Bernard Spiegal

This seems to me to be axiomatic: It is not possible to construct a viable, and just – note ‘and just’ – independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. The so-called ‘two-state solution’ is no solution at all.

I have rehearsed the arguments supporting the propositions above, here and here and here and here, and therefore will not repeat them in this post. The last outing addressing the subject, was in February 2024, over a year ago.

Whilst recognising that formation of a Palestinian state running alongside Israel is neither practically possible, nor desirable, one cannot hide from the inconvenient reality that the two-state approach has attracted considerable international support. One hundred and forty-seven members of the UN support this, representing some 75% of the international community. If the UK and France sign-up for recognition, as they are committed to do, that will make 149 UN member states in favour of recognising a Palestinian state.

That seventy-five percent include active supporters of Palestine/Palestinians, including South Africa, that has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice on the charge of genocide; and the Hague Group,[5]  a coalition of countries, primarily from the Global South, formed on January 31, 2025, to uphold international law and defend Palestinian rights.

The support of pro-Palestinian countries for the two-state solution complicates matters, for, following the logic of this article, these, and other broadly pro-Palestinian advocates – the UK, France, the EU do not qualify – have committed themselves to pursuing a mistake, a ‘solution’ that is no such thing.

Buckle under its own weight

The contention of this article is that if and when proponents of two-states, particularly those whose essential stance is pro-Palestinian, come to look in detail at what such a ‘settlement’ would mean, the proposal will collapse under the weight of its inherent limitations and contradictions.

As I suggest in the articles pointed to at the head of this piece, two-states approaches represent in practice the institutionalisation, the reification, of the consequences of the Nakba. Two-state proposals neither heal nor quieten the injustice of the Israeli state’s foundation, nor its subsequent actions. This means that a ‘settlement’ based on two-states will always be unstable.  Current and subsequent generations of Palestinians are unlikely to accept the meagre portion offered to them – a dependent and truncated entity.

But there’s a problem

The problem is, that no matter how insightful and detailed a critique of a two-state proposal may be, in the absence of an articulated alternative vision for the future of Palestine/Israel, all that’s left is a vacuum. A vacuum that will be filled by those interests that see merit and advantage in spawning a hobbled-at-birth state of Palestine.

One democratic state

The only viable and just alternative is the formation of one democratic state between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. This alone represents a positive way forward founded, as it is, on an ethos of inclusiveness. This in direct contrast to other proposals – two-state being obviously one – and the foundational rationale of the current state of Israel, the motif of which is division.

There are numerous voices, Palestinian, Jewish Israeli, and others beyond the Middle East, that believe in, and call for, the establishment of one democratic state. But, at present, those voices are disparate and, seemingly uncoordinated and diffuse.

The urgent task is to create a unified movement.  One that will act both as a focal point, drawing in wider and wider support, at the same time as developing organisational structures that will support the realisation of a one democratic state.