One-State or Two-State?

Janice Goh is a first-year Philosophy, Politics and Economics student at University College London. The views expressed in the essay reflect her personal opinions on the various solutions for the Israel-Palestine Conflict. (janice.goh.23@ucl.ac.uk)

Introduction

On May 14, 1948, five Arab nations invaded the former Palestinian mandate after Israel declared independence, marking the start of a long-standing conflict. Tensions continued to increase despite numerous attempted negotiations, and on Oct 7, 2023, the conflict violently escalated as Hamas attacked Israel. 

Seventy-five years have passed, yet there is still no clear end in sight for this long-standing war.

Throughout the war, a multitude of solutions have been put forth – from the internationally lauded two-state solution to the Holy Land Confederation. Nonetheless, such existing solutions are accompanied by thorny problems that neither Israel nor Palestine can reconcile or are plagued with a substantial challenge that seemingly prevents either country from improving.

However, the internationally acclaimed two-state solution still showcases the highest potential for success. With sufficient political determinism, the difficulties in resolving conflicting issues will be minimised. Moreover, the two-state solution effectively acts as a stepping-stone for the creation of the Holy Land Confederation – a platform for regional discussion for conflict resolution with Israel or Palestine.

Two-State Solution

The two-state solution is based on creating two separate states. This proposal is historically rooted in the 1993 Oslo Accord – a series of secret exchanges facilitated by the United States between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) that laid the foundation of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Governing Arrangements (DOP). The DOP outlined the Israelis’ recognition of the PLO as Palestine’s representatives and the Palestinians’ acknowledgment of Israel’s right to existence. Crucially, the Oslo Accord underscored the “mutual recognition” between Israel and the PLO as independent states (Shalim, 1994).  In fact, both parties agreed on creating the Palestinian Authority to pave the way for the separation of both states five years later.

For many years after establishing the Oslo Accord, international diplomats and academics have acknowledged its potential success in bringing peace. To quote United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres, the two-state solution remains “the only way to end this cycle of tragedy” (United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, 2024). Yet, no outcome has successfully transpired since 1993.

Geography – Diving the Land

For the two-state solution to work, the territory of Israel and Palestine must be delineated. However, this has been a perennial issue for the Israel-Palestine conflict, which can be traced back to the very start of the war. Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine was placed under the British administration and was subeqeuntly recognised as British Mandate Palestine. The influx of Jewish immigrants during the Second World War fomented the Arabs’ dissatisfaction. The Arab-Israeli tension was subsequently raised to the UN. This culminated in the UN Resolution 181 which designated 56.47% of British Mandate Palestine to Israel, sparking retaliation from five Arab nations. Following the 1948 war, Israel’s territory expanded to 77%. Given such periodic territorial changes of Israel and Palestine, the division of territory between Israel and Palestine becomes understandably problematic. 

To make matters worse, the greater Jerusalem area, with its rich historical and religious ties, presents further complications. The “tensions and conflicts over control of its older central core,” particularly its holy places prolong the implementation of a tenable two-state solution.

Issue of Settlement

Creating two independent states is not merely about dividing the land; it involves “separating populations that inhabit a shared fabric of life (communities, roads, work)” (Arieli et al., 2018). This poses a significant challenge to the two-state solution, specifically in addressing increasing Israeli settlements in contested regions. Throughout the Israel-Palestine conflict, civilian Israeli communities have been set up in Jeruselam and the West Bank. In 2022, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reported that the estimated area of 199 Israeli settlements spanned 201.1 square kilometers, making up 3.6% of the West Bank.

The statistics of the Israeli settlements have highlighted concerns about the feasibility and practicality of population relocation. Moreover, the problem becomes increasingly complex when we consider that substantial infrastructure and facilities have been established. 

To counter such settlement problems, land swaps have been proposed – Israel would swap certain territory with Palestine, in exchange for her retention of settlements. Even so, this suggestion does not tackle the intrinsic normative challenges of bifurcating territory: How should a reasonable division of territory be determined?

Managing Refugees and Their Rights

As the war broke out in 1948, Palestinians fled their home to seek refuge and safety. We similarly see the mass exodus of Palestinians in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the recent Hamas-Israel War. As of today, there are approximately 7 million Palestinian refugees.

At the core of this issue is the refugees’ right to return, defined as “the right of a person to return to his home in his native country” by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. For a successful two-state solution, there needs to be deliberate plans by both Israel and Palestine in the management of Palestinian refugees – be it in terms of their right to return or providing justifiable compensation. 

Nonetheless, there is a lack of clear direction on how to absorb Palestinian refugees back into their home country or how to recognise and grant the displaced Palestinians and their descendants a status beyond mere foreigners. When assessing the magnitude and gravity of the refugee situation, the issue presents an insurmountable practical challenge.

One-State Solution

The one-state solution refers to the creation of “one state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, inhabited by both Arabs and Jews” (Morris, 2009). What this means is that Israel, West Bank, and Jerusalem would be unified as a single state where both Israelis and Palestinians would be recognised under the same citizenship and bestowed with equal rights. 

Given its capacity to address the failures of the two-state solution– since the problems of territorial bifurcation and settlements are non-issues under the one-state solution– the one-state solution has been proposed as a counter-solution.. However, there are various structural issues with unification. 

Radical Institutional Restructuring

Forming a unitary state entails the integration of the distinct social, economic, and political institutions of both Israel and Palestine. 

First, the economic status quo of both are diametrically opposing which warrants a deliberate economic strategy to bridge gaps and promote equitable growth. Additionally, the issue of security necessitates a paradigm shift from two entities seeking territorial separation and control to mutual protection and cooperation. The struggle for equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians, given the conflict’s complicated historical and religious nature, must also be considered. 

Creating a singular state would be a strenuous undertaking, posing a significant inhibitor to the success of the one-state solution. This is also a key reason why the one-state solution has yet to be fully implemented. 

The Holy Land Confederation

To escape the stalemate posed by the one-state and two-state solutions, the Holy Land Federation presents a sensible compromise. Defined as “a joint governmental arrangement … with procedures and processes established by two or more independent sovereign states,” the federation entails the creation of two separate states of Israel and Palestine (Beilin & Husseini, 2022). Contrary to the two-state solution, the alternative calls for a structured framework for cooperation on social, economic, security, and political issues, such as a joint policy forum to coordinate both sides’ strategies. Nonetheless, both states reserve their fundamental sovereign rights for their respective internal affairs and democratic processes. 

Essentially, the Holy Land Confederation is an amalgamation of the one-state and two-state solution by retaining the key concept of the two-state solution but, similar to the one-state solution, it excludes the accompanying problems of settlements. Given the free movement of persons and goods within a confederation, the Israeli settlers could continue to reside in their settlements. Additionally, radical institutional reformation of unification is a non-issue under the Holy Land Confederation. 

Inherent Nature of a Confederation

The Holy Land Confederation is seemingly a pathway for Israel and Palestine to coexist as two separate states while cooperating on joint problems. Yet, the premise of the Holy Land Confederation rests on the existence of separate, independent, sovereign states. As highlighted earlier, both Israel and Palestine are at an impasse for the two-state solution, given a multitude of complex factors. Without the two-state solution, the Holy Land Confederation ceases to succeed.

There is some paradoxical semblance of cyclical dependency between the two-state solution and the Holy Land Confederation – one cannot exist without the other, yet the existing tensions, like the question of territorial division and provision of equal rights, hamper the success of either solution. Nonetheless, the Holy Land Confederation has the potential to create long-term platforms for cooperation and coordination between Israel and Palestine, if there is a breakthrough in the implementation of the two-state solution.

Conclusion

The two-state solution proposes separation, yet it is impeded by contested issues that lack any headway for resolution to be possible. On the other hand, the one-state solution offers the possibility of unification, yet it is impeded by the need for revolutionary change in the sociopolitical, economic, and security spheres. Albeit a reasonable middle-ground for both the one-state and two-state proposals, the Holy Land Confederation faces similar existential issues to the two-state solution. 

In the current political context, it seems unlikely – arguably, close to impossible – that unification is plausible. The reformation on a political level that the one-state solution demands is a mammoth task when we consider the historical and religious conflicts at play. Rather, the two-state solution can serve as a step towards peace between Israel and Palestine. If we can replicate the political will and determination that was displayed during the Oslo Accord in mutually recognising the co-existence of both Israel and Palestine, it seems possible for a two-state solution to make headway. In the long term, the Holy Land Confederation may be an extension of the two-state solution to promote joint coordination for thorny regional issues.

Works Cited

Arab Center Washington DC (ACW) (2024) Shifting the paradigm: The one-state solution as a path to peace, Arab Center Washington DC. Available at: https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/shifting-the-paradigm-the-one-state-solution-as-a-path-to-peace/ (Accessed: 31 October 2024).

Arieli, S. et al. (2018) ‘Have the settlements made a two-state solution impossible?’, Moment of Truth: Tackling Israel-Palestine’s Toughest Questions, pp. 53–114. doi:10.2307/j.ctv62hfjt.9.

Bar‐Tal, D. (2022) ‘Is a confederation between Israel and Palestine with Jordan a viable arrangement?’, World Affairs, 185(4), pp. 737–765. doi:10.1177/00438200221128026.

Eiland, G. (2008) Rethinking the Two-State Solution. rep. Available at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/pdf/PolicyFocus88.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2024).

Hammouri, S. (2024) A forgotten detail: The right of return was a condition of the establishment of the State of Israel, Opinio Juris. Available at: https://opiniojuris.org/2024/03/11/a-forgotten-detail-the-right-of-return-was-a-condition-of-the-establishment-of-the-state-of-israel/ (Accessed: 30 October 2024).

History of the question of Palestine - question of Palestine (no date) United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/unispal/history/#:~:text=In%201947%2C%20the%20UK%20turned,Read%20more.&text=After%20looking%20at%20alternatives%2C%20the,(II)%20of%201947 (Accessed: 28 October 2024).

Husseini, H. and Beilin, Y. (2022) The Holy Land Confederation as a Facilitator for the Two-State Solution. rep. Economic Cooperation Framework.

Immediate ceasefire leading to two-state solution ‘only way to end cycle of tragedy’ in Middle East, secretary-general tells security council | meetings coverage and press releases (no date) United Nations. Available at: https://press.un.org/en/2024/sgsm22391.doc.htm (Accessed: 28 October 2024).

Kamel, L. (2022) Framing the partition plan for Palestine, The Cairo Review of Global Affairs. Available at: https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/framing-the-partition-plan-for-palestine/#:~:text=The%20plan%20to%20partition%20Palestine,(in%20the%20Negev%20desert) (Accessed: 28 October 2024).

Morris, B. (2010) One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.

Orme, H. (2022) Land swaps: Making the two-state solution feasible, Next Century Foundation. Available at: https://www.nextcenturyfoundation.org/land-swaps-making-the-two-state-solution-feasible/ (Accessed: 29 October 2024).

Owda, R. (2023) How Israeli settlements impede the two-state solution - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2023/03/how-israeli-settlements-impede-the-two-state-solution?lang=en (Accessed: 29 October 2024).

Palestine/Israel (2024) Refugees International. Available at: https://www.refugeesinternational.org/palestine-israel/#:~:text=Today%2C%20there%20are%20nearly%207,decades%20of%20substantial%20humanitarian%20needs. (Accessed: 29 October 2024).

Shlaim, A. (1994) ‘The Oslo Accord’, Journal of Palestine Studies, 23(3), pp. 24–40. doi:10.2307/2537958.

Special Unit on Palestinian Rights (1978) The right of return of the Palestinian people. New York: United Nations.