Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical stage. For more than two decades, the two-state solution has been the basis of international efforts to make peace in the region... A failure of the two-state solution will generate further instability in the region, strengthen rejectionist elements on both sides and likely mean that the conflict will drag on for generations... The Palestinian leadership remains committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement to our conflict with Israel based on the two-state solution.

Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con

http://articles.latimes.com... I ask the voters on this debate to consider this when voting on conduct.

One state is more peaceful then a two state solution.

Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict

A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.

Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides

For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.

Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability.

There are many indications that, despite the rhetoric, Israel will not accept a two-state solution. The most important factor is the growth of settlements, which would have to be removed under a two-state solution, which many believe would be met by violent resistance by Jewish settlers. Territorial vulnerabilities from a two-state solution, and the inability to control the borders of the Palestinian state are also problems that make Israel unlikely to accept a two-state solution.

Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution

A two-state solution offers the Palestinians a very small amount of territory in the West Bank and Gaza strip. This small amount of space is not going to work for such a large and rapidly growing population of Palestinians.

Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "The difficulties of a two-state solution are numerous, but it remains the only realistic and moral formula to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

A two-state solution is the least bad option

Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution

A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, will alienate Palestinians living in Israeli territory. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.

Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.

Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians

Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.

Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state

A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish

in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution

Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution

Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides

Only a one-state solution can end the conflict

A two-state solution is the least bad option

In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994. On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.

The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear

Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution

A two-state solution will not assuage Iran.

Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable

A two-state solution is best for peace

Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)

Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.

Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all

A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional

Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles

A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.

Idea of Jewish state, in two-state solution, is undemocratic

Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution

Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state.

General statements in favor of a one-state solution

Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor

Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution

Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability.

Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible

One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state

Israeli settlements ought not justify denying Palestinians a state.

Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.

Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state

Mohammed Khaku. "The Case for One-State Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Cross-Cultural Understanding. May 2008: "The only solution for the Palestinians is the creation of a single state in Palestine-Israel. Since the Palestinian and Israeli populations are so intermingled and a million Palestinians live throughout Israel the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote."

Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution

A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts.

Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.

Two-state plan respects democratic will for separate states

A two-state conflict will not end conflict

General statements in support of a two-state solution

A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.

Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution

Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.

A two-state solution is best for peace

Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable

US special envoy George Mitchell: "In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict."

General statements in support of a two-state solution

I will argue that (1) a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli territorial dispute is a must if we are interested in arbitrating according to a common standard of justice. (1): it is hopeless to assign an exact magnitude of blame in which one side or the other receives a predominant burden of fault. (2): in absence of exact calibrations, a 50-50 model to dispute resolution is both most practical and fairest. (3): natalist combat (meaning the struggle to demographically erode away the other party is practical but immoral)

Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Dissenters from the two-state solution contend -- not without some reason -- that Gaza and the West Bank are too small to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Yet this would also be the case under the one-state formula; it would result in a state that is merely 24,000 square kilometers and that already overflows with a population exceeding 10 million (5.5 million Jews and 4.5 million Arabs). While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance."

Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians

The Reut Institute described in a May 1, 2008 report, "a trend towards the erosion of the principle of the Two-State Solution among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements."[3]

Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008.

"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more." -- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000.

One state is more peaceful then a two state solution.

The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement – i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy – and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form. This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about “autonomy” floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state. The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places.[1] [1] Rosenberg, M.J., ‘Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations’, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_9...

Palestinian state would be base for terrorism

Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict

One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority

The New York Review of Books reported in a 2008 review of the middle east situation that "[t]hroughout the years, polls consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement."[2]

Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution

A Palestinian state would threaten its neighbors.

Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.

A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14) A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13) A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.

Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all

Jeff Jacoby. "Peace isn't Arab goal". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: "International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down."

Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution

MJ Rosenberg. "Loving The Two-State Solution to Death". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: "we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable."

Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state.

Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights

A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory. This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect).

A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.

The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as “Judea and Samaria”. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Those not committed to this solution argue that, after the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel's waist would be too narrow -- some six miles -- to ensure security for its citizens. [...] Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defense but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow."

Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor

As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.

Israel loses strategic West Bank mountains in two-state solution

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. [...] From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state." [The reason for this is that it could not be considered a Jewish state if it housed a very large Palestinian population].

One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state

Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts."

A two-state conflict will not end conflict

"The One State Declaration". Issued by participants in the July 2007 Madrid meeting. November 29, 2007: "A two-state solution is] predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return."

Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights

A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12) The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10) Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution

"Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. May 7, 2009: "Iran's disbanding its nuclear weapons program is surely not dependent on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region. [...] If Iran's motivation to develop WMD was to effect resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Saudi Arabia and Egypt wouldn't have grave concerns."

A two-state solution will not assuage Iran.

Israel finally accepting the two state solution would be a good thing since the apartheid would end, military oppression would be stopped and peaceful stability could be achieved. The Palestinians will be free of the Knesset, be aloud to properly partake in political elections and not be culturally violated. This solution would entail the removal of the wall, granting most of the West Bank and Gaza independence, signing a peace treaty, Establishing stronger diplomatic relations with each other, halting all building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and call for the complete retraction of the Israeli military in the occupied territory (Won't go into any more hypothetical detail). Both are victims of each other (con-temporarily Palestine more so though)

Does Palestine Deserve autonomy

Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land." [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible

Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008.

Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution

"Is the two-state solution in danger?". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: "The left in Israel has long warned that if settlement construction continues and Israel does not separate from the Palestinians, the country will eventually slide into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. The result, they contend: the end of a democratic, Jewish state."

One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority

Jonathan Freedland. "Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel." guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011: "UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace – a two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution – so-called because while it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides."

UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution

Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The single, bi-national democratic state solution has the advantage of conforming to modern liberal democratic principles officially espoused in the West and in Israel itself."

Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles

The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish Judea and Samarra. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel will not undermine its identity by relinquishing these territories, so it will not and should not accept a two-state solution.

Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution

It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.

Only a one-state solution can end the conflict

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011: "One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. [...] the question isn’t the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem."

US supports two-state solution, but not via UN

US supports two-state solution, but not via UN

UN recognition of Palestinian statehood

Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defense. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages."

Two-state plan respects democratic will for separate states

These arguments about 'sympathetic cooperation' ignore the realities on the ground of two people who are and seem certain to remain violently opposed to each other as long as they struggle over control over a single state rather than each having a state of their own. Furthermore, offering the Palestinians a sovereign state of their own, free from Israeli control, would likely go a long way to satisfying the vast majority of Palestinians, and thus actually make a war against Israel far less likely. As Peres argues: “Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defence but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.”(1)

"Why plans for a two-state solution in the Middle East have failed.". International Journal on World Peace. March 1, 2008: "The plan for a Palestinian state failed to comprehend that the Palestinians, unlike the Jews, had not created an apparatus for self-government."

A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional

Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.

A two-state solution is best for peace

Jerusalem - PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasir Abd-Rabbuh replying to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ready to negotiate immediately with the Palestinians by affirming that no negotiations will take place before the suspension of the settlement activities. "Abd-Rabbuh said in statements to Al-Ayyam: There can be no negotiations unless the Israelis stop the settlement activities and we no longer wish to meet with the Israelis on the same table to exchange views and ideas while they change the facts on the ground in Jerusalem and all the West Bank. This is a policy that represents the highest forms of deception."

Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.

"Gaza and the two-state solution". The Recliner Commentaries. May 16, 2009: "Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for "the two state solution" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is. [...] And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel! [...] How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?"

Palestinian state would be base for terrorism

UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution.

UN recognition of Palestinian statehood

Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'"

Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state

The answer is not obvious, because splitting the land between the two parties will not create happy people on both sides. Both sides want it all. Also, it is impossible to split the states among lines that will be acceptable to both parties. There is not a clear delineating line between "Jewish Areas" and "Palestinian Areas". Are you willing to force the sides to live apart? A solely Palestinian state will lead to reprisals against the Jewish communities. A solely Israeli state (perhaps with limited Palestinian administration) is the best option. This is why: Because the Israelis have shown that they are willing to live in a liberal democracy, not a terrorist theocracy (the Palestinians, when given the chance, voted Hamas into power in the legislature). The Palestinians are hostile to their neighbor Israel, while Israel just wants to live in peace.

A Palestinian State

Traditionally US policy was that 2 state solution is a must. President Trump declared that he will support any solution that both parties like. He is showing flexibility and since prior approach didn't work, Trump is asking people to think outside the box.

Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must

One of the major obstacles to peace has consistently been the unrealistic expectations which have existed on the Palestinian side. From 1994 onwards, the Palestinians have confused the Peace Process with a process by which “wrongs will be righted” and their “rightful demands” met, rather than a compromise process of give and take. This has been fed by leaders like Yasser Arafat who have told Palestinians for so long that they will have a state with a capital in Jerusalem, with a right of return, etc. that it has become impossible for them to then go back to their constituents and sell concessions. The fact is that no viable Peace Deal with satisfy everyone, and Israel has minimum demands of its own – some settlements will be maintained, millions of Palestinians will not be allowed to settle in Israel proper, and Israel will not allow an armed Palestinian state. The problem with UN recognition is that while at best marginally improving the Palestinian negotiating position it will dramatically increase popular expectations, making it next to impossible for the Palestinian leadership to take advantage of any gains they achieve vis-à-vis Israel through recognition. In this sense you may well have a much greater gap between the Palestinian minimum and Israeli maximum than before recognition.

Such a move will make Palestinian expectations much higher and their position more intransigent

One of the major problems with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up to now is that it has been localized between the Israelis and Palestinians, with outside involvement limited to putting pressure on one side or the other at various times. The result is that negotiations have become a zero-sum game where concessions from one side have to be extracted from the other. Allowing the Israelis to keep settlements means that the Palestinians must give up land. Allowing a “Right of return” to Palestinians is seen is something Israel alone must carry the burden of, when the vast majority live in other Arab states that perhaps should play a part in any sort of compensation scheme. Consequently, negotiations have been far more brutal than they otherwise might have been. UN Recognition or at least a debate about it would move the forum of the discussion away from bilateral talks, and into the international sphere. The UN, by acknowledging responsibility for mishandling things on the Palestinian side in 1948, would in effect pave the way to help solve issues like the right of return and the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab states that cannot be resolved satisfactorily on a bilateral basis.

A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions

MJ Rosenberg. "Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations." Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: "Recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state."

UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution.

Israeli's looking for peace negotiations is total bullsh!t. For a start, if they did want to make amends with the Palestinians, perhaps they ought to stop occupying more and more land, building more and more settlements. It's like trying to make peace with someone whilst shoving the barrel of a pistol further and further down their throat. Secondly, Palestinians have been looking for a two-state solution, whilst Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres have openly objected to it on state TV. Even whilst their major ally, the US has presented peace talk proposals, Israel denying the majority, and totally screwing up the others. Palestinians now need special permits to enter their own fields, they have no rights to their own homes, they cannot cross border control on to what used to be their own land, and if they are caught trying to sneak back in to what was lawfully their land, they are arrested. Children even are arrested for protesting against the Israeli's maltreatment of their neighbors. I could also talk about the numbers of innocent Palestinians in jail or who have been killed by Israeli police forces, totally unjustly, but we would be here forever. Israel had no right in the first place in Palestine, and now it has no right to continue expanding in to another countries land.

Palestine

Trump is not advocating for either solution. A good negotiator looks for creative win-win options that don't impose unnecessary constraints. It is important to remember that prior approach didnot result in any meaningful outcome, so trying to open the possibilities may introduce other creative outside the box thinking.