Learning from the Past And Present for a Peaceful Future
TWO-STATE SOLUTION
What it is and why we advocate for it.
There are different proposed solutions along a spectrum of ideas. However, given history, it is clear that violence will not end unless compromises are made. Below is a basic history of the solution and how it has evolved over time.
​
Please note that we are updating this section of our site as we conduct a new swath of interviews with experts in the conflict. Stay tuned!
BASIC HISTORY
The original proposal for a two-state solution was created in 1937 by the Peel Commission, a group sent by the British, who ruled the area at the time via mandate. The commission was tasked with investigating the motives for Arab unrest, and they found that the mass immigration of Jews had sparked fears that historic Palestine would be dominated by Jews. Ultimately, they concluded that the coexistence of the two parties in a single state would be impossible as a result of hostility and conflicting demands for land and status. The Peel Commission's Partition Plan in 1937 (below) had a much smaller Jewish state, more proportionate to the population difference, with Jerusalem being controlled by the British. The Arab State would stretch from the Red Sea almost to the Sea of Galilee, making up most of Israel today. Jewish leaders accepted the plan, but Arab leaders rejected it.
​
In 1947, the UN voted to partition Palestine into a state for each group, although the way this would be done was highly controversial. Neither state would have any control over Jerusalem, which would be an internationally controlled city; both groups insisted Jerusalem was historically and spiritually crucial to their state. The Jewish state would comprise 56% of Palestine, despite making up 31% of the population, which caused Arab outrage. While Zionists justified this with the need for a homeland as a result of anti-semitism in Europe and elsewhere, Arabs were unsurprisingly unhappy with this plan. In what Israel considers the "War of Independence", but what Palestinians call "Nakba" (the catastrophe), Israeli forces captured far more territories than allotted in the UN plan. Over half of Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes, leading to an intense refugee crisis that partially fuels today's violence.
​
Eventually, in 1967, Israel captured the remaining parts of historic Palestine from Jordan and Egypt, as well as the Sinai from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria. The map now looked nothing like what was originally conceived (see timeline for more info). In 1988, Palestinian leaders proclaimed a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, the first sign that Palestinians accepted the two-state solution.
​
However, efforts to implement such a solution have been undermined by diplomatic arguments as well as violence and extremism from both sides. The Oslo Accords of 1993 attempted to implement such a solution, but was only an interim agreement, not a final settlement. In the Oslo Accords, Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel's right to exist. Palestinians also gained limited self-rule under the established Palestinian Authority. However, both sides failed to fulfill many of the duties assigned to them under the Oslo Accords, and this intransigence obstructed the peace process. As a result, final status discussions, which were supposed to be concluded by 1998, broke down. In a "Make or Break" conference, Israeli PM Barak and Palestinian president Arafat failed to reach any agreement, even with the mediation of US President Clinton.
The "Road Map" has developed over many conferences. Essentially, it is an application of the two-state solution that would establish a state for Palestine if Palestinians cease violence and reform their political system, and if Israelis stop settlement activity in Palestine. This solution is endorsed by the US, UN, EU, and Russia (as well as by TPME), but no significant peace agreement has been made yet. Unfortunately, with the increase of Israeli settlements and the 2002 wall built around the West Bank, many politicians find it illogical - as there is little territory even left for a Palestinian state. With every new aggression, the parties move farther from the possibility of a two-state solution.
THE ALTERNATIVES
One Jewish-led State: Many, especially right-leaning, Israelis claim that Palestinians have no historical and legal right to a state. Supporters of one Jewish state claim that Arabs have rewritten the past to deny the 3,000-year-old connection of Jews to Israel, and that this Jewish history trumps any Palestinian connection to the land. However, TPME believes that both sides are equally entitled to statehood and human rights, and one Jewish-led state would lead to the marginalization of its Arab inhabitants. It is important to TPME that a solution to the conflict is based on justice as well as peace, and denying Palestinian self-determination would be unjust. It is undeniable that, historically, Jews have been existentially threatened by antisemitism and a Jewish homeland is critical to secure Jewish self-determination and security. However, given the reality that the Palestinian population is increasing at a faster rate than the Jewish population, a single state would likely be majority Palestinian in the future as a result, which makes a solely Jewish-led state untenable and unsafe for both groups.
​
One Arab-led State: Some Arab leaders prefer a single Arab-let state. For the same reasons that a Jewish-led state would lead to Palestinian marginalization, an Arab-led state would lead to the marginalization of Jews. Given the current birth rates of Arabs and Jews, an Arab-led state would likely have more Palestinians than Jews in the future. If Jews become a minority, they could be left vulnerable to violence. Hamas's anti-semitic and violent ideology is evidence of this possibility. TPME thus rejects a state led solely by Arabs or solely by Jews for reasons of justice, self-determination and safety.
​​
One Mixed-led State: Some experts increasingly believe that a binational secular democracy is the best path forward. While the notion of an idealistic one-state democracy sounds like a great idea, both sides' conduct in the last century leaves TPME wary of this idea. Israeli and Palestinian leaders have shown in many instances an inability to cooperate and see past their own narratives, fears, and needs. TPME fears that this mindset on both sides, which has fueled the conflict for decades, will remain and cause serious issues that will plague any such future single mixed-led state. TPME believes that the historical experiences of both Israelis and Palestinians entitle them to a state in which their safety will be protected and self-determination equally realized. It is true that actions on both sides have contributed to the erosion of a two-state solution, and that there may be some benefits to one mixed-led state. While the potential success of one mixed-led state is at this juncture is uncertain, it is nonetheless worthy of continued debate in the effort toward making peace.
WHY WE ADVOCATE FOR IT
The two-state solution recognizes and approves of both claims to the land. The two-state solution rejects violence against one's neighbors in the name of greed for more land (on both sides). Peace comes from contentment, and contentment can only come from the end of all-or-nothing politics when talking about Israel and Palestine.
RECOGNIZES RIGHTS FOR ALL
SELF-GOVERNANCE, NOT EXTREMEÂ PARTISANSHIP
Much of this conflict revolves around the lack of rights with respect to both Israelis and Palestinians. With Israel building settlements and using military activity to control movement, the Palestinian right to live and move where they wish in society is limited. With Palestinians using rockets and other weapons, they threaten Israelis' right to safety and security. A two-state solution bestows the right for both groups to live peacefully, self-govern, and participate in international affairs with all nations. Instead of use of violence and abuse of rights, diplomacy is the main route of change.
A single state under joint leadership (provided no drastic changes) would inevitably lead to a wildly inefficient government. Politicians would be focused on advocating for their own group and attempting to detract from the rights of the other. Partisanship will lead to more hatred, which will tear apart communities under tension-filled leadership. Instead, in a two-state solution, each people will have the ability to self-govern, making for more efficient government as politicians work to build up their own nations, not tear the other down.
KEY COUNTRIES ALREADY ON BOARD
MAINTAINS ORIGINAL IDEA OF A JEWISH HOMELAND
The four nations/groups most geopolitically involved in attaining peace in the Middle East are the US, EU, UN, and Russia. They have supported a two-state solution. The US has officially supported this solution since the 1970s, though they do not recognize Palestine in its current state. In addition, the vast majority of the world already accepts both entities as states. It's important to remember that, in the past, Israel and Palestine also have both accepted some form of such a solution as well. If we can create a set of borders and guidelines that allows two nations to co-exist, a two-state solution is possible.
In 1948, the foundation of Israel was necessary, as Jews throughout the world were under intense persecution and surrounded by antisemitism. Israel was founded to give the Jewish people a safe place in the land of their ancestors, and has been successful in protecting Jews around the world from persecution. Unfortunately, the acrimony that could arise under a one-state solution, even under a combined government, would destroy the safety provided by a Jewish homeland.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
$173 billion dollars. This is the number a published research report from RAND from C. Ross Anthony, Daniel Egel, Charles P. Ries, and other credible researchers attributed to the amount that would be made off a two-state solution. For reference, that number would be the 53rd GDP in the world for any country. Alone. This study essentially estimated the net cost and benefits of five options/solutions to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - a two-state solution, coordinated unilateral withdrawal, uncoordinated unilateral withdrawal, nonviolent resistance, and violent uprising. It looked at current economic costs of the conflict, including those that can't really be put into words.
First, let's define those terms. A two-state solution, in this case, would mean the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel based on Clinton parameters (94-96% of the West Bank, all of Gaza). Coordinated unilateral withdrawal would be a situation in which Israel coordinates with Palestine to relocate settlers in the West Bank. Uncoordinated, however, would be a situation in which Israel acts alone and pays most of the settler relocation costs. Nonviolent resistance would include legal efforts at the UN and elsewhere, trade restrictions, and demonstrations. Violent uprising, the scariest future, sees foreign terrorists alongside everyday Palestinians rising and organizing to fight and kill.
Researchers looked at both direct costs/benefits (budgetary costs at the governmental and household level) and opportunity costs (economic opportunities missed because of the conflict). For the first, researchers identified costs to Israelis for security, settlements, and Palestinian services and to Palestinians for destruction of infrastructure, territorial waters, Palestinian labor in Israel, freedom of movement, access to services, and prisoners in Israel. Regarding opportunities, however, the Israeli side is missing out because of instability, the BDS movement (sanctions supported by governments worldwide), tourism, Arab world trade, Palestinian trade, and Palestinian labor. The Palestinian side loses opportunities like the control of territory, access to water, barriers to trade, licensing, tourism and travel, and the dissolution of the PA.
The study found, by far, that a two-state solution provides the best economic outcomes for both sides. Billions upon billions for both sides to focus on their economies instead of killings could be saved. Israel would gain $123 billion and Palestine would gain $50 billion over ten years - but, this is far more proportionally for Palestinians (36% increase in average per capita income). The current GDP of Palestine is between 14 and 15 billion per year.
Meanwhile, current trends to return to violence would have horrible negative economic impacts, as expected. In fact, losses are far worse in this future than imaginable. Per capital GDP would fall by 46% in the West Bank and Gaza and 10% in Israel in just a few years. In most scenarios, values of economic opportunities is more larger than expected changes in direct costs. Withdrawal by Israel from the West Bank would be a huge economic hardship, requiring resettlement/movement of Israelis there. Taking into account security costs, the Two State Solution is the only solution that actually improves the situation, compared to the 4 others that either don't change or decrease GDP. Noneconomic factors pose substantial barriers to change, as well. Power imbalance and economic incentives, ongoing regional instability, perceived security risk, clash of historical narrative, lack of political consensus, and demographic trends help keep this conflict churning.