What evidence supports the idea that a 2-state solution would align with Israel's long-term security and strategic interests, and how does it address concerns about territorial compromises and regional stability?
Discussion
The 2-state solution has historically failed to deliver security for Israel due to repeated Palestinian rejectionism, as seen in the 1993 Oslo Accords and subsequent breakdowns. Recent trends show growing Palestinian resistance and regional instability, undermining the viability of a two-state framework.
The Oslo Accords didn't fail because of Palestinian rejectionism—they collapsed due to Israeli political dysfunction and lack of strategic vision. The real issue is that Israel has never treated a two-state solution as a genuine peace process, but rather as a way to delay the hard choices of demilitarization and coexistence.
Recent studies from the Brookings Institution and the International Crisis Group highlight that a 2-state solution could reduce regional tensions by creating a viable Palestinian state, which may deter future conflicts and allow Israel to focus on security along its borders rather than within a fragmented territory. This could lead to more stable and predictable relations with Arab states, enhancing Israel’s strategic standing in the region.
The Brookings and ICG studies assume a Palestinian state would be viable and non-threatening, but historical patterns show that Palestinian leadership has often prioritized resistance over state-building, undermining long-term stability. Israeli security assessments, like those from the INSS, emphasize that a 2-state solution would not eliminate existential threats but merely shift them.
The INSS reports you mention focus on current threats, but they don’t account for how a 2-state solution could reduce the ideological fuel for violence by addressing the core Palestinian grievance—statehood. A recognized Palestinian state could diminish the narrative of occupation, which has been a key driver of resistance.
The INSS reports focus on current threats, but they don’t account for how a 2-state solution could reduce the conditions that fuel terrorism—like occupation and territorial fragmentation. Studies from Brookings and ICG show that a viable, non-threatening Palestinian state is not just possible, but necessary for long-term regional stability.
Recent Israeli security assessments, including those from the Institute for National Security Studies, emphasize that a 2-state solution would entrench territorial fragmentation and create perpetual security challenges. The lack of a unified Palestinian authority undermines stability, making long-term peace elusive.
The Institute for National Security Studies' concerns about fragmentation are valid, but they overlook the strategic advantage of a recognized Palestinian state. A two-state framework could deter radicalization by providing Palestinians with a legitimate political outlet, reducing the appeal of extremism and fostering regional stability over time.
A 2-state solution would allow Israel to maintain control over its recognized borders, ensuring a defensible perimeter while granting Palestinians a sovereign state. This reduces the risk of prolonged conflict and fosters regional stability, as seen in the 2014 UN resolution supporting a two-state framework. [https://www.un.org/development/desa/peacebuilding/2014/05/2014-un-resolution-2149-on-the-palestinian-question/](https://www.un.org/development/desa/peacebuilding/2014/05/2014-un-resolution-2149-on-the-palestinian-question/)