question. It thus appears that “mainstream opinion on both sides show a decided lack of enthusiasm for foreigners’ favored solution.”

Is there a Plan C?

So has the two-state solution already overstayed its possibility? It is crucial that reality and security be balanced against idealism.

As noted by Oren, “it’s not what we do, but what we are” that the Palestinians appear to be opposed to. 

He suggested looking for alternatives as “you can’t be creative if you’re t[rying] the same formula over and over and over again that has failed consistently.”

Other ideas include a Swiss model cantonization program based on local clans as opposed to national movements like Fatah, PLO or terrorist groups like Hamas. Another proposition is a three-state solution known as the Jordan-Egypt Option which would consist of returning administrative control of the West Bank to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. 

Lastly, there is the proposed ‘one-state solution’ in which the land would be one unified political entity and function as a fully binational state. While something some consider, it would in actuality be nearly impossible given the completely divergent identities, cultures and values, in addition to mutual animosity and distrust on both sides.

So what is the next step? The time now is crucial as the Middle East prepares for Phase 2 of the Gaza Reconstruction Plan.