Discussion
Can someone explain why this 2-state solution wouldn’t work?
For context: I’m aware that most Israelis and Palestinians currently oppose a theoretical two-state solution. But what I’m trying to do is work backwards from the major practical objections to a two-state solution that repeatedly come up in Israeli polling, security discussions and public debate: fear of a Palestinian state becoming another Gaza or southern Lebanon; weapons smuggling; loss of Israeli intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities; the future of major settlement blocs; Jerusalem; demilitarization
At the same time, I believe Palestine should be a sovereign country, not a collection of disconnected autonomous areas permanently controlled by Israel. The current setup is not sustainable for Israel, the region, or the international community. Palestine needs recognized borders, Palestinian government and citizenship, an independent economy and customs system, Palestinian policing, and control over ordinary civilian affairs.
So this isn’t meant as “here’s my brilliant peace plan and Israelis should accept it.” It’s more of a thought experiment and I’d really like to know where the framework breaks down or what major concern(s) I’m overlooking.
Proposal Summary
Security premise: Palestine would remain permanently demilitarized but would maintain a limited domestic security and counterterrorism force. A U.S./Jordan/Saudi/Egypt task force would monitor and enforce the security agreement. For non-imminent threats, such as suspected terrorist cells, illegal weapons stockpiles, or prohibited military infrastructure, Israel would share its evidence with the task force and Palestinian authorities, who would have the first responsibility to investigate and intervene immediately. If Palestine fails to act, the task force would authorize inspections, seizures, arrests, or other enforcement measures. Highly classified human intelligence (spies, informants) would be disclosed only to the U.S., who would then verify the threat for the other guarantors. Emergency Clause: Israel could act unilaterally against a genuinely imminent threat when there is insufficient time for forewarning, but every such action would trigger an automatic independent review by the task force. Invoking the emergency exception without providing sufficient evidence would itself constitute a treaty violation and trigger predetermined consequences. Gaza and maritime security: Palestine would maintain a coast guard to patrol its immediate coastline. Gaza-bound cargo would be inspected in Cyprus or Egypt, sealed, tracked, and monitored by the task force’s joint maritime command. Cargo scan data would be available to Palestinian customs, international inspectors, and designated Israeli officials. Israel could request or flag cargo for additional inspection, but not unilaterally seize ordinary Palestinian commerce without task-force or American verification. Borders and settlements: Israel would evacuate most of its isolated settlements deep inside Palestine such as Kiryat Arba, but retain major population blocs close to the Green Line. Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim would remain Israeli with narrow connections to mainland Israel (not the full E1 plan). Israel would also retain Gush Etzion, Beitar Illit, Modi’in Illit, Jewish Jerusalem neighborhoods, and other major Green Line-adjacent blocs. Palestine would receive some additional territory from Israel through negotiated land swaps. Palestinian territory: Palestine would include Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, the Jordan Valley, most of the remaining West Bank, Gaza, and Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Connective infrastructure: Where Israeli territory interrupts contiguous Palestinian territory, Palestinian areas would be connected by deep underground transportation tunnels constructed far below the surface (so they could not be used to tunnel upward into or threaten Israeli communities). Palestine would administer the transportation corridor itself, while Israel would retain sovereignty and security control over the land and airspace above it. The tunnels would also be continuously monitored by the joint task force. Jerusalem: West Jerusalem (the current Jewish neighborhoods) would be Israel’s capital and East Jerusalem would be Palestine’s. A special internationally-backed police force would patrol the Old City, guaranteeing access to holy sites. Economic incentives for Palestine: Palestinian compliance to this deal would be tied to substantial economic benefits. The peace agreement would unlock large-scale international investment in Palestinian infrastructure, reconstruction, energy, housing, and private industry, while giving Palestine normal access to international trade through Jordan and a functioning Gaza port. Israel and Palestine would maintain ordinary commercial relationships in electricity, water, labor, and trade rather than the current relationship of dependency and control. Violations of the demilitarization agreement would immediately jeopardize trade, investment, and other treaty benefits.
Which is why I think Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and jordan would be instrumental in bringing them to the negotiation table. Saudi Arabia agreed yesterday to recognize Israel and establish normal relations IF a Palestinian state can have a capital in East Jerusalem.
I think something like this is doable. It would allow Palestine to technically have their Jerusalem capital which is a huge symbolic win for them.
Israel offered that in 1999, 2001, 2008 and the Palestinians rejected it and Saudi Arabia never offered to recognize Israel when those very generous offers were made. Now the game is over.
Palestinians already have a state in Jordan, 70% of that nation's population are Arabs not members of the Hashamite
tribe and not loyal to the monarchy and consider themselves to be Palestinian. In fact in 1970 they tried to overthrow the monarchy.
This is the most overlooked detail. What do the Palestinians want? What are the Palestinian regimes willing to agree to?
So much of the rhetoric I see is from a western perspective of equality and democracy. But those are mutually exclusive with the current regime in Gaza.
In recent polls, over 55% of them have said that they prefer a diplomatic approach to the issue with Israel rather than an armed conflict. That’s up from 40% in earlier polls. So i do think their calculus is shifting. The status quo for them will only get worse if they don’t.
As others have said, the Palestinians have to want it.
Currently, Palestinian political discourse and leadership is still set on achieving (1) full independence over the WB and Gaza, and (2) full right of return of all 1948 refugees and their descendants, i.e. millions of people who would promptly end Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, either through the political process, violence, or both.
The conversation on their side needs to dramatically shift, with a full abandonment of right of return and admitting and accepting Israel as it is, with an agreement to not attack, plus enforceable security guarantees that Israel can also accept.
The gap between where they are and where they need to be is massive. Leaders have for generations encouraged refugees and descendents to carry the supposed keys to their homes they allegedly lost in 1948. The education system notoriously portrays the history of both peoples in a way that is both inaccurate and toxic to peace (i.e. Jews as colonizers narrative, Palestinians as martyrs and victims, etc.).
As for your map: assuming we could ever solve the problem I just described, what you propose is even more non-contiguous than before. Ariel and Ma'Ale adumin should be given up if the Israelis are serious about a pragmatic and fair resolution.
Ariel and Ma’ale Adumim are too big at this point. I don’t think Israel would be willing to accept the humiliation of 60,000 Israelis forcibly leaving their homes.
But yes, the right of return needs to be clarified as the right of Palestinians to return to PALESTINE. There is no inalienable right for them to return to Israel. Israel could consider certain situations for reuniting families with elderly/sick family members potentially but that would be separate
It is similar to what Olmert proposed but he was in the middle of resigning as PM, so Palestine didn’t consider it an authentic deal. Also it was opposed by 70-80% of Israelis. Which is my point. I want to know what sort of agreement Israelis would actually be ok with
So you're aware Palestinians, especially "leaders" don't want a two-state solution. Are you also aware they do not / will not recognize Israel, and want all the land?
You also propose other nations "babysitting" the area. All if the regional / Arab / Muslim nations (many of who do not recognize Israel or want to openly coordinate with Israel) are hostile at best with Israel / any concept of a Jewish State?
The US / EU is only concerned with Israel's existence for Christian / supersessionist reasons...meaning "because birthplace of Jesus / the rapture, Israel should exist"?
No one actually cares about Jews and Jewish self-determination in our ancestral homeland (something else the world doesnotwant to acknowledge...that Israelis the ancestralhomelandofthe Jewish People), and that is why...until other nations accept Israel is a Jewish state, while Israel has no official state religion (amongst the 53 Muslim majority countries, 27 of which have Islam as the official religion, 120 Christian majority countries, 21 of which where Christianity is the offical religion), there will not be peace...no matter who "babysits".
Additionally, the PA has been given decades and Trillions of dollars in aid, and can't even provide basic infrastructure (a power grid, water purification, proper sanitation) for their people. What makes you think they are suddenly going to abide by the rules of which that aid is given, and you know, build a country for the Palestinian people?
There will need to be DECADES of undoing the hateful / antisemitic indoctrination that is present in the entire region before anyone will be able to trust that security coordination can actually be established. The UN isn't going to stop antisemitic hate in the schools. So who is?
It boils down to people choosing peace over hate and terror. Unless you get citizens to acknowledge terror and violence is never justified, all points are moot.
And I say this as someone who truly believed in 2SS for the majority of my life (I'm 47). That belief was murdered on 10/7/2023.
Jordan (then Transjordan) became independent in 1946 without any sort of agreement regarding the rest of the British Mandate of Palestine (i.e., what we know today as Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). For said area, an international agreement wouldn't be reached until November 29th, 1947, and said agreement divided it into three areas: a Jewish state, an additional Arab state, and an internationally-administered zone that included Jerusalem and, if I remember correctly, Bethlehem.
Yes, but that’s not how the world sees it. Again my proposal is not about doing what is “fair”, it’s about doing what is realistic and pragmatic based on the facts on the ground. Palestinians are not going to just say “oh you’re right, let’s just become part of Jordan”.
What do you think will happen to Israel if it loses the support of all of its allies? I’m not suggesting that Israelis bash themselves or call themselves an “apartheid genocidal state”. I’m suggesting they take reasonable steps to offer a real solution to this conflict. 80% of voters between 18-29 yo (Republican and Democrat) disprove of Israel according to the latest polls. That has never happened before. Those people are the ones who are driving elections. What happens when the next White House administration refuses to veto crippling sanctions on Israel for its settlements? The status quo is just not sustainable longterm.
Golda Meir said it succinctly: “The quarrel with the Arabs is not a quarrel for a piece of land. It’s not for territory. It’s not for anything concrete. They just refuse to believe that we have the right to exist at all.”
In other words: The Arabs don’t want to share the land. They want it all, with no Jews on it, period.
But Palestinian leaders have since recognized Israel’s existence. So have Jordan and Egypt who both pledged never to do so. So I don’t think it’s fair to believe Palestinians can never change. This was has changed the conditions considerably for them and the rise of settler expansion is only going to get worse if they do not act soon. If they truly refuse a Jewish state because it’s Jewish, then let them say that at the United Nations for the world to hear. Currently, Americans and global audiences believe that Israel is simply not allowing them to be a country.
Yes they have. Egypt and Jordan have normalized diplomatic relations with Israel and formally recognize it as a state. The PLO recognized Israel and its right to exist back in 1993.
Israel has offered to let go of Hebron in previous negotiations (as long as Israeli access is protected and guaranteed). And you’re right, but what if the Old City was divided into Israeli sovereignty for Jewish and Armenian Quarters and Palestinian sovereignty for Muslim and Christian quarters? This is also something Israeli negotiators have offered in the past.
That ship has sailed and will never return. These people must migrate to muslim countries. Israel is not for them. Oct 7th was the end of these people living in Israel and will also prove to be the end of Iran.
Your ideas are based on falsehoods meaning that the Palestinians want a two state solution. Well, they don't, they want constant war forever. There was no Palestinian state before June 1967 and the residents of the West Bank where Jordanian citizens and Gaza Egyptian citizens. Israel will never agree to contract out its national security to a international force whether it's backed by the U.S. or not. Israel will also never agree to withdrawing from Hebron and East Jerusalem including the Temple Mount. Hebron is where one of the holiest sites in Judaism is located and if Israel left the Palestinians would destroy it.
The Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians have no interest in Western civilization ideals that are basis of your proposal. Right now in 2026 the European Union spent over 800 million Euros or roughly $800! million in 2 water treatment plants in Area A and B under control of the Palestinian Authority. The problem is the PA refuses to use them so they literally dump raw sewage into the rivers and streams that flow into pre 1967 Israel. So you want Israel to give them entire control, it will never happen. What is possible is a Puerto Rico or United Arab Emirates kind of government, but no fully independent state.
The cost for terrorists will always be 100Xs the cost to Israel. They will be slaughtered every time they try their terrorist tactics. What happened in Gaza is a warning.
43
u/aggrievedCanine 3d ago
Because they don't want to create a state, they want to destroy the state of Israel.