The two-state solution reconsidered: Global tensions and local realities
Why it’s back on the world stage
The two-state solution has once again become the focus of international diplomacy, spurred by crises that signal the costs of stagnation. The war in Gaza and its humanitarian toll have reignited calls for a political horizon that addresses the roots of the conflict, not just its branches. At the same time, the rapid expansion of Israeli settlements, profound political rifts among Palestinians and Israel’s control of contested territories demonstrate how narrow the path to peace has become.
Global actors are responding by reasserting the two-state solution as the only applicable framework for stability. The recognition of Palestinian statehood in 2025 by countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and France, along with the passage of the New York Declaration at the United Nations General Assembly, points to the increasing pressure to turn decades of rhetorical support into practice. Public opinion trends in the Arab world, which hint at renewed support for a two-state framework, further illustrate how local realities and global pressures are merging to revive the long-standing vision.
Historical foundations
Though often viewed as a contemporary concept, the two-state solution has historical roots. In 1947, the United Nations approved a Partition Plan (Resolution 181), envisioning two independent states — one Jewish, one Arab — plus the creation of an international status for Jerusalem due to its religious importance. Jewish leaders accepted the plan, while Arab leaders rejected it as unjust and imposed. The partition plan collapsed, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the establishment of the State of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians — what the Palestinians refer to as the Nakba, or “Catastrophe.”
The idea reemerged after the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and other territories. In response, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, which established the principle of “land for peace,” calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories in exchange for recognition and security assurances from its neighbors. The resolution laid the groundwork for future diplomacy, though its ambiguous language left a lot of room for dispute.
By the 1970s and 1980s, the concept of two states began to take a more concrete shape. The 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel demonstrated that negotiated agreements were possible, but the Palestinian dilemma remained unresolved. In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally adopted the principle of two states as a change in Palestinian political strategy. In 1993, the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO represented the first tangible steps toward realizing that vision. The accords provided limited Palestinian self-rule in certain areas of the West Bank and Gaza, created the Palestinian Authority (PA) and laid out a timeframe for resolving final-status issues like borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The Oslo process generated optimism but ultimately did not materialize, as trust was broken, violence resumed and timetables came and went.
Subsequent attempts to rekindle the peace process, such as the 2000 Camp David Summit, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative spearheaded by Saudi Arabia, the 2003 Quartet Roadmap for Peace and the 2007 Annapolis Conference, could not gain traction due to betrayals and repeated violence. Even the allegations of “negotiations” in 2013-2014 led by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry were hardly helpful, and the Palestinian population generally rejected the 2020 “Deal of the Century,” which the Trump administration promoted, as inequitable and frivolous. There is still, however, an argument to be made that the two-state solution remains the referent for peace, not only because of its legal and diplomatic pedigree, but also because a similar framework has not been endowed with any legitimacy on the global stage. The two-state solution is also a vision that has survived wars and failed negotiations and shifting geopolitics, but is now under increasing strain from both local realities and global impatience
Obstacles to peace
While it has historical legitimacy and broad support, the two-state solution, nevertheless, is confronted with powerful challenges. The rapid expansion of Israeli settlements has created fragmented pieces within the West Bank, which makes it hard to envision a geographical base for a Palestinian state someday. East Jerusalem remains a heated dispute, as both sides assert claims to the Holy City as their capital. Security issues are the central organizing principle of Israeli policymaking, while Palestinians consider checkpoints, military presence and separation barriers as a form of occupation of their sovereignty. The refugee question and the political division between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza add additional complexity to any negotiation. Many years of challenges to negotiations and cycles of violence have undermined trust and left many, on both sides, doubting that a compromise can be reached. These local realities have a significant impact on the feasibility of a two-state framework, posing challenges to many global opportunities to reinvigorate it.
The world responds worldwide
The two-state solution is still considered the peace framework of choice. The UN regularly states that it is the only viable option, and the 2025 New York Declaration affirmed that commitment. At the same time, there has been an increase in states recognizing Palestine, due to frustration stemming from the process. Countries such as Portugal, Australia and Canada joined over 140 UN members in officially recognizing Palestinian statehood, signaling an attempt to, once more, restart that process of negotiations. Additionally, public opinion across the Arab world has shifted. Polls show increases in support for two states, and while there is still rage due to humanitarian suffering, it does appear that support among the Arab public for two states is increasing.
Such global pressures reflect a growing recognition worldwide that leaving the conflict unresolved risks greater instability far beyond the region.
A future not yet guaranteed
The two-state solution continues to be the most widely supported formulation for peace, but its future is uncertain. Although the international community continues to highlight its importance, events on the ground are increasingly pointing to alternatives that would cement conflict rather than resolve it. Control over the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank presents a significant obstacle to the two-state solution. Every new settlement and bypass road fragments Palestinian territory and diminishes a political geography for sovereignty. In addition, every new settlement or road alters demographics and solidifies political belief systems, increasing the difficulty of drawing a line of demarcation. For many Palestinians, this suggests that the dream of a real contiguous and sovereign state is fading away.
Simultaneously, political division within the Palestinian leadership diminishes the possibility of advancing negotiations. The PA continues to possess international legitimacy, but domestic legitimacy declines; Hamas governs Gaza and has taken a completely different approach to Israel. Without internal reconciliation, it is difficult to imagine the Palestinians negotiating with Israel as a unified entity and Israel takes advantage of that division. Israel, for its own part, continues to be divided on the question. While some political actors still define a two-state resolution as a valued compromise, some openly advocate for annexation of substantial parts of the West Bank or envision a “state-minus” that limits full sovereignty for Palestinians. This ambiguous view on what settlement activity and occupation mean allows it to proceed without the responsibility of a decisive political result.
In this context, alternative scenarios present themselves. First, a one-state reality, whether endorsed de jure or de facto, approaches as Israel’s ongoing occupation of parts of “Palestine” blurs the line between Israel proper and occupied territory. It would force questions about citizenship, rights and democracy; that is, Israel would either need to grant millions of Palestinians citizenship and rights, or risk being seen as a system of inequality and discrimination.
An alternative scenario is “conflict management,” where the issue becomes a complication and both people remain in cycles of insecurity and violence with “no solution.” Nonetheless, even with these difficulties, the two-state solution remains more than just another trailing diplomatic phrase. It is entrenched in public international law, expressed in relevant UN resolutions and maintains the support of much of the international community. It is also the only legitimate framework that represents the national aspirations of both peoples within a legal and political paradigm recognized by the international community.
Conclusion: Last chance for peace?
The two-state solution has once again entered the global diplomatic agenda because alternatives do not seem viable. However, its continued relevance cannot be left solely to such expressions of diplomatic commitment. The tension between the global desire for peace and the local realities of violence and conflict shapes the uncertain path ahead. Unless significant and practical actions are taken to stop settlement expansion, create mechanisms of Palestinian political unity and generate viable incentives for compromise, the two-state solution will fade into irrelevance.
For some actors, it may be the last meaningful framework that has prospects for peace and realizing the national aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. For others, the two-state solution is already on the way to becoming a historical memory. What is clear, however, is that the next few years are programmatically significant: the international community can convert its political commitment into a practical reality, or the coming years will lead to regional developments characterized by indefinite occupation, sporadic sovereignty and unrelenting cycles of violence. Not only is the two-state solution not merely a diplomatic option, but it may be the last opportunity to establish a fair and durable peace.
This is a stunning distortion of consciousness or deliberate behavior. The entire world’s focus on one problem prevents it from thinking about other enormous ones. The war in Ukraine has been raging for three years now, with daily bombings, millions of refugees, children and elderly people dying, and no one in Armenian media cares. Russia is currently playing a dangerous game with the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, putting the world in front of nuclear disaster, but no one is thinking about it because the experienced and corrupt media are diverting attention from it. You should at least write an article about this war if you are truly an objective observer. Just because a problem is geographically distant from Beirut it doesn’t mean that she doesn’t exist and should be ignored.
Armenia has its own huge, even existential, problems. It has to maintain a balance and be cautious in its relations with Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Ukraine and Russia, precisely because there are Armenian communities in all of these countries, who are directly and indirectly affected by the wars and conflicts. Openly choosing a side, would jeopardize the vulnerable Armenian communities to retribution by these countries, and to which the Armenians in Palestine and Israel are already subjected to by Israel.