The Illusion of the Two-State Solution

We are in the midst of ongoing student protests, encampments, demonstrations, and shows of solidarity with oppressed people in Palestine. Governments have routinely avoided discussing the genocide in Gaza, instead, simply pointing to their commitment to “fostering a two-state solution”. A solution where both Israel and Palestine are able to coexist in the region, peacefully. A solution that, unfortunately, fundamentally ignores the colonial foundation of Israel in the Middle East.

The Holocaust was, and must always be remembered as a blight of humanity. The systematic murder of over 6 million European Jews left many displaced and in search of security and community post the trauma of the Second World War. Prior to 1947, there were proposals for the establishment of a Jewish state in Uganda, Argentina, and Madagascar. All of these nations at the time were colonially tied to the British Empire. In an attempt to give the Jewish people a nation state away from the ongoing antisemitism they faced in Europe, no consideration was given to the Indigenous people of these regions.

The 1948 Nakba, which many say never ended, was the ethnic cleansing that expelled over 750,000 Palestinians from their homes. This led to the systemic depopulation of Palestinian Arab communities to pave the way for Jewish immigration. The Palestinian Arab population were displaced into territories known as Gaza and the West Bank within occupied Palestine, as well as to neighbouring countries. Since the Nakba, Israel has committed ceaseless acts of violence against the Palestinian people and has continually violated international law with their actions. Residents of the West Bank have been subjected to Israeli apartheid laws due to the presence of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Gaza has been subjected to a land, sea and air blockade since 2006, to which residents have had to live in what is described as “an open-air prison”. After Hamas’ attack on October 7th, Israel began unleashing its full military strength on occupied Palestine, with the United States as their main backer. 

As of writing this, Al Jazeera reports the recent conflict (post October 7th) has led to the deaths of 1,139 Israelis in Israel, and over 37,202 Palestinians in Gaza. This does not include those missing or injured, with injuries standing at 8,730 in Israel, and 84,932 in Gaza.

The issue in possible solutions to this conflict is the nature in which it began. Creating an officially named – as of 2018 – ethno-religious state in homes that had to be forcefully vacated, has created persistent and distinct strands of nationalism, and fails to foster a “two-state solution”.

The very idea of a “Jewish state”— a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded — is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism. – Judt, 2003

Arguments in support of the two-state solution, which envisions independent Israeli and Palestinian states with borders similar to those drawn in 1967, theoretically acknowledge the rationale behind Israel’s existence and its separation from Palestine. The principal of this separation has been overshadowed by the genocidal reality Palestinians experience daily. It is overshadowed by Israel’s settler-colonialist policies which have seen thousands of illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinian residents are also subjected to constant brutality from the IDF, Israeli police, and settlers who are armed themselves, through countless raids, destruction of property, and unlawful arrests. 

The modern state of Israel was established in 1948, following the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947. This plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab states and Palestinians, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. After the war, Israel seized more territory than initially allocated, and no Palestinian state was established. Palestinians then rejected the two-state solution in 1967 for several reasons. First, the proposed territorial division was deeply inequitable. Despite Palestinians significantly outnumbering Israelis at the time, the plan allocated a significantly smaller percentage of land to the Palestinian state. Moreover, the suggested borders fragmented the Palestinian territories into three non-contiguous parts, making it geographically impractical and economically unviable for the already struggling population. Most of the fertile agricultural land and crucial water resources would have remained under Israeli control, further disadvantaging the proposed Palestinian state. 

Historical and modern Israeli nationalism, being centred around the shared trauma of the Holocaust and the struggle for nationhood, has only become more starkly extreme in viewing the Palestinian peoples as an enemy. The rise in extreme nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and anti-Arab racism are not isolated. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also promised in 2014 that under his leadership, which continues today, a fully sovereign Palestine is simply “not an option”. He maintains that “This is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle,” and consistently refers to Israel as a bastion of civilisation within the Middle-East. He also stated that “Anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state and open up territory is giving radical Islam a space to attack the State of Israel.”

Palestinian shared trauma is centred around the Israeli establishment and the violence Israel continues to commit against Palestinians. The impact of living under apartheid is profound. Many Palestinians grow up witnessing or experiencing violence, fostering a collective sense of fear, anger, and resistance. This trauma is intergenerational, as stories of loss and struggle are passed down, reinforcing a shared identity rooted in the experience of displacement and conflict. 

While European Jewish history and identity, the identity that transferred to Israel after its establishment, has always had an element of unification over discrimination and social exclusion, Middle-Eastern Jewish identity is often referred to as a tale of solidarity. Israeli historian Yehouda Shenhav writes that Jewish, Muslim, and Christian populations lived in the Ottoman empire with more respect and protection than offered to those in Europe. This history is so often the basis for a two-state solution, however the Israeli genocide and colonisation of Palestinian land has all but barred the possibility. 

As Israeli bombardment continues to be the centre of national identity and unity on both sides, the two-state solution must be seen as non-feasible. Yet the Western powers who hold so much responsibility surrounding this genocide are hyper focused on these “two-states”.

The only solution that has been extended by external actors has been that of the two-states. The power dynamics inherent in Western actors dictating terms to a colonised and oppressed people display in full the colonial attitudes that grew support for Israel’s genocide. If Western actors are truly committed to a “day after the war on Gaza” as we’ve heard so frequently in the media, it should be grounded in commitment to supporting the agency of those who have been oppressed and had genocide waged against them for decades.  

Netanyahu has consistently opposed every US stance on post-war Gaza. The agenda still includes partitioning Gaza and establishing apartheid, maintaining occupation, settlement, and the forced displacement of Palestinians. Believing that the two-state solution could be implemented automatically and in a way that brokers peace after the war is simply fantasy. The collapse of this solution after ceasefire will show the cracks in the region’s future, while Palestinians will be pushed further into lives of oppression and hardship. Israel has set its eyes on Rafah, and the genocide is far from over, with little hope for a peaceful resolution after the rejection of the ceasefire deal.

Other solutions must be considered, beyond beating the dead horse of “two-states that live peacefully with another”, as Israel has demonstrated it is simply not possible.