Middle East Global Impact

By Jon Barber

The vision of two sovereign states—Israel and Palestine—coexisting peacefully remains the cornerstone of international efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Endorsed by many global powers and the United Nations, the two-state solution is widely viewed as the most viable framework for achieving lasting peace. Below, we explore principal arguments both for, and also against this approach.

Peace and Stability

✅ In Favor

Supporters argue that mutual recognition and sovereignty can fulfill national aspirations, reduce tensions, and end cycles of violence between Israel and the Palestinians. The envisioned outcome is a region marked by prosperity, security, and cooperation. This optimistic view assumes that both Israelis and Palestinians are willing to compromise, honor agreements, and move beyond historical grievances.

❌ Against

Critics contend that decades of failed negotiations and persistent violence have entrenched deep mistrust. Drawing borders today, as was done in the post-colonial era, cannot resolve longstanding ethnic and political animosities.

Israel anticipates a future Palestinian state could become a haven for terrorist groups like Hamas, especially if governance proves unstable. A December 2024 survey by Arab World Research and Development found that West Bank residents actually favored Hamas over the Palestinian Authority (PA) by a margin of 25% to 10%. This preference has contributed to the PA’s reluctance to hold elections—the last legislative vote occurred in 2006, when Hamas won a majority, leading to a violent split between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank.

Concerns also stem from the PA’s controversial “Pay for Slay” program, which provides financial compensation to Palestinians imprisoned or killed during attacks on Israelis. This policy is viewed by many in Israel and elsewhere as radically incentivizing terrorism.

Israelis further question the reliability of international peace guarantees. For example, UN Resolution 1701, passed in 2006, aimed to prevent Hezbollah’s presence south of Lebanon’s Litani River. Despite this, UN peacekeepers (UNIFIL) were widely criticized for failing to enforce the mandate, allowing Hezbollah to operate freely and contributing to renewed conflict in 2023. Analysts and former intelligence officials described United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon (UNIFIL) as ‘unable and unwilling’ to confront Hezbollah, who used UN positions as shields and operated freely in areas where peacekeepers were present. Captured Hezbollah operatives claimed they bribed UNIFIL personnel to access surveillance equipment and outposts, violating the peacekeeping mandate. If the UN cannot stabilise Lebanon, how could it stabilise a Palestinian state?

Finally, many Israelis oppose the two-state model on strategic grounds. They argue that a Palestinian state could gain control of high ground overlooking Israeli population centers and military sites, posing a serious security threat—similar to Syria’s use of the Golan Heights prior to 1967 when Galilee farmers fell victim to Syrian sniper fire.

Legal and Political Foundations

✅ In Favor

Supporters argue that the two-state solution aligns with international law, including UN resolutions and principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. They cite UNGA Resolution 181 (1947), which proposed partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, and UNGA Resolution ES-10/24 (2024), which reaffirmed global support for Palestinian statehood.

International law, including the UN Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, upholds the right of peoples—including Palestinians—to determine their political status. The two-state framework seeks to establish borders based on pre-1967 lines, respecting the territorial integrity of both Israel and a future Palestinian state.

Supporters also argue that this model preserves Israel’s democratic integrity, allowing it to remain Jewish in character without compromising demographic balance by integrating millions of new Arab voters.

❌ Against

Critics argue that unresolved issues—especially borders and the status of Jerusalem—make the two-state solution unworkable. They warn that international recognition of a Palestinian state without full Israeli consent risks symbolic gestures without real peace—a forced marriage without love and liable to acrimonious divorce.

Legal critics assert that Israel’s borders are grounded in international law, not conquest. They argue that the West Bank is disputed territory, not occupied, citing the foundational 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which called for a Jewish national home across the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

Under the principle of uti possidetis juris (newly independent states should retain the borders that existed at the time of their independence), Israel inherited these boundaries upon independence in 1948. When the League dissolved, its obligations transferred to the UN under Article 80 of the Charter, meant to preserve Jewish settlement rights. The 1947 Partition Plan was non-binding and rejected by Arab states. Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal and minimally recognized. Israel’s control since 1967 is framed as a recovery of territory from an unlawful occupier (Jordan). Additionally, Jordan itself is seen by some as a de facto Palestinian state with a large Palestinian population. Critics also challenge the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements, asserting that the Mandate’s settlement rights remain valid. This view was echoed by the Trump administration in 2019, which stated that Israeli settlements are not inherently inconsistent with international law.

Humanitarian Imperatives

✅ In Favor

Supporters argue that two states would deliver justice for Palestinians: the right to statehood, dignity, and freedom from ‘occupation’. It would resolve refugee issues and establish borders to address decades of displacement and statelessness.

Human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch claim that Israel enforces a system of ‘apartheid’, privileging Jewish Israelis while systematically oppressing Palestinians. They cite separate legal systems, movement restrictions, and land confiscations as evidence of racial segregation and domination.

❌ Against

Many Israelis argue that more Jews were displaced from Arab nations during Israel’s War of Independence than Arabs from Israel, with no restitution or return for those Jews. They claim Arab displacements were orchestrated by Arab military leaders to facilitate genocide against Jews, and so there is no right of return.

Israeli officials reject the apartheid label, asserting that security measures—such as fences and movement restrictions—were responses to terrorist attacks. They argue these are defensive, not discriminatory, and that fences were only erected when Jews were repeatedly murdered in their beds. Israelis also highlight that 21.4% of Israel’s 10.1 million population is Arab, and Arab-Israelis actively participate in democracy. A 2025 survey by the Konrad Adenauer Program found that 58% of Arab Israelis feel a sense of shared destiny with the Jewish majority, and over 70% support Arab party participation in government coalitions. This contrasts sharply with the absence of legislative democracy in the West Bank for nearly two decades, and the near complete absence of any Jews resident in Palestinian Authority controlled areas.

Conclusion

On security, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu famously stated: “If Israel puts down its weapons it will be destroyed; if Israel’s enemies put down theirs, nothing will happen.” This sentiment underscores Israel’s scepticism toward the two-state solution.

Neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas has demonstrated genuine commitment to peace. The Hamas Covenant which is openly genocidal, and the PA’s “Pay for Slay” program suggest a persistent intent to destroy Israel rather than coexist with it. Furthermore, these bodies have proven unwilling to abide by treaties and agreements, bringing the character of their leadership into disrepute.

Legally, critics argue that the UN and International Court of Justice selectively interpret international law. A deeper review reveals that Israel not only maintains legitimate borders based on foundational legislation but may also have legal grounds to declare sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza.

Human rights concerns further undermine the case for Palestinian statehood. Both Hamas and the PA have been condemned for arbitrary arrests, torture, suppression of dissent, murder and other abuses. If these accusations are true, these entities are unfit to govern their own people—let alone an independent state.

In summary, the case for a two-state solution fails to deliver on its promises of peace, legal clarity, and humanitarian justice. It is hard to see any democratic civilization permitting any people group within their borders which acts in the way the PA or Hamas do, to establish a sovereign state. The world’s scrutiny rather than being focused on Israel, may be better directed at the Palestinian leadership, whose record falls far short of democratic standards.

Two states, it seems, are therefore no solution at all.

Bibliography

1. League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (1922) – Legal foundation for the establishment of a Jewish national home.
2. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) – The original partition plan proposing separate Jewish and Arab states.
3. UN Charter, Article 80 – Preserves rights granted under the League of Nations Mandate.
4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) – Affirms the right of peoples to self-determination.
5. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) – Mandated Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
6. Trump Administration Statement (2019) – Declared Israeli settlements not inconsistent with international law.
7. UNGA Resolution ES-10/24 (2024) – Reaffirmation of international support for Palestinian statehood.
8. Arab World Research and Development (AWRAD) Survey, December 2024 – Poll showing Hamas support in the West Bank.
9. Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch Reports – Accusations of apartheid and human rights violations.
10. Israel’s Territorial Sovereignty (2025) – Arthur A Flower  – All Israel News
11. Konrad Adenauer Program Survey (2025) – Data on Arab-Israeli political integration and sentiment.