The international community still views this solution not only as the most viable but, in fact, the only sustainable resolution to the Palestinian question.
Without it, the region is doomed to persistent instability. Accordingly, this principle must remain a top strategic priority in the coming period, both regionally and internationally.
This must hold true regardless of the mounting obstacles to implementation, many of which are unlikely to be resolved soon.
At its core, the two-state solution envisions the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, living in peace and security beside the State of Israel.
However, given the recent developments, most notably the catastrophic war in Gaza and Israel’s unprecedented escalation in the West Bank through aggressive settlement expansion, forced displacement, destruction, and annexation, it is only realistic to ask a pressing question: Is the two-state solution still practically achievable on the ground?
Anyone closely monitoring the situation in Gaza and the West Bank, the two indispensable pillars of a future Palestinian state, would likely arrive at a grim conclusion: that the implementation of the two-state solution now teeters between extreme difficulty and near impossibility.
This is especially true in light of Israeli and American-backed plans to displace Gaza’s population and annexe strategic areas of the West Bank, particularly the Jordan Valley. This move fundamentally undermines the very foundation of the two-state paradigm.
While acknowledging some recent positive steps to revive momentum behind the two-state principle, such as the upcoming conference scheduled in New York on 17 June, sponsored by Saudi Arabia and France, along with preparatory meetings currently underway, it is imperative that we move beyond rhetorical affirmations.
Perhaps for the first time, we must seriously explore how to implement this principle by developing actionable mechanisms.
This represents the test we must confront and overcome with any reasonable degree of success.
With the New York conference fast approaching, we must ask this: Will the conference conclude with a conventional statement reaffirming support for the two-state solution and outlining general principles that do little to alter current realities? Or will it signal a meaningful shift toward a more dynamic phase that generates real implementation mechanisms capable of transforming the two-state solution from a theoretical aspiration into a tangible reality?
To be clear, I do not believe that the New York conference alone can resolve the Palestinian issue, no matter what declarations it adopts.
Nonetheless, it represents a critical opportunity — one that must be seized as a potential turning point to advance the cause after years of deliberate marginalization and destruction.
On that basis, I propose that we use this conference as the launching point for a fundamentally new phase centred on intensifying regional and international efforts to develop a concrete roadmap that moves beyond abstract principles and towards the articulation of clear, practical steps.
These steps might include the following.
- There should be a complete cessation of hostilities in Gaza, including a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, the provision of sufficient humanitarian aid, and the commencement of reconstruction efforts.
- Any projects involving the forced displacement of Gaza’s population should immediately halt.
- All Israeli annexation efforts in the West Bank should be suspended.
- The formation of a joint committee comprising all relevant parties tasked with preparing for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and coordinating procedural matters. This committee should complete its work by the end of August 2025, with each side empowered to appoint its representatives.
- The actual negotiations should begin no later than October 2025.
- The negotiations must be conducted under direct US sponsorship.
- All final-status issues — borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, and prisoners — must be open for negotiation.
- A high-level oversight committee should be established as a reference point in a political deadlock.
- All parties must commit in advance to accepting the outcomes of the negotiations, provided mutual agreement is reached.
While some may dismiss this vision as overly idealistic, especially given the hardline stance of the current Israeli coalition and Washington’s apparent indifference to the two-state principle, I remain convinced that we have no viable alternative but to keep pressing for this solution and to anchor it in realistic, enforceable mechanisms.
I sincerely hope the New York conference begins a long-awaited shift in this direction.
In my view, two critical paths must be pursued simultaneously for any hope of success.
First, we must work to bring the United States on board to support the resumption of negotiations, recognizing that diplomacy remains the only viable route to resolving the conflict. Second, sustained pressure — American, regional, and international — must be applied to Israel to bring it back to the negotiating table.
Only then can we begin to contemplate implementing any agreement, no matter how difficult or complex the negotiations may prove to be. These talks will undoubtedly demand a high degree of reciprocal flexibility from both parties.
While the obstacles to the two-state solution have grown alarmingly severe, and we must be honest about that reality, we are ultimately faced with only two options.
The first is to surrender to the painful, unacceptable status quo. The second is to move forward with a reinvigorated commitment to the two-state solution, knowing that what we can accomplish today may be impossible to achieve tomorrow as ominous and illegitimate projects continue to accelerate, all aimed at liquidating the Palestinian cause.
Short link: