There is a global consensus that the occupation of Palestine is one of the longest in modern history. What started as a territorial dispute has transformed into a protracted, deeply entrenched conflict — both ideological and epistemic — between two communities fighting over the same land: occupier versus occupied.
There is a global consensus that the occupation of Palestine is one of the longest in modern history. What started as a territorial dispute has transformed into a protracted, deeply entrenched conflict — both ideological and epistemic — between two communities fighting over the same land: occupier versus occupied.
The inception of the Zionist project gained momentum as a result of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, when Great Britain endorsed the Jewish migration to Palestine. Thus, Palestinian Arabs — over 90 percent of the population — were denied their right to self-determination after the end of World War I. In facilitating the influx of Jewish exodus into Palestine, the British government effectively sought to resolve the “Jewish problem” in Europe at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian people.
In 1948, Palestinian towns and villages were razed, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcefully displaced across neighboring Arab countries. This refugee crisis became enshrined in UN General Assembly Resolutions 181 (partition) and 194 (right of return), yet the Palestinians’ political rights were repeatedly torpedoed by the Big Powers — led by the United States — within the UN Security Council.
From 1948 until the founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964, the Palestinian cause was largely framed as a broader Arab issue. With the PLO’s emergence, armed struggle became the main strategy toward liberation, initially envisioning a return to all of historic Palestine before coalescing around roughly 22 percent of the land, the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
Despite fierce debate between the PLO factions and Hamas, the 1993 Oslo Accords marked the PLO’s dramatic return from the political periphery to the center of the negotiating table. By dealing directly with Israel, the PLO secured de facto recognition of Palestinian national identity. The two state solution became the sole framework shouldered by the international community and later formalized through a series of accords.
The Discourse of a Two-State Solution
Over the past thirty years, since the Oslo Accords placed the discourse of a two-state solution at the center of the conflict, new facts on the ground have steadily undermined its viability. Israel’s systematic policies of occupation, combined with current developments on each side, have bolstered a draconian paradigm shift toward exploring new alternative solutions, with the one-state solution emerging as the most plausible among them.
Israel bears the brunt of this deteriorating situation, given its persistent policies of relentless settlement expansion, widespread land confiscation, and ongoing human-rights abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). These severe conditions suffered by the Palestinians are precarious at best in reframing the contours of the proposed Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Furthermore, the recent genocidal war in Gaza, alongside continued settlement expansion in the West Bank, has further complicated efforts to realize the so-called two-state vision.
Israel also exploits factional divisions between Hamas and Fatah to create new facts on the ground, while regional security imbalances and unwavering support from the United States — coupled with a weakened European Union preoccupied with its internal splits over issues like refugees and anti-Semitism — provide a conducive environment for such actions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has capitalized on these circumstances to justify land grabs, construction of new settlements, and aggressive measures in Gaza, effectively creating new realities on the ground.
Consequently, the two-state solution faces serious challenges. The increasing number of settlers — approximately 750,000 in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — poses a major stumbling block to establishing a contiguous Palestinian state. This settlement colonizing policy is in contradiction and violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemns Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (including East Jerusalem), states they have no legal validity, and constitute a violation of international law.
It is safe to assume that growing mistrust and misperceptions among both Israelis and Palestinians make a two-state solution almost impossible to attain. Despite three decades of strenuous diplomatic efforts, little progress has been made to shift away from the status quo of brute occupation. As a result, the peace camps on both sides have lost their impact and effectiveness; this, coupled with stalled negotiations and the intractability of core historic issues, casts serious doubt on the prospects for a peaceful resolution.
It is imperative to describe the development of the two-state solution since the signing of the Oslo Accords. Its specific parameters have been clearly defined based on the following foundational principles:
• International Framework: Guided by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, withdrawal to the 1967 borders, end of claims, and the recognition of mutually agreed boundaries.
• Territory and Boundaries: Establishment along the 1967 borders, with border rectification based on geographic contiguity and demographic considerations, alongside the dismantling of settlements deemed illegitimate. And General Assembly resolution 3236 affirming the right of the Palestinian people for self-determination.
• Refugees: A fair and just resolution for Palestinian refugees rooted in UN resolutions and international humanitarian law.
• Jerusalem: Implementation of the Clinton Parameters, ensuring full access to holy sites for all religious worshippers, along with the arrangement of a special regime for the Old City, often referred to as a corpus separatum.
• Security: A security arrangement based on a demilitarized Palestinian state, supported by an international multilateral force acting as a buffer, deployed in the Jordan Valley with the agreement of both parties.
• Recognition and Resources: Mutual recognition of sovereignty by both sovereign states, with shared access to transboundary and natural resources, fairly and equitably.
These intractable final-status issues must be comprehensively addressed to achieve a lasting resolution to this protracted conflict, including full consent to mutually agreed-upon one-to-one land swaps. This preferred solution continues to be supported by the international community, despite regional complexities and the internal splits among both populations, which further complicate and hinder progress. The loss of trust has created disillusionment with the two-state solution. Therefore, security concerns and mutual mistrust have pushed the body politic toward the extreme right in Israel, where there is a strong conviction that Israel should maintain the status quo, rendering the Oslo Accords a dismal failure.
These current developments on the ground and the new emerging state of being are creating a recipe for disaster that threatens the realization of the Palestinian national project. These conditions, de facto, are prompting new debates and political discussions around alternative options to be considered. While it remains evident that the two-state solution is still relatively acceptable to both publics, its support has significantly waned compared to a decade ago. Mutual distrust and fear continue to intensify, and the normative consensus around a two-state solution is crumbling by the day. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the Palestinian leadership and the public at large have not declared the two-state solution dead, despite the dynamic changes on the ground and the horrific butchery and the ongoing, devastating destruction of Gaza.
As the two-state solution continues to fade away, a one-state reality has emerged, wherein Israel exercises control over the West Bank and East Jerusalem through its security and economic policies. This effectively sustains an occupation that is very cheap to maintain. Proponents of a one state solution firmly believe that a single, unified state granting full equal rights to all citizens — regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion — based on principles of freedom, offers the most plausible path forward. This approach could potentially reduce xenophobic nationalism on both sides. However, a significant challenge to this solution is that it threatens the very concept of a Jewish state.
The Pros and Cons of Alternative Solutions: Continuation of the Status Quo
According to advocates of the current situation, most Israelis consider a solution with the Palestinians to be of low priority. As a result, the status quo remains satisfactory. Leaders appear unwilling to make significant moves and seem unprepared to assume the calculated risks necessary to advance peace, especially in the absence of a trusted third-party mediator to facilitate the negotiation process.
There are many trade-offs for Israel because maintaining effective control over the West Bank and Gaza is highly resource-intensive. The perpetuation of the occupation limits strategic and economic opportunities with regional and international actors and creates conditions conducive to intermittent conflicts. These cycles of violence prolong a zero sum scenario, further escalating confrontation and instability. A genuine rethinking is necessary to prevent escalation into greater confusion and anarchy. Surely, such rationale lends itself to deep soul-searching that seeks truth and reconciliation, aims to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people as well as the eventual end of occupation, which are essential steps toward lasting peace.
Overall, the continuation of the status quo is disastrous in terms of conflict resolution, stability and security, not only in Palestine and Israel, but across the entire Middle East region.
Two-State Solution: Pros and Cons
The two-state solution as a pragmatic and still-viable resolution remains, as it appears to be the most equitable solution for both sides. However, it requires mutual trust and goodwill to reach a division of sovereignty without territorial separation. In Israel no alternative vision has proven more ideal or feasible than the two-state solution, despite widespread public pessimism about its outcome.
Nevertheless, some parties on both sides — namely, Hamas and Israeli right-wing groups — deem the two-state solution as impractical, as it runs against their core national goals, where each side envisions the other as utterly beaten.
What is required from the international community to salvage the two state solution? The international community has long formally committed to a two-state solution, notably following the Oslo Accords in 1993. However, with U.S. President Donald Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and reversing longstanding U.S. policies, the vision of upholding a traditional two-state model has been significantly undermined, making it less likely to achieve a negotiated and sustainable resolution for the Palestinian cause.
Due to Israel’s continued violations of international law through unrelenting settler activity, which prohibits the Palestinian people from establishing their sovereign state, it is imperative to call upon the international community to condemn these actions and take decisive steps to end them. Such violations are contributing to the gradual erosion of the two-state solution. Furthermore, to revitalize the prospects of the two-state solution, Europe must recognize Palestine as an independent state within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, and agreements regarding settlement policy and demolition of Palestinian homes must be established by the United Nations for Israel to comply with. Finally, a joint international oversight group must be formed to maintain peace and stability in the region, with its operations grounded in adherence to UN resolutions.
For genuine and lasting peace to take hold, the Oslo Accords must be re-packaged and expanded, accompanied by a mutually accepted political and economic framework needs to be developed by policymakers on both sides. Reinvigorating discussions around a two-state solution requires collective efforts to implement an improved version of Oslo that addresses current realities and challenges. Moreover, a softening of positions from both parties, coupled with an extension of economic peace and an unconditional halt to Israel’s colonization project, is crucial. Failing to take these steps could have grave consequences for Israel, Palestine and the United States.
Today, the greatest challenge is to stop the ongoing genocide and pressure Israel to withdraw from Gaza, and allow the reconstruction and rehabilitation of a shattered Palestinian territory that has seen nothing but bloodshed and blockades for many decades.
Concluding Remarks
Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, the peace process has undergone multiple periods of total stalemate. The two-state concept has long been regarded as the ideal and viable resolution, broadly accepted in principle by the conflicting parties and blessed by the international community. The primary political frame of reference has historically been anchored in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). However, rapid changes on the ground have generated new objective conditions, further exacerbating the relationship between the contending parties. The ongoing genocide in Gaza further complicates the challenges facing the two-state solution, in light of the current objective conditions.
The third-party broker, namely the United States, has failed in bridging the deepening gulf of inequity between the parties and has taken a clear stand in unequivocally supporting Israel. Despite the futile effort exerted, the U.S. has been unsuccessful in mediating a peace deal. Meanwhile, Israel’s land grab policy, advanced by a right-wing government aligned with settler interests, is unashamedly undermining Palestine’s geographic integrity, making the prospect of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state increasingly unattainable.
Since the Annapolis talks in 2007, direct negotiations have come to a halt, and the divergence in perspectives, approaches, and communication has only widened. Consequently, after thirty years of a futile peace process and in light of the dramatic changes on the ground, the focus on the two state solution has diminished in importance. Instead, new alternatives are opening a new way of rethinking the entire approach to ending the conflict.
Models such as a one-state, a bi-national state, a confederation with Jordan and a federation with Israel have become more fashionable, driven by the belief that implementing the two-state solution is increasingly unrealistic under the present conditions. While the feasibility of these alternative models remains debated, they are actively discussed within intellectual circles, among academics, politicians, youth, and particularly the Palestinian Diaspora. Importantly, one cannot deny that the public is also being exposed to heated debates about other options for resolving the conflict.
Key questions persist: Is there any hope for genuine reconciliation? Is the two-state solution still viable, given the cancerous spread of settlements? Furthermore, the internal Palestinian split is an added complex layer that impedes efforts to reach a broad consensus in public opinion. What we are experiencing today is a status quo-plus — a reality that benefits Israel by avoiding actionable change while the destruction of Gaza and its people continues unabated. This scenario underlines the urgent need to reassess our paradigms and explore new pathways toward justice and peace.
Dramatic changes are key to any solution. Until then, the Palestinians will continue to endure a repulsive occupation that denies them their national identity and thwarts their aspirations for a viable, contiguous state. The mounting pressure from the international community on Israel to recognize the State of Palestine has deepened tensions between the countries that support the recognition on one hand, and Israel and the U.S. on the other hand, pushing both Israel and the U.S. into an extreme opposition and pressure on these countries. Succumbing to this pressure will only reward and empower Hamas — a militant Palestinian group that Israel has often used as a pretext to justify its actions. This was the excuse for Israel to torpedo the two-state solution by flattening Gaza and killing more than 62,000 innocent civilians, most of whom were civilians before the push for a two-state solution was even proposed.
Given these facts on the grounds, these developments are likely to perpetuate the cycle of violence. However, any attempts to recognize Palestine as a full-fledged state may ultimately be seen as an illusion unless they are translated into effective action on the ground, meaning exerting pressure on Israel to force it to end its occupation, recognize the Palestinian right of self-determination and resolve the conflict on the basis of the two-state solution as outlined in the Arab Peace Initiative.