The Future of the “Two-State Solution” for Resolving the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

The International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution was held on September 22, 2025, at the UN General Assembly headquarters in New York. The conference reinforced recognition of the State of Palestine and called for an end to Israel’s war on Gaza. It coincided with a historic wave of recognition of Palestine by several countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Portugal, the UK, and France.

The “two-state solution” possesses real foundations that make it the most viable scenario for ending the conflict. Yet, significant obstacles continue to hinder its realization on the ground, making its failure—particularly in the short term—a highly probable outcome. This necessitates examining the future implications of this scenario, especially for the two main parties to the conflict: Palestinians and Israelis.

Foundations of the Two-State Solution

The “two-state solution” appears to be the most practical formula for resolving a conflict between two peoples inhabiting the same land, regardless of competing historical claims. Beyond being a logical mechanism for conflict resolution, it is rooted in a series of international legal instruments:

1. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 1947) – the Partition Plan, which proposed dividing Palestine into two states—one Arab, one Jewish—with Jerusalem placed under a special international regime. While Israel declared statehood on May 15, 1948, the Arab states rejected the plan and launched a war that ended in defeat. Israel subsequently occupied West Jerusalem in violation of the plan, while Gaza came under Egyptian administration until 1967, and the West Bank was formally united with Jordan in 1950 before King Hussein renounced ties in 1988 in favor of the PLO.
2. UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967) – adopted after Israel’s occupation of Arab territories in the Six-Day War. It established the principle of the inadmissibility of acquiring land by force and called for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories. Despite Israel’s attempts to exploit ambiguities in the English text, the resolution remains a central legal basis for the two-state solution.
3. UN Security Council Resolution 1515 (November 19, 2003) – endorsing the “Roadmap for Peace” proposed by the Quartet (US, Russia, UN, EU) and building on President George W. Bush’s 2002 speech calling for a Palestinian state by 2005. Its unanimous adoption reflected rare consensus in the Security Council.
4. The New York Declaration (September 12, 2025) – the latest UN document, adopted by 142 votes in the General Assembly, outlining irreversible and time-bound steps toward the two-state solution, despite opposition from the US and Israel.

Together, these decisions form a strong international legal foundation for the two-state solution.

Four Major Challenges

Despite its legal basis, implementation has been obstructed by four persistent challenges:

1. Arab hesitation – Arab states historically rejected partition and refrained from declaring a Palestinian state on Gaza and the West Bank after 1948, fearing it would imply recognition of Israel’s legitimacy.
2. Israel’s ideological foundation – Israel views the Jewish people as a nation entitled to a state by divine promise. In this framework, the two-state solution is dismissed as meaningless. Netanyahu himself has invoked a “Greater Israel” vision, explicitly rejecting Palestinian statehood.
3. Israeli settlement policy – Since 1967, Israel has entrenched settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. By 2024, settlers numbered between 700,000–800,000. Ongoing aggression, legalized annexation moves, and Netanyahu’s open opposition make a Palestinian state nearly impossible. Current attempts to reoccupy Gaza raise fears of renewed settlement expansion there as well.
4. US support for Israel – Under Trump’s second administration, Washington has provided unconditional backing, including rejection of Palestinian statehood, despite the fact that Resolution 1515 was originally based on a US-led initiative.

Thoughts on the Future

Despite its strong foundations, the two-state solution faces bleak prospects in the near term. Israel—the stronger party, backed by Washington—rejects it both ideologically and politically. International diplomatic momentum alone cannot translate it into reality without major shifts:

• Palestinian scene – restoring national unity.
• Arab scene – developing collective, effective responses.
• Israeli scene – strengthening moderate voices.
• International scene – counterbalancing US bias.

These changes are highly complex, given deep Palestinian factional divisions, Israel’s current extremist leadership, entrenched US alignment with Israel, and uncertainty regarding emerging global powers. Unless dramatic surprises occur, implementing the two-state solution remains unlikely.

A possible surprise might involve internal shifts within Israel—such as growing public opposition to Netanyahu’s policies under the weight of Palestinian resilience and heavy costs of conflict. Such developments could destabilize his coalition or lead to electoral defeat. Yet even then, negotiations over settlements, borders, and security arrangements would be extremely complex and potentially destabilizing.

If Netanyahu succeeds in pursuing his current objectives—destroying Gaza and annexing the West Bank—he will still not eliminate the Palestinian question. Expulsion of Palestinians is neither feasible nor acceptable internationally, meaning that Israel will face an even larger Palestinian population within its borders, fueling a new and more difficult stage of struggle for Palestinian rights.