No progress has been made on a two-state solution

The argument

The argument is an inference from a negotiating record rather than from any judgement about either party's intentions. Negotiations for a two-state solution began in 1991 at the Madrid Peace Conference. That gave the framework the conditions diplomacy usually requires: international sponsorship, a formal process, and the sustained attention of outside powers. In the nineteen years that followed there has been virtually no progress, and a solution to the conflict remains as elusive as ever. The length of that record is what carries the weight. A proposal that has failed once may have failed for contingent reasons, such as the wrong moment, the wrong leaders, or an interruption nobody controlled. A proposal pursued for nearly two decades, through changes of government on all sides and repeated rounds of external mediation, has had those contingencies cycle through it. The explanation for the failure can no longer be located in any particular round, which points instead to something in the framework itself. That is the step the argument takes: if a two-state solution were viable, it would have been implemented already. The circumstances required for it to succeed have been assembled more than once and the outcome has not changed, which is the strongest practical evidence available that the approach cannot deliver what is asked of it. What follows is not that the conflict is unresolvable but that continuing with the same framework has become a way of maintaining the status quo rather than ending it. If the available option has been tested to exhaustion, the alternative deserves examination. It is therefore high time the options for a one-state solution were explored.

Context

When solving global conflicts, the best solution is the one that can quickly establish stability and guarantee civilian safety. Despite almost two decades of negotiations, a two-state solution has done neither. The region is as unstable as it has ever been and both Palestinians and Israelis continue to struggle with violent outbursts.

Premises

Counter-arguments

A one-state solution would not overcome any of the major sticking points and would likely create many new ones. For example, under a one-state solution, neither Palestinian Arabs nor Israeli Jews would be granted a natural homeland. This is an integral part of Israeli identity. Palestinians would also have major concerns. Even if there were assurances that they would have the same civil and political rights as Jews on paper, there would be concerns over their ability to exercise those rights. Palestinians make up just 20% of the population. They would almost certainly be subjected to an apartheid state with almost no political representation.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] A one-state solution is not a viable alternative. It does not address any of the core issues of the conflict.